Tennessee opens door to creationism in public schools

Where is 'liberal' support for academic freedom?

@ryggsogn2: I am a liberal and I fully support Tennessee's right to have this legislation. Though I utterly disagree with the bill itself, the lawmakers in Tennessee are supposedly responsible enough to make decisions that should benefit the state in the long-term.

I support the state's decision because one of two things will probably happen: 1. The economic ramifications will rear its ugly head when the students (who end up believing ID) are unemployable or can't get into top universities. 2. The students will compare/contrast ID with evolution and find that ID is stupid... especially if they are science oriented. If those students stay in Tennessee, then eventually the law will be overturn by sheer reason.

So, economics or reason will decide Tennessee's long-term fate. I say, let them ride!

Though I utterly disagree with the bill itself,

Then you lie.
The bill only allows teachers to discuss the issues in question. It does not force them to discuss the issues nor does it prohibit them from doing so.
You disagree with this:{?}

"The measure allows teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.""

Ryggesogn2,

No, I don't lie. I disagree with the bill itself because the state legislature should not be legislating education. However, since they have, I merely await the outcome of said legislation.

And I was specifically speaking to the probability that said legislation would allow teachers to support ID over evolution.

They do have the right as a state to create such legislation, but I don't agree with it. Education decisions should fall on the school board. So be careful not to judge so quickly.

f because the state legislature should not be legislating education.

If the state pays for it, the state should regulate it, right? That is the 'liberal' view, no?

Do you support Lexington, MA forcing elementary students to read homosexual stories without parental consent, which violates state law, but the state did nothing?

They do have the right as a state to create such legislation,

Not according to the SCOTUS.

Just because the state pays for something does not necessitate the obligation to create legislation ... at least for education.

As for the Massachusetts example you cited, my stance is the same.

I don't speak for all liberals, just like other liberals don't. Speak for me. I have my own opinions and they stand on their own merits. If I'm proven wrong, then I'm more than willing to change my mind.

JIf I'm proven wrong, then I'm more than willing to change my mind.

Then you are not a modern 'liberal'.

Is it not true that "intelligent design" applies primarily to the origin of life and the universe, while "evolution" applies to the adaptation of already existing organisms to their changing environment? If so, then arguing against ID as if it is antagonistic to evolution is absurd. The adversary to ID is not evolution, but abiogenesis, a horse of a completely different color.

The adversary to ID is not evolution, but abiogenesis, a horse of a completely different color.

Has anyone ever tossed the proper ingredients into a pot, applied energy and life emerged?
Even cosmology gets a bit fuzzy at the beginning, if there was one.

After reading The Demon and The Quantum, by Robert Scully, physics folk who are trying to understand how the universe began are not too uncomfortable with God's creation. Biologists are very uncomfortable, though.

Is it not true that "intelligent design" applies primarily to the origin of life and the universe, while "evolution" applies to the adaptation of already existing organisms to their changing environment? If so, then arguing against ID as if it is antagonistic to evolution is absurd. The adversary to ID is not evolution, but abiogenesis, a horse of a completely different color.

Shhhh, don't confuse them with facts....it makes them angry.

"that man has descended from a lower order of animals."

That statement pretty much sums up the ignorance of creationists. It is not possible to descend from what we are not. We can only be the order that we are, no matter where in the evolutionary history you find us. Over the history of our evolution we have become more complicated, more knowledgable, wiser, smarter, funnier, maybe not better looking, etc.

That statement pretty much sums up the ignorance of creationists.

Yep, too bad the entire article is strawman as creationism and ID are not the same thing.

Vendicar_Decarian: so, you believe in Zombies..!?!??

To teach students that some things in science are and will probably always remain inexplicable is one thing, but you can't offer the explanation of Intelligent Design without getting into religion, and that's what the real agenda is here.

Has anyone ever tossed the proper ingredients into a pot, applied energy and life emerged?

Not yet but theyre working on it. Be patient. Im sure it will happen sooner or later, in one form or another. Will you be disappointed?

You disagree with this:{?}

"The measure allows teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.""

Are you braindead? Any science teacher SHOULD BY PROFESSION be teaching all aspects of scientific theory, including the strengths and weaknesses. Education isn't about memorization, it should be an engaging discussion.

What makes this law so frustrating, is the fact that they're trying to shoe-horn religious nonsense into the world of science. Why are christians so upset with religion not being science? At a very practical level, science is the search for ways to understand, predict and influence the world around us. Saying "God did it" provides NO USEFUL INFORMATION, as we can't use that to better our society. Science is not religion, religion is not science. Keep your space monster out of my science class.

That statement pretty much sums up the ignorance of creationists.

Yep, too bad the entire article is strawman as creationism and ID are not the same thing.

They have equal merit regardless.

Any science teacher SHOULD BY PROFESSION be teaching all aspects of scientific theory, including the strengths and weaknesses.

I never heard a distinction made between biogenesis and evolution. I never had it explained to me as to how two sexes evolved. I NEVER heard a science teacher explain how the universe violated the first law of thermodynamics via the big bang. How the big bang was a singularity and expanded...yet black holes by definition CAN'T. Not once. Nor why there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe....ect. etc. etc. Why? Because Science teachers TEACH DOGMA.

IF someone in the 1800s would have suggested to a scientist that time is relative he'd have been branded a "heretic" and a crackpot.

Get over yourselves...really...

They have equal merit regardless.

Thanks for sharing your opinion?

I never heard a distinction made between biogenesis and evolution. I never had it explained to me as to how two sexes evolved.

