OGTEleven

For Pete's sake (not that Pete), don't give him an even bigger ego.

Not a long solo but I like "Lady Writer"

Although I have truncated it, I pretty much agree with your whole post as it relates to God. I do feel there are arguments to be made on where faith/God fits in government. I don't think that a government forcing a religion upon its people is one that will work. Nor do I think a government prohibited by its people from acknowledging God is healthy. I have a question for you about faith which is unrelated to government. If you knew there was a God (and you were the only one that knew) what would be your recommendation for him/her regarding proof/faith? Would you tell God that he should show himself once in a while to keep us all in line? Should he speak with us individually and directly? Should he pretty much stay out of it but prevent diseases and catastrophes? It's up to you, what do you think? Disclaimer: This is not meant to be obnoxious in any way. I'm interested in your response (and those of any other poster). It is also not meant to be used as proof/disproof of God in any way shape manner or form.

He's right on track. What went unmentioned is that: ABCD......UH is the secret code for the triple reverse to Parrish on 4th and 1. We'll need that play in SD. San Francisco is the code for another play that shouldn't be described on a family board.

I'm not sure about the Skins, but I read somewhere that the 9ers got fined every time (after 2) that they wore their throwbacks. They kept doing it anyway.

The Chagers game was mentioned in articles but only as specualtion. the official statement from the Bills was Texans plus one road game.

This is about as believable as the Lightfoot thread.

I'm not sure how much our MLB has left in the tank either. We're starting to look like a team with a bad defensive catcher, ss, 2b and Cf.

Fair take my @$$. Hull kicked the puck (accidentally) and then looked around for it before he shot it. I have guys in my league over 50 years old and over 275 pounds that can kick the puck to their stick and shoot it without looking if they have control. This guy is telling me Brett friggin Hull can't? Right. That is the biggest CYA job in the history of sports.

Classic.

A. I doubt the market share for your local dry cleaner will diminish much even if they miss out on 100% of the business from Gabon. Just a guess. B. The church of satanic atheist soccer players named Rufus sponsors Sudanese refugees? Who knew?

Hard to understand, I can buy. Impossible for humans to understand, I can buy. Truly unpredictable I'm not sure I'm grasping. It's all just matter, energy, and time right? All of these things have measurable properties right? We won't ever have a computer (or brain) big enough to collect all the pertinent data (which is every data point in history) to be able to make full predictions. But unless I'm missing something, it is all theoretically predicatable. I agree with you on this 100%. I will say that not all believers in God are literal christians. It is possible to believe in God and true free will. I think that someone that believes in God could believe: A - God has injected the randomnes (randonimity?) B - God has injected free will and allowed us to create our own randomness C - Both

What was that they said in Godfather II? Just when I think I'm out.....they pull me back in. I'm not real big on a God of the gaps either, but there is one thing that seems like a real big and pertinent gap to me. In my experience, many people that do not believe in God are very strong advocates for free will. Some even use it as part of their explanation of their own atheism. I have a hard time renconciling this. If God does not exist, then everything must at some level be driven by reactions of matter and energy along with all the other components of science/physics. Granted, this is highly complex and much of it is beyond our current understanding, but at some level, it should all be measurable and ultimately predictable. If that is true, free will could not really exist and everything is predetermined, even if we don't know how it will all turn out. Am I missing something? Disclaimer: I might have worded that question poorly, but please don't perceive it as some kind of shot at science/atheism/religion/scientists/lawyers/smart people/anything else. It was not meant to offend.

I agree that the whole thing is bad. I also share your concern for civil unions being attacked. I think that is half of what the proponents of this were really going after and they got their wish. I just didn't see where anyone would be forbidden from willing their assets to a person of their choice. I can see where things would be argued. If a guy had kids from a previous marriage, the kids could argue they should be ahead of the partner. There are probably other circumstances that could cause issues. I would guess that there are similar circumstances in heterosexual relationships like a girlfriend of a divorcee versus his kids (Anna Nicole Smith). In an odd way it seems that it could actually bestow an "extra right" to homosexuals in allowing them to preclude their partner from a will where a married couple is afforded no such right. It's still not good, just odd.

