1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    24 Sep '05 00:392 edits
    I am mortified there is a court case in my own state, in Harrisburg
    where the ALCU and some parents are sueing the school board trying
    to force ID as an alternative to be taught in high schools. I would
    have thought this fight to be going on in Kentucky or Ohio.
    Hope the parents win, this is yet another thinly disguised attempt to
    foist religion in the schools. here is the link:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8042
  2. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    24 Sep '05 00:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I am mortified there is a court case in my own state, in Harrisburg
    where the ALCU and some parents are sueing the school board trying
    to force ID as an alternative to be taught in high schools. I would
    have thought this fight to be going on in Kentucky or Ohio.
    Hope the parents win, this is yet another thinly disguised attempt to
    foist religion in the schools.
    http://www.jus.uit.no/ansatte/somby/juoigENG.htm
    What is the content of the proposed curriculum?
  3. Joined
    15 Jul '05
    Moves
    351
    24 Sep '05 01:101 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I am mortified there is a court case in my own state, in Harrisburg
    where the ALCU and some parents are sueing the school board trying
    to force ID as an alternative to be taught in high schools. [...] here is the link:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8042
    I believe you read the article backwards. The ACLU is suing to have a recent decision to include ID removed ...

    [from the article, quoting the ACLU lawyer representing the parents:]
    "If we lose this case, I suspect it will send a green light to many school districts across the country that it is okay to teach ID," he says. "If we win, hopefully it will put a break on what we view as a religious concept."

    EDIT: Or I misunderstood your post...that first sentence is a bit complicated.. "some parents are suing the school board for trying to force ID..." whereas I read "some parents are suing the school board, trying to force..." Many apologies.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    24 Sep '05 01:11
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    What is the content of the proposed curriculum?
    Sorry, that was the wrong link, in your reply. Here is one:
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-trouble-with-darwin/2005/09/23/1126982233685.html
    They want to force "Intelligent Design" to be taught as an alternative
    to evolution. They being the school board.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    24 Sep '05 01:20
    Originally posted by echecero
    I believe you read the article backwards. The ACLU is suing to have a recent decision to include ID removed ...