So you are admitting to never studying the natural sciences at a level higher than grade school?

I NEVER heard a science teacher explain how the universe violated the first law of thermodynamics via the big bang.

It doesn't...

How the big bang was a singularity and expanded...yet black holes by definition CAN'T.

You know nothing about big bang theory or black holes.

Nor why there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe....ect. etc. etc. Why? Because Science teachers TEACH DOGMA.

No, it's because the extent of your science education is grade school.

(cont)...

Actually I guess it's not really an opinion but a falsehood.

Unless of course you're saying that the opinions of people who believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and people who believe it was created 13.7 billion years ago have "equal merit".

IS that what you're saying?

IF someone in the 1800s would have suggested to a scientist that time is relative he'd have been branded a "heretic" and a crackpot.

If the suggestion is coupled with evidence, I highly doubt that assumption.

You likely didn't receive any of that information because you already had your answer. Science teachers do not teach dogma, they teach science. Your comments land you squarely in the camp of 'if they can't explain one thing, then we know nothing.' As has been said numerous times on this site, just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean we know nothing.

Creationists think the entire universe was created just for them....now who really needs to get over themselves?

It doesn't...

Of course it does. Unless of course you have a falsifiable theory that allows for the creation of mass and energy from nothing.

You know nothing about big bang theory or black holes.

No it's you who don't. See I can fold my arms and stamp my feet too...I learned that trick when I was three :)

You likely didn't receive any of that information because you already had your answer.

No I didn't. You can try again though.

Science teachers do not teach dogma, they teach science.

Then why do they teach a theory of creation that violates the laws of physics?

Your comments land you squarely in the camp of 'if they can't explain one thing, then we know nothing.' As has been said numerous times on this site, just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean we know nothing.

Funny I'm in the other camp, because I agree with you...

It doesn't...

Of course it does. Unless of course you have a falsifiable theory that allows for the creation of mass and energy from nothing.

It wasn't created from nothing...

You know nothing about big bang theory or black holes.

No it's you who don't. See I can fold my arms and stamp my feet too...I learned that trick when I was three :)

You know nothing about the science of which you deign to speak, you admitted it yourself. "No teacher ever taught me ... ", remember?

It wasn't created from nothing...

What was it created from then? Be sure you're claim is falsifiable AND agrees with current dogma.

You know nothing about the science of which you deign to speak, you admitted it yourself. "No teacher ever taught me ... ", remember?

First of all this may come as a SHOCK to a dogmatic, but one doesn't need a teacher or an authority to learn something.

Secondly they TAUGHT me the strengths, not the weaknesses of their pet theories...

Then why do they teach a theory of creation that violates the laws of physics?

It doesn't, you don't know anything about big bang theory or the laws of physics, you admitted it yourself when you said that science teachers never taught you anything. You're an IDiot.

It doesn't, you don't know anything about big bang theory or the laws of physics,

You keep saying that like it MEANS something. It doesn't, it's your opinion. Clear?

you admitted it yourself when you said that science teachers never taught you anything.

I did no such thing.

Here is a hint for you "ModernMystic" you big idiot: Big Bang theory says NOTHING about the ultimate origin of reality. The theory pertains to the state of the universe at specific point of time in the past beyond which we cannot gain any knowledge due to the nature of the universe at that point in time.

It is not and was never meant to be the theory for the origin of everything, this is something that the ignorant public has turned it into and that is not supported by the evidence. The evidence for the BB includes the CMBR and the red shift of distant galaxies, among others. Why don't you spend some time reading a fucking book (or at least wikipedia) instead of trolling this website with your ignorance?

Big Bang theory says NOTHING about the ultimate origin of reality.

Ignoring that some variants of the theory do JUST THAT. Then explain how if it was more dense than a black hole it expanded into anything.

I'm a proponent of the big bang BTW, I just think it's got some HUGE problems that are constantly glossed over and ignored. Moreover there is no falsifiability to it, so I'm not sure how it's taught as science...

I'm a proponent of the big bang BTW

Then you should learn something about it, the universe didn't expand into anything... and the laws of physics only function in the context of the universe, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe as a whole to violate the laws of physics.

Big Bang theory says NOTHING about the ultimate origin of reality.

Ignoring that some variants of the theory do JUST THAT. Then explain how if it was more dense than a black hole it expanded into anything.

I'm a proponent of the big bang BTW, I just think it's got some HUGE problems that are constantly glossed over and ignored. Moreover there is no falsifiability to it, so I'm not sure how it's taught as science...

Maybe you havent become aware of what science is currently working on?

"In the new work, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity."

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
http://www.youtub...LCau_Z_Y

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

This "logic" is comparable to the creationism. If nothing else, creationism doesn't pretend, it's logical.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

This "logic" is comparable to the creationism. If nothing else, creationism doesn't pretend, it's logical.

That is because you have no idea why dr hawking made it or what kind of knowledge or research it is based upon. You just dont like the way it SOUNDS do you?

Creationism DOES pretend and is fundamentally illogical. It is peddled by liars with agendas. Your statements make one suspect you are one of these peddlers? Or at least one of their unwitting shills perhaps?
http://www.youtub...wMP4Sxgo

and the laws of physics only function in the context of the universe, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe as a whole to violate the laws of physics.

Which was my whole point...there is no natural mechanism which allows for the creation of matter and energy at all. In addition it's impossible for matter and energy to expand at the densities that existed at the big bang. So the laws of physics must have been different then, however I've seen nothing to explain this. Have you (no sarcasm intended)? If not then the theory is WRONG in some way.

Moreover I've seen no falsifiable theory about why there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe. Have you? If not kindly step off about the BB being scientific, it may be FAR MORE scientific than creationism, but it's not strictly scientific at all.

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing

The law of gravity is something. Go fish Stephen...

As to high school science teachers teaching science as dogma. Deathclock you seem to say this is the case. Do you agree with this method of teaching?

Also you've never answered my question re: ID proponents being equivalent to creationists;

Are the opinions that the universe was created 6,000 years ago vs. 13.7 billion years ago equally valid...or were you wrong on that point?

You just dont like the way it SOUNDS do you?

It as nothing to do with my subjective feeling, but with objective absence of logic. Why just the existence of gravitational law implies, the Universe was formed from nothing? Why not existence of Coulomb law, for example?

You just dont like the way it SOUNDS do you?

It as nothing to do with my subjective feeling, but with objective absence of logic. Why just the existence of gravitational law implies, the Universe was formed from nothing? Why not existence of Coulomb law, for example?

Oh Im sorry jigga I didnt recognize you. You are peddling your own tasty brand of spaghetti arent you?

there is no natural mechanism which allows for the creation of matter and energy at all.

How would you know?

In addition it's impossible for matter and energy to expand at the densities that existed at the big bang. So the laws of physics must have been different then

How would you know?

however I've seen nothing to explain this. Have you (no sarcasm intended)? If not then the theory is WRONG in some way.

How would YOU know? Seriously?

Moreover I've seen no falsifiable theory about why there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe.

Would you understand it if it was presented to you? Of course not.

Have you? If not kindly step off about the BB being scientific, it may be FAR MORE scientific than creationism, but it's not strictly scientific at all

According to you... but then you have no idea what you are talking about. This is not an ad hominim argument, I am just pointing out the very real fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.

The belief that an invisible, cosmic, psychic, Jewish zombie

Funny he doesnt LOOK jewish...
http://www.pounde...emepark/

(and as we know ashkenazi came from Khazaria so hes not turkic either)

Hey maybe his mom was anglo. Or maybe he was illegitimate. Yeah thats it.

How would you know?

Re: Matter and energy creation

http://en.wikiped...dynamics

I didn't come up with them Otto.

How would you know?

Re: Implausibility of the initial expansion of the universe from an infinitely dense state.

Present the mechanism that would allow this to happen. It contradicts current theories about black holes and gravitation. Therefore one or the other must be wrong.

Would you understand it if it was presented to you? Of course not.

Impossible to say since none has been put forward. In either case therefore my point stands.

According to you... but then you have no idea what you are talking about.

No, apparently that's you in this case as I've just demonstrated.

Naw sorry youve got to post a source which explicitly states how the 2nd law disproves the big bang. This has to be a source with the sort of necessary credibility of which you are conspicuously devoid. Of.

Present the mechanism that would allow this to happen.

Naw sorry I am not qualified to do this. I would defer to dr hawking and M theorists who will probably tell you they are working on it and to quit bugging them.

In either case therefore my point stands.

In any case your point would stand as it is not based on anything but opinion -? Your opinion specifically.

No, apparently that's you

No it is you I say!

Naw sorry youve got to post a source which explicitly states how the 2nd law disproves the big bang.

Why would I do that when it's the first law we're discussing here?

Logic explicitly states how the first law CONTRADICTS (not disproves) any naturalistic theory of creation. The first law doesn't disprove the big bang, it simply points out that the matter and energy dealt with in the theory had to come from a framework outside the theory.

Naw sorry I am not qualified to do this. I would defer to dr hawking and M theorists who will probably tell you they are working on it and to quit bugging them.

If you're not qualified, by your own admission, to deal with simple and obvious problems with the theory you probably shouldn't be posting about what should be taught to children...or at least no one should pay any attention to you based on your own estimation of your grasp of the subject.

Since you're not even willing to debate the matter I see no point in further reply.

I am very sad to report a probable explanation for jesus' angloid featurisms.

"CHEYENNE, WY, June 24- he founder of the world's most opular religion, Christianity, as the natural son of a Roman soldier, according to Eddie endrick, a local new testament cholar.

"Yes, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was raped by a Roman soldier and our Saviour was the outcome of that awful, brutal act- an act I now can prove defined His mission in life," Kendrick said. Kendrick is the founder and research director of the Center for Gospel Truth here in Cheyenne."
http://www.jesusr...temid=26

-No doubt a germanic barbarian. Of Arian persuasion.
http://uk.answers...3AAbVj5p

If you're not qualified, by your own admission, to deal with simple and obvious problems with the theory

Nor are you.

you probably shouldn't be posting about what should be taught to children...

Except, as I know when to defer to experts and you dont, I think that makes me more qualified than you, yes?

Since you're not even willing to debate the matter I see no point in further reply.

Right. So I win as usual. Thanks as always for the opportunity to discredit your religionist crapola in a public venue.

and the laws of physics only function in the context of the universe, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe as a whole to violate the laws of physics.

Which was my whole point...there is no natural mechanism which allows for the creation of matter and energy at all.

No, you aren't listening, the BB theory does not mention the creation of matter/energy. For all I know the entire concept of "origin" is one of human invention that doesn't apply to reality. We have never witnessed the true origin of anything, we have no reason to belief it is even meaningful aside from our own systems of classification. When we talk about the "origin" of an object we are INVARIABLY talking about when some matter/energy in one form changed to matter/energy in another form... this is not the origin of anything real, only of a conceptual object.

Present the mechanism that would allow this to happen. It contradicts current theories about black holes and gravitation. Therefore one or the other must be wrong.

Wait a minute, I see what's happening here... MM is under the impression that the hot and dense state of the universe at the big bang was the same thing as a black hole... it was NOTHING like a black hole. Black holes exist in the universe, the big bang was the expansion OF the universe, two completely different things.

Also, the term "singularity" is a misnomer. Black holes do not have infinite density, they do not exist in zero volume. This is another one of those stupid misconceptions tacked on by the media to dramatize the science. It's true that the density of a black hole is immense, quite possibly the most condensed form of energy possible, but it still exists, and existing with zero volume means not existing.

Trending to zero volume produces a trend toward the zero evolution of time.

On this basis, the universe has no beginning, so there is no violation of conservation of energy.

Was there something in existence 17 billion years ago?

No, you aren't listening, the BB theory does not mention the creation of matter/energy.

Quite correct. There is cause and effect though. The theory IMPLIES the creation of matter/energy. The implication is the contradiction. If we were in some kind of steady state there would be no contradiction, our observations tell us we aren't in such a condition though.

Moreover it's not even a self consistent theory AFTER you have all the energy the theory deals with. You still have the problem of more matter than anti-matter, and there is the problem of how did all that matter escape the pull of itself to expand at all.

Oh and what the hell I'll throw you a few more bones: matter is nothing but condensed energy, there is no such thing as "solid" the experience of solidity is a manifestation of our senses experiencing repulsion forces. The universe is not empty, anywhere, there is no such thing as empty space. Space is a framework, the laws of physics play out in this framework, the expansion of space-time did not have to follow any laws of physics that we know of because those only apply WITHIN the universe.

Wait a minute, I see what's happening here... MM is under the impression that the hot and dense state of the universe at the big bang was the same thing as a black hole... it was NOTHING like a black hole.

It doesn't have to be, gravity will pull on spacetime the same as it pulls on the matter/energy present at the beginning. Unless of course gravity was different then. In which case there should be a testable theory that describes that condition. I'm unaware of any. Again, if there is one I'd like to hear it (honestly, no sarcasm or incredulity).

It's true that the density of a black hole is immense, quite possibly the most condensed form of energy possible, but it still exists, and existing with zero volume means not existing.

Then how much more dense was the universe at the beginning? Now as to the second point, one can't have their cake and eat it. Obviously black holes exist, zero volume can't apply to something that exists.

Was there something in existence 17 billion years ago?

Years have no meaning in the context of this discussion.

Space is a framework, the laws of physics play out in this framework, the expansion of space-time did not have to follow any laws of physics that we know of because those only apply WITHIN the universe.

The expansion of space-time occurs within the universe though and hence must follow the previously mentioned laws. Either that or we have to revisit Hubble's observations.

Was there something in existence 17 billion years ago?

Years have no meaning in the context of this discussion.

Oh, well then the universe was created 6,000 years ago and the creationists might be right?

Gravity does not affect the expansion of space-time...

Then why were physicists surprised to see the expansion of the universe accelerating when they were expecting the gravity to be slowing it previous to this observation?

Wait a minute, I see what's happening here... MM is under the impression that the hot and dense state of the universe at the big bang was the same thing as a black hole... it was NOTHING like a black hole.

It doesn't have to be, gravity will pull on spacetime the same as it pulls on the matter/energy present at the beginning. Unless of course gravity was different then.

No, again, gravity operates WITHIN the universe, the expansion of space-time is a property of the universe as a whole, not a component within it. Gravity does not affect the expansion of space-time...

The expansion of space-time occurs within the universe though

No it doesn't. The expansion of the universe happens TO the universe, not within it.

You understand that the universal expansion allows objects to recede from each other faster than the speed of light, yet despite this the speed of light as a universal speed limit has not been broken? This is because the expansion of the universe and the related effects on the universe DOES NOT COUNT toward violating the laws of physics that exist WITHIN the universe, because this occurs TO the universe, not WITHIN it.

No it doesn't. The expansion of the universe happens TO the universe, not within it.

Everything we observe is happening within the universe. To say something is happening TO the universe means it's happening within it as well. To say ANYTHING is happening at all means it's happening within the universe. There is no "outside".

No it doesn't. The expansion of the universe happens TO the universe, not within it.

Everything we observe is happening within the universe. To say something is happening TO the universe means it's happening within it as well. To say ANYTHING is happening at all means it's happening within the universe. There is no "outside".

All modern theoretical physicists, astrophysicists, and cosmologists disagree with you.

I don't know that they are right and you are wrong, but I know which one is the smarter bet.

(To be fair, I would prefer it if the word universe meant all that existed, such that there could be nothing outside of it, but that is not how most scientist use the term. Most scientists in related fields consider our universe to be a thing of which there may be others).

All modern theoretical physicists, astrophysicists, and cosmologists disagree with you.

All of them? I think not :)

As to those that do, do they have a falsifiable proposition for holding this position?

Look, FTR I'm not saying modern cosmology is wrong. Quite the contrary. I'm saying it's incomplete, and inconsistent. I'm saying I don't think it serves anyone to attempt to gloss over these problems to soothe our worldviews...

Look, FTR I'm not saying modern cosmology is wrong. Quite the contrary. I'm saying it's incomplete, and inconsistent. I'm saying I don't think it serves anyone to attempt to gloss over these problems to soothe our worldviews...

No one thinks it's complete... there is no TOE yet. Is this news to you?

No one thinks it's complete... there is no TOE yet. Is this news to you?

No, I agree that most (if not all) admit the theory is incomplete. There are a lot that seem to ignore, and gloss over the inconsistencies however. There are proposed axioms within the theory that disagree WITH the theory/accepted laws of physics, and with observation.

Regarding observation, we can see stars that are 14bn light years away, we claim that we are seeing the stars as they existed 14bn years ago... So somehow our star and the star we are observing became separated by 14bn light years immediately after the big bang... but how is this possible?

THIS is the observational evidence, and the explanation is that the expansion of the universe allowed things within the universe to recede faster than the speed of light... however the universal speed limit that it is was not broken, because they did not move THROUGH space at the speed of light, they receded with the expansion of space... they didn't move, the construct that they reside in grew, and that construct that is the universe doesn't have to follow the rules that govern things WITHIN it.

The observational evidence actually supports this, which is the opposite that you are claiming.

Please read this until the part about the alcubrie drive:
http://en.wikiped...stortion

I vow never to go anywhere near Tennessee. I mean, it's not like they have anything worth worrying about anyway.

Too bad for the kids, who will be less well prepared to survive a world full of increasingly agile competition. Shame on their parents for electing this quality of political leaders.

The flip side:

The lower the energy density the faster time flows. The more sparse the universe, the faster it evolves.

Trending to infinite volume produces a trend toward the infinite evolution of time.

On this basis, the universe has no end, so there is no violation of conservation of energy.

No beginning and no end? So Creation and the Big Bang disappear in a puff of smoke. For my next trick I will prove black is white and get run over on the next zebra pedestrian crossing.

THIS is the observational evidence,

You're incorrectly interpreting the observation.

and the explanation is that the expansion of the universe allowed things within the universe to recede faster than the speed of light...[q/]

This may well be true, space IS expanding, however if it were expanding at the speed of light everywhere our bodies would fly apart. What's happening is an artifact of how much space there is in the universe now. Since space is expanding the more space there is between you and an object the faster that object appears to be receding...it's cumulative.

As is obvious these conditions did not exist at the big bang....quite the opposite. There was VERY little space at that time, hence no possible way for the cumulative effects of the expansion of space time to operate at anything but a vanishingly small magnitude. Gravity should have halted the expansion in EXTREMELY short order and the universe should have died a crib death.

Regarding observation, we can see stars that are 14bn light years away, we claim that we are seeing the stars as they existed 14bn years ago... So somehow our star and the star we are observing became separated by 14bn light years immediately after the big bang... but how is this possible?

It's not. We weren't "immediately" separated by 14 billion light years. We're simply seeing light that's 14 billion years old. Stars didn't even exist 14 billion years ago. LIGHT didn't exist until 300,000 years after the big bang.

The observational evidence actually supports this, which is the opposite that you are claiming.

The observational evidence is that we're observing galaxies close to 14 billion light years away that are receding very fast. That supports the framework I just described. I'd challenge you to present a source that says that everything was separated by 14 billion light years immediately after the big bang.

There likely wasn't a time that was 17 billion years ago.

So then the axiom we must now accept is at some point there was a creation of time, matter, and energy between 17 billion years ago and now.

Most modern cosmologists place this at approx. 13.7 billion years ago.

Please tell us precisely what you mean by the term "year".

365 days 5 hours 49 minutes and 15.974 seconds

Your definition will most probably fail as you approach 13.x billion years ago.

Mkay.

MM is under the impression that the hot and dense state of the universe at the big bang was the same thing as a black hole...

MM is under the impression that he possesses the faculties necessary to properly understand and comment on these things. He does not.

I do not either. But I recognize this and accept it, whereas MM keeps on pretending, despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

He learns this sort of doublethink in church on sunday where he hears that some large superbeast will grant his wishes and desire his eternal company just because MM WISHES it, and is willing to kiss hairy butt. See the similarity?

'God describes the universe in a book full of concepts that I can understand. God loves me and so created me in his OWN IMAGE. Therefore the universe is constructed to be fully understandable by little pseudogods like me; and furthermore, all the answers to any questions I may have can be found in this book (or within my own godly brain)!' Amen(Ra).

Was there something in existence 17 billion years ago?

Now this is a very good place to start. MM, describe 'something' in the manner that dr hawking or any competent physicist would, using all the proper terms and equations, and basing this description upon all the latest discoveries and observations available to the scientific community.

Can you do this? Take your time. I'll check back periodically.

-Oh and importantly, try not to do it using catchphrases like

"2And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

-okay?

-Also please try not to use any of this crap
http://en.wikiped...x_nihilo

Thanks.

And stay away from this stuff. It is cool but not helpful.
http://www.youtub...G-TCpbtw

-Come to think of it billy would look a lot like your jesus buddy wouldnt he?

In order to describe something you must ascribe properties to it. Mathematics describes physical systems. When you attempt to ascribe properties to nothing it becomes something. This implies mathematics cant describe nothing. Therefore mathematics cant be used to make predictions about nothing, and hence Hawking or anyone else can't legitimately report to us what math says about a subject it can't describe....

No I am sorry but this is not a good start.

I'm going to have to agree with the other posters that the basic problem here has nothing to do with the limitations of science, but rather your lack of serious exposure to it.

In addition it's impossible for matter and energy to expand at the densities that existed at the big bang. So the laws of physics must have been different then, however I've seen nothing to explain this. Have you (no sarcasm intended)? If not then the theory is WRONG in some way.

No, not at the energy regimes of the BB. As far back as the 70s GUTs were pointing the way to why this was possible: the research suggested that at the energy regimes of the BB, the strong, weak and electomagnetic forces are unified with gravity *and this different, original force would have been repulsive*. IOW, at that energy regime all that mass/energy would not have been under gravitational attraction, but under *violent* repulsion, and that energy regime was possible *because* all that M/E was confined to such a tiny volume.

Also, the term "singularity" is a misnomer. Black holes do not have infinite density, they do not exist in zero volume. This is another one of those stupid misconceptions tacked on by the media to dramatize the science. It's true that the density of a black hole is immense, quite possibly the most condensed form of energy possible, but it still exists, and existing with zero volume means not existing.

Sigh. As mush as I appreciate your efforts DC, you're going to have to come to grips with the distinction between a BH singularity and its event horizon (EH). I can assure you that "singularity" is more than just a media creation. It really is a state of infinate density postulately by current theory and one where current theory explicitly fails. The EH is just the limit at which the BH's space-time (S-T) curvature causes S-T to flow towards the singularity at a velocity that exceeds C (which is why nothing can get out). GR can handle EHes quite well, unlike singularities.

some large superbeast will grant his wishes and desire his eternal company just because MM WISHES it, and is willing to kiss hairy butt.

So...I take it you think the No-Hair Theorem doesn't apply to God? Actually, come to think of it...I suppose God WOULD be the hair in the No-Hair Theorem. Hummmmm...

R(amen)

No, not at the energy regimes of the BB. As far back as the 70s GUTs were pointing the way to why this was possible: the research suggested that at the energy regimes of the BB, the strong, weak and electomagnetic forces are unified with gravity *and this different, original force would have been repulsive*. IOW, at that energy regime all that mass/energy would not have been under gravitational attraction, but under *violent* repulsion, and that energy regime was possible *because* all that M/E was confined to such a tiny volume.

Here's the first poster that has actually given an ARGUMENT to what I've been saying. I'm actually excited to read more about this. I've often thought that unification might make the laws act differently at the beginning than they currently do, but have NEVER seen it or had it suggested to me. Can you please post a source?

Also I should say this is an argument against one of the inconsistencies I've pointed out...not all.

Here's the first poster that has actually given an ARGUMENT

Yah including yourself.

Here you go MM. I know you think you are Wm Lane Craig (youre not). I certainly do not think I am hitchens. But anyways why dont we let them argue the topic? They do it so much better-
http://www.youtub...=related

"If we do discover a complete theory, it should be in time understandable in broad principle by everyone. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people be able to take part in the discussion of why we and the universe exist."

-Stephen Hawking

I know you think you are Wm Lane Craig

You know? Interesting, I think I'm MM...where did you come by this knowledge?

I certainly do not think I am hitchens.

Obviously not, you don't believe in ID...Hitchens does....

But anyways why dont we let them argue the topic? They do it so much better-

I have this strange quirk that I like to come to my own conclusions...silly me...

Apologies, Hitchens doesn't believe in ID...DAWKINS said it's possible...so easy to confuse blowhard atheists...

Dawkins, the most outspoken supporter of atheism and evolution on the planet, supported intelligent design?

You really are nuts.

"Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, by probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very very high level of technology, and DESIGNED a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's POSSIBLE that you might find EVIDENCE for that IF YOU LOOK at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a SIGNATURE of some sort of DESIGNER"

-Richard Dawkins

Not only does he admit to the possibility of ID, he thinks that ALIENS might be responsible...

Wow...

That's not intelligent design you retard, the aliens still had to evolve naturally with no intelligent designer :rolleyes:

You just push the fucking goal post back for what reason? WHY posit, without any evidence, that aliens designed us when all that does is push the question back one level so that we have to ask "where did the aliens come from"... oh, they were designed by other aliens... oh really? Then where did THEY come from?

Do you see how ridiculous it is to go down this path? You are committing a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum, look it up.

That's not intelligent design you retard, the aliens still had to evolve naturally with no intelligent designer :rolleyes:

Irrelevant to the question and the point of the article. Dawkins admits the possibility of ID ON THIS PLANET and therefore why shouldn't it be taught in schools.

IOW ID in it's purest form doesn't "take sides" here. An intelligent supernatural being (which we have no evidence for) or aliens (which we have no evidence for)...it's still ID.

As an aside...why are you so HOSTILE? I'm not impugning you personally. Why do you need me to agree with you?

Moreover Dawkins said life on another planet "probably" evolved by Darwinian means. He didn't explicitly state it WAS by such means. I just want the guy to be consistent...which he isn't...

To crystallize the point....my post was more about DAWKINS, not about ID per se....

Irrelevant to the question and the point of the article. Dawkins admits the possibility of ID ON THIS PLANET and therefore why shouldn't it be taught in schools.

What the fuck? It's POSSIBLE so it should be taught? Do you know how many things are technically "possible"?

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THIS, why should we teach it? Being technically possible is NOTHING, almost anything is POSSIBLE.

What is wrong with you?

I'm hostile because you just said "it's possible that we were designed by aliens so it should be taught to all of our children, even though there is no evidence suggesting it".

This type of thinking OFFENDS me, personally. It's dangerous to society.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THIS, why should we teach it? Being technically possible is NOTHING, almost anything is POSSIBLE.

We have no evidence for naturalistic biogenesis either...why should that be taught in schools?

More to the point...direct your angst at Dawkins, not me. I'm simply holding him to a standard and my original post was directed at his inconsistency, nothing more.

I'm hostile because you just said "it's possible that we were designed by aliens so it should be taught to all of our children, even though there is no evidence suggesting it".

I said no such thing....I asked for a reasonable differentiation...

Dangerous to society...really? We'll be fine precious...really we will. You have no right not to be offended....

We do have evidence for abiogenesis... it is an active area of research and we have made quite a few important discoveries. The mechanisms through which what we consider to be "alive" could have come from what we consider to be "non-living" is perfectly plausible in the context of biology, chemistry, and physics.

We do have evidence for abiogenesis... it is an active area of research and we have made quite a few important discoveries. The mechanisms through which what we consider to be "alive" could have come from what we consider to be "non-living" is perfectly plausible in the context of biology, chemistry, and physics.

We have no EVIDENCE for it...yet. We may in the future, but we currently have no evidence for it.

Moreover it's not plausible...there are hundreds of discrete chemical processes that need to take place in a living cell for it to be alive. That all these hundreds of processes occurred at once in the same place is EXTREMELY implausible.

Darwin can be excused, they didn't know how complex a single cell was in his time...you can't be excused...

We are a part of this universe whether you like it or not, we are made from Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, etc... these are all natural and abundant elements, there is nothing "unnatural" about us, nothing to suggest that we are not a simple byproduct of reality.

We are a part of this universe whether you like it or not, we are made from Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, etc... these are all natural and abundant elements, there is nothing "unnatural" about us, nothing to suggest that we are not a simple byproduct of reality.

Agreed...

On edit: Well with the caveat that all we are made of are NOT abundant elements. We're the product of nucleosynthesis. Actually in comparison to what we currently think the universe is made of we're quite rare. Totally irrelevant to the point though I concede, but it's important to be accurate.

We have no EVIDENCE for it...yet. We may in the future, but we currently have no evidence for it.

No, we do, you just don't have knowledge of the topic.

Moreover it's not plausible...there are hundreds of discrete chemical processes that need to take place in a living cell for it to be alive. That all these hundreds of processes occurred at once in the same place is EXTREMELY implausible.

Darwin can be excused, they didn't know how complex a single cell was in his time...you can't be excused...

Oh wow, you think a cell is indivisible? I'll give you a hint, self replication would have been the first step, and that would have come LONG before cells.

Oh yeah, and we've witnessed that occur spontaneously in nature...

No, we do, you just don't have knowledge of the topic.

No, we don't, you just don't have knowledge of the topic.

Oh wow, you think a cell is indivisible?

In order to be alive...yes it most certainly IS indivisible. Now who's committing the logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum?

IF you have the complete theory from amino acids to a single living cell please post it...I and the rest of the scientific community await with baited breath...

We are a part of this universe whether you like it or not, we are made from Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, etc... these are all natural and abundant elements, there is nothing "unnatural" about us, nothing to suggest that we are not a simple byproduct of reality.

Agreed...

On edit: Well with the caveat that all we are made of are NOT abundant elements. We're the product of nucleosynthesis. Actually in comparison to what we currently think the universe is made of we're quite rare. Totally irrelevant to the point though I concede, but it's important to be accurate.

On the contrary, to be even more accurate we are made simply of quarks, leptons, and bosons... The arrangements of these things is not important, they are the constituents of ALL matter, including the matter we are made of.

On the contrary, to be even more accurate we are made simply of quarks, leptons, and bosons... The arrangements of these things is not important, they are the constituents of ALL matter, including the matter we are made of.

On the contrary according to the most current "scientific" thinking and theory most of the universe is made of dark matter and dark energy which we are not made of...

No, we do, you just don't have knowledge of the topic.

No, we don't, you just don't have knowledge of the topic.

We've witnessed the rise of self-replicating entities.

In order to be alive...yes it most certainly IS indivisible. Now who's committing the logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum?

IF you have the complete theory from amino acids to a single living cell please post it...I and the rest of the scientific community await with baited breath...

No, first of all what is and is not "alive" is rather arbitrary. We define what that word means, in reality there is black and white line separating what is "alive" and what is not "alive"... in essence we made up this concept, it doesn't really mean anything except (and because) what we define it to mean.

Look up self replicating peptides, or just read here:
http://www.talkor...ife.html

On the contrary according to the most current "scientific" thinking and theory most of the universe is made of dark matter and dark energy which we are not made of...

Hypothesis... we don't know what these things are or of they exist, we call them "dark" because we haven't been able to record any direct information about them, only their apparent effects on normal matter.

Given that we have absolutely no knowledge of what these things are, if they even exist, it would be foolish to operate on assumptions regarding them.

We weren't talking about self replicating peptides, and the leap from self replicating proteins to a single cell is HUGE....

IOW and for simplicity...How often do you beat your wife?

Given that we have absolutely no knowledge of what these things are, if they even exist, it would be foolish to operate on assumptions regarding them.

SO there is a skeptic lurking under all that scientific dogma you accept via the "authorities"...bravo.

On edit: There IS actually evidence for dark matter, but I agree it's not "settled science".

We weren't talking about self replicating peptides, and the leap from self replicating proteins to a single cell is HUGE....

Sure, but it is divisible into small iterative steps, just like the evolution from single celled life to humans...

Obviously not, you don't believe in ID...Hitchens does....

Yeah. This is the sort of ID he believes in:

"When the bones of prehistoric animals began to be discovered and scrutinized in the nineteenth century, there were those who said that the fossils had been placed in the rock by god, in order to test our faith. This cannot be disproved. Nor can my own pet theory that, from the patterns of behavior that are observable, we may infer a design that makes planet earth, all unknown to us, a prison colony and lunatic asylum that is employed as a dumping ground by far-off and superior civilizations."

You dont watch the vids I post. Your loss.

I have this strange quirk that I like to come to my own conclusions...silly me...

You said it. This is evident because your conclusions are usually silly as has been demonstrated to you.

Do you see how ridiculous it is to go down this path? You are committing a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum, look it up.

MM is quote mining, from ignorance and laziness I suppose, in not researching the context of the misused dawkins quote.

This is what dawkins has to say about quote mining in general, about religionist mining of this particular quote of his, and about ID.
http://www.youtub...tNuGt4rw

-Dont be lazy MM. Watch the entire sequence for an explanation of why repeating this lie as you have done is so egregious.

And then we should expect an apology.

[Deleted own quote about Superunified Theory forces]
Here's the first poster that has actually given an ARGUMENT to what I've been saying. I'm actually excited to read more about this. I've often thought that unification might make the laws act differently at the beginning than they currently do, but have NEVER seen it or had it suggested to me. Can you please post a source?

Well, MM, sure because there's a HUGE amount of it: this has now become basic modern inflationary theory stuff, at least at the academic level. Whatever its shortcomings it's considered common knowledge in high energy physics, even though it hasn't generally filtered down to common popular knowledge. If you want something quick and accessible, if very, very partial try:

http://csep10.phy...ion.html

Also I should say this is an argument against one of the inconsistencies I've pointed out...not all.

Only so many hrs in a day. Still I can answer them if you want.

I never heard a distinction made between biogenesis and evolution.

Through K12? Not surprising, given the limited scope of the curriculum. (Doesn't mean you can't go have a look for yourself--it *is* out there). Evolution only deals with how self replicating matter (even pre-living types) changes in response to it's environment across generations, not how matter becomes self replicating in the first place.

I never had it explained to me as to how two sexes evolved.

As a 2nd *critique of your schooling*, what can I say...?

I NEVER heard a science teacher explain how the universe violated the first law of thermodynamics via the big bang.

Well, if they had they would have been in error as there is no violation. As the ultimate closed system the Universe is in COMPLETE AGREEMENT with 1st Law of Thermodynamics: As far as we can tell, no energy has ever been transfered into or out of the Universe and the total mass/energy content of the Universe has never changed. Cont.

MM, that's ALL that the 1st Law has to say about the Universe. The Big Bang doesn't change that, and if you took the time needed to study it closely you see that the BB is much more complicated than the simple "creation of something from nothing" event that it's usually depicted as even in popular science media.

I'm willing to bet that your (common) misconception is based on an underlying assumption that there is some kind of an "outside" of the universe to which thermodynamics (& time & energy conservation) applies in the same way as it does in the Universe, and that this "outside" went from having "nothing" to having "something" (or "everything") inexplicably, thus violating the 1st Law.

But there is no "outside" of the universe either in time or space for thermodynamics to operate on! THIS IS YOUR *OWN* INJECTION, MM!

The Universe is its own closed system from T_0 & up, *including* the BB. The BB doesn't create energy, it happens IN the universe and redistributes its contents.

How the big bang was a singularity and expanded...

Already provided an answer for that one...you're welcome.

yet black holes by definition CAN'T.

Well, again, this is because you've only bothered with the lite versions, and this leads you to make a number of false assumptions (some of which are understandable because the two are often presented as differing only as far as to the amount of "content"). Most importantly, our theories have nothing very useful to say about singularities so we don't really know how similar the two are, but you are assuming they are the same. The fact is that there's every reason to believe THERE ARE NO TRUE SINGULARITIES IN THE 1ST PLACE. The only thing these really represent are POINTS OF FAILURE in our theories! So there's every reason to think that the 2 types of "singularities" are NOT in fact identical and that the original (BB) would break Superunification levels and create Space-Time while the later ones (BHs) would not and destroy S-T.

Nor why there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe....ect. etc. etc. Why?

Because we're still working on that one.

Because Science teachers TEACH DOGMA.

No, MM, it's because they are teaching K12 and not masters and doctoral level physics and astrophysics...and because they may have only freshman level physics themselves, if that...and because they are following a curriculum that must be presented in a limited time and therefore deals only with the most salient points of the most widely accepted theories. It's not some kind of sinister plot, MM.

Get over yourselves...really...

Mirror, mirror...MM.

Regardless, I don't think this legislation has been introduced to help real science teachers with their teaching. It can't do that since, at least as presented here it's redundent with the function of teaching science anyway. It does rather seem to be a way to protect teachers who wish to promote ID as science, however, and that's anything but healthy.

The adversary to ID is not evolution, but abiogenesis

No, this is not correct.

Intelligent design is a point of view where the result of evolution is taken for granted, and the driving force is claimed to be a certain intelligent. This is called a teleological way of thinking. Telos is a Greek word (what else?) and it means the end, the purpose.

Opposed to this is a point of view where things evolve not driven to their predestined end, but driven by the laws of nature. This is the scientific point of view, and this is evolution.

When Laplace was asked whether God was a part of his world system, he famously said: "I didn't found necessary this hypothesis".

For people in the West, Eastern was last week. Even so, and for all others, Kalo Pascha to all.
-.

Has anyone ever tossed the proper ingredients into a pot, applied energy and life emerged?

Yes, they did, many decades ago. Lysenko (Lysenco?), a Russian scientist, and others, did this. Untill now, they were able to get the building blocks of aminoacids