An oldie...... 21 Hump Street

I agree that the law is bad. I don't see where it says a person cannot decide who gets his/her belongings in a will. It would unjustifiably preclude that transfer being automatic, but I don't see where it would preclude it being spelled out. A person can will his/her belongings to a cat, a perfect stranger, a homosexual lover or anyone else. The "or recognizing" part of the law is particularly disturbing, but if something can be willed to anyone, it would be hard to argue that willing it a lover constitutes recognizing a legal status that was previously held to spouses. Someone might try to argue that, but even under this screwed up law, the argument should fail. My guess is that you did not experience a random sample of the population. I'd be willing to bet that some Christians voted against it. I'd also be willing to bet that some Christians (and people of other faiths) actually employ logic in their daily lives.

I just edited more into my previous post. I hope it helps in some way, but it is not what you asked for. It would be very presumptuous of me to suggest specific ways to make evolution class better. I did throw a couple out in an earlier post but do not pretend they are well informed. They are merely darts. I think it is possible that today's classes are being taught perfectly. I just don't think it would hurt to look.

I disagree entirely and completely with people that want ID taught in schools. I have posted that in this thread four times. "The other side" is not limited to the ID folks. I am merely saying that there is a possibility that some evolution classes are being taught poorly. I am suggesting that the teachers can take a look at this and adjust if necessary. I am not even in any way questioning the underlying science or suggesting it ever be removed. Since I've been around, the methods to teach reading and math have changed several times. There always seems to be a rigourous debate that does not have religious people on one side and scientific people on the other. It is more method A people versus method B people. I assume the changes come about from some inward examination. I am not suggesting that the evolution teachers involve any IDers or anyone else in their introspection. I do think it would be helpful if they reported their findings. For this it is being suggested that I am inflexible and dogmatic among other crass things. Apparently for some this is simply because it is a science class. Since it is a science class, therefore it is being taught perfectly. To me, this view seems inflexible and dogmatic. To take it to a more personal level, I believe in God and science. This specifically includes evolution. I have seen many religious people, not just Christians, that look at science with awe when it suits them and with disdain when that suits them. I have also seen scientists look down there noses at the religious. IMO, both of these groups have shunned their own discipline when they intended to just shun the other. A good scientist and a good religious person both are seeking the truth. Some people may be both scientific and religious. Both types should be willing to acknowledge that they will be wrong at times. It is unavoidable. It does not discredit science or religion as a whole. The scientific method, by definition, admits science will be wrong at times. This is good and one of science's greatest strengths. The scientific method, or some rudimentary form of it, has its place in everyday life all the time. People that practice the scientific method or one of its rudimentary forms do not always carry out this task well. Sometimes they rely on the easy way out. That is a part of human nature that does not go well with science. Everyone falls prey to it at times. Admitting that would not hurt anyone. In my experience, the purely religious are more fearful and rigid than are the scientists. I don't actually think most of them are stupid, it just seems that they have built up a rock hard inflexibility over time and might not allow themselves to think. I don't think it is healthy. IMO, it is not productive for society as a whole. This same rigidity can be found to varying degrees in any person; scientist, salesperson, teacher, administrator, TO. Individually or as groups they can take the easy way out and convince themselves they are taking the high road. If you put a gun to my head and told me do go to CTM/GG's side or IDers side, I have no question where I would go. I don't think the gun and/or full and complete knowledge of all things scientific would ever make me think I'm always going to be right and everyone else can stick it.

I did word that part poorly. Instead of saying it "should be easily accepted" I should have said "should be easily accepted and unthreatening". Clearly it is threatening to many, and not just creationists. Introspection may not change the teaching methods and/or results. Then again it may. The underlying science should never be abandoned. At least not from what I can see. How it is being taught is up for debate IMO. I'm in sales (I know this qualifies me as stupid and unworthy of posting in an opinion forum). Let's say I have 100 customers for which my product is the best. Let's say 6 of them improperly view it as a threat to their jobs. In point of fact it is not, but they perceive it to be. I could simply conclude that they are idiots and not review how I'm selling my product. I still have the other 94 customers. I could also be inquisitive as to why my message was being received in a distorted manner. In the end I might tweak my pitch. If not, I'll still have 94 customers. If I do, I might have 100, or 97, or still 94. Maybe I'd even lose some. That doesn't mean I should simply write off the 6 as morons and not give it a second thought. I should take the 6 naysayers as a signal that I should at least examine my practices.

Both wrong. CTM, I have no idea where you are coming from. Maybe you're just trying to be obnoxious because in my last reply to you I used very specific words. Here they are again: In this particular case, I don't think the teachers are using proper science to examine their teaching methods. That statement makes absolutely no generalizations whatsoever about science. If you think that it does, you have a reading/logic problem. If you think the teachers are using proper self examination, you should probably cite an example. All I see is the teaching communitiy calling zealots idiots. Maybe I have missed some evidence introspection or something similar in an article. If you have seen this evidence as you appear to claim, I'd be glad to read it. If it's more fun to hold it back and just call me an idiot, than have at it. While I agree that it is highly probable that the zealots are idiots and at least 90% to blame, probablity and assertions are not proof. GG, Of course all theories should be continuosly re-examined but that is not releveant to my point. Personally, I've seen enough to be convinced regarding evolution. I think this is the third time I've stated that here. I'm not even saying they should "try harder until people believe in evolution". I'm saying that the current results include people getting up in arms over something that should be easily accepted. This likely isn't the desired result of the educators. Although this is probably mostly the fault of those up in arms, there is no reason to assume someone else is 100% to blame.

1=3 should never be taught in a math class (unless for self esteem purposes ). Teaching 3=3 has never seemed to cause a debate over God vs. math. I don't know if this means religious zealots can be "reasonable" but I wouldn't go that far. Evolution, on the other hand, is a little more nebulous than 3=3. Not so much in its science (although not much matches 3=3) but moreso in how it is interpreted. If kids are leaving school with the impression that God does not exist because evolution does, I don't think either the priest or the teacher should be happy. I don't think the priest should start forcing alternative "science" into schools, but also don't think the teacher should shrug his shoulders and say "oh, well". I find it hard to believe that "God is a myth" is part of the lesson. You wouldn't want a kid leaving school thinking 3=3 therefore Ice cream is made from glue. If they were, then you'd try to correct it. I don't pretend to have all of the answers but it's possible there is something better than today's solution of fierce political fights. Maybe the school could publish their entire curriculum in an open fashion, and people would be free to enroll their kids in religious instruction that was directly modeled after the class. Maybe there could be an after school (optional) session on evolution and its meaning. I don't know the answers, but it seems to me the schools aren't looking, and aren't willing to even consider the possibility that something could be done better. To me, this means they bear part of the blame for the overall debate. It is easy to shoot down ID because it is pretty stupid. It is also easy to display that the people really driving it are kooks. this does not translate to: "no changes are needed".

I didn't say that at all. That would have been far too broad and certainly ignorant, not to mention wrong. Here is what I said in another way: I see no evidence that the people teaching evolution have re-examined their methods in an effort to ensure their teaching is generating the results they desire. Further, it is my opinion that everyone would benefit from such a re-examination regardless of its conclusions. If it determined that the classes were being taught perfectly, then that would now be well documented. The zealots would be called out for what they are, and the people "fooled" by them would now be "freed". If the classes could be improved, then great. The "new" class would achieve the same result of rebuking the zealots and perhaps comforting the "regular" religious people. I was indeed saying that in this particular case that the teaching community could stand being more scientific. To morph that into the quote you used above was not logical. It was a steaming pile of horseshit. And it wouldn't stand up to peer review.

I don't think the schools should involve the zealots in their re-examination at all. I just think they should look inward, at least to some degree.

For Pete's sake read my post. I do NOT think that ID should be examined, poked, prodded, evaluated, understood, given the time of day, introduced, considered, or glorified in any way shape manner or form. I think it should be summarily thrown in the toilet. Got it? What I do think is that science teachers ought to take a step back for a friggin second and say "hmm, why is this evolution thingy causing such an uproar?". It seems to me that the uproar in general is pretty pervasive. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they're too busy as you suggest. Maybe when it is examined, they could easily spell out why the religious zealots bear 100% of the blame for the rancor. At least they will have it documented. "They're a bunch of idiots", is not a scientific assessment of the situation IMO. Maybe when it is examined, they'll find that it is remotely possible that they are not perfect and perhaps there is a slight chance that they could explain things a little bit better. Maybe they bear a half o percent of the blame for all the angst. I doubt it though, because they are scientists, therefore they are already doing a perfect job a re-assessing themselves. It comes with the title.

Science is SUPPOSED to re-examine itself. Saying this: "Evolution is science, therefore teachers properly and continuosly re-examine their evolution curriculum." is not a statement based in logic. Strategic placement of the word "should" in the above quote would make it logical.