    [from the article, quoting the ACLU lawyer representing the parents:]
    "If we lose this case, I suspect it will send a green light to many school districts across the country that it is okay to teach ID," he says. "If we win, hopefully it will put a break on what we view as a religious concept."
    Thats exactly what I hope will happen. This ID crap is not science, its
    a thinly disguised attempt to foist yet another broken down concept
    to deliberately confuse young people in an attempt to throw a wrench
    into a REAL theory, the theory of evolution. ID has no real scientific
    basis, one of the tenents of science is to have the ability to disprove
    and those scientists attempting to foist ID on schools are more than
    welcome to launch papers, show evidence that passes peer review with
    the goal of disproving evolutionalry theory. The problem with ID as
    an actual scientific concept is there is no way to disprove it, therefore
    it is ultimately in the realm of faith, you believe it or you don't,
    ID'ers won't be launching real papers to fight evolution of fair grounds
    because they don't have a chance in hell of proving anything. They
    just want to tear down Darwin's theory any way they can by any means
    at their disposal. This is not science, however much these bozo's with
    PHD's who try to push ID try to make pseudoscience into real science
    with arguements, counter arguements, real archeological evidence,
    radioactive dating, DNA analysis, they do none of those things, just
    offer blithe words just like all pseudoscientists.
  6. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    24 Sep '05 01:47
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Thats exactly what I hope will happen. This ID crap is not science, its
    a thinly disguised attempt to foist yet another broken down concept
    to deliberately confuse young people in an attempt to throw a wrench
    into a REAL theory, the theory of evolution. ID has no real scientific
    basis, one of the tenents of science is to have the ability to disprove
    ...[text shortened]... analysis, they do none of those things, just
    offer blithe words just like all pseudoscientists.
    The Chinese are already snickering at the stuff taught in the USA.
    USA engineers graduated last year: 30,000
    Chinese: 500,000.
    Of course, believing in ID will get you into Heaven, so why worry?
    I mean, it's not like anyone needs any practical knowledge about dykes, storm tides or any of that garbage, now is there?
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    24 Sep '05 02:12
    Originally posted by KneverKnight
    The Chinese are already snickering at the stuff taught in the USA.
    USA engineers graduated last year: 30,000
    Chinese: 500,000.
    Of course, believing in ID will get you into Heaven, so why worry?
    I mean, it's not like anyone needs any practical knowledge about dykes, storm tides or any of that garbage, now is there?
    And of course don't forget the moonlanding hoaxers. I can't believe
    some idiot started that one up again.
  8. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    24 Sep '05 02:17
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    And of course don't forget the moonlanding hoaxers. I can't believe
    some idiot started that one up again.
    It'll pass. Just like gas.
    Hey did you see the new proposals for the ships?
    I was a bit disappointed at the retro-ness at first (no wings, an Apollo capsule etc.), but the more I look at it, the better it looks.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    24 Sep '05 02:341 edit
    Originally posted by KneverKnight
    It'll pass. Just like gas.
    Hey did you see the new proposals for the ships?
    I was a bit disappointed at the retro-ness at first (no wings, an Apollo capsule etc.), but the more I look at it, the better it looks.
    Main thing they learned: Don't put your manned vehicle at the
    bottom.
    Also notice they are doing it in two rocket launches.
    One for hardware, one for crew.
    Also its almost 8 times more expensive than the original Apollo.
  10. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    24 Sep '05 02:39
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Main thing they learned: Don't put your manned vehicle at the
    bottom.
    Also notice they are doing it in two rocket launches.
    One for hardware, one for crew.
    Also its almost 8 times more expensive than the original Apollo.
    Inflation ...
    Bills to pay from Shuttle?
    $100 today buys me what $20 would in 1967.
  11. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    24 Sep '05 02:401 edit
    Originally posted by KneverKnight
    It'll pass. Just like gas.
    Hey did you see the new proposals for the ships?
    I was a bit disappointed at the retro-ness at first (no wings, an Apollo capsule etc.), but the more I look at it, the better it looks.
    My own theory is the duplicitory God ,, half of God created the universe half of God created Time and then half of God created the first two halves and yet another half created the 3rd half.
    how many more halves there really is yet to be determined because God isn't finished creating , at some point He has to create an intelligent religion ,,,,hey don't laugh with Duplicitory God half of all things are half possible
  12. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    24 Sep '05 03:07
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    My own theory is the duplicitory God ,, half of God created the universe half of God created Time and then half of God created the first two halves and yet another half created the 3rd half.
    how many more halves there really is yet to be determined because God isn't finished creating , at some point He ...[text shortened]... ligion ,,,,hey down laugh with Duplicitory God half of all things are half possible
    If you cut God in half 64 times, you end up with a chessboard!+1 number of demi-gods?
  13. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    24 Sep '05 03:11
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Main thing they learned: Don't put your manned vehicle at the
    bottom.
    Also notice they are doing it in two rocket launches.
    One for hardware, one for crew.
    Also its almost 8 times more expensive than the original Apollo.
    Parallel staging looks dangerous, led to both Shuttle disasters.
    The same thing as proposed now could have been done way back when using the Saturn V for the trans-stage and a bigger LEM and the Saturn 1B for the CSM.
    Oh well ...
  14. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    24 Sep '05 03:121 edit
    Originally posted by KneverKnight
    If you cut God in half 64 times, you end up with a chessboard!+1 number of demi-gods?
    thats Fractatory God ,,He is the God on the least common Denominations.
  15. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    24 Sep '05 03:18
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    thats Fractatory God ,,He is the God on the least common Denominations.
    That explains the Hindu's many-gods theory then.
    Not many Hindus here, mostly Shinto-Catholics, very fluid.
Back to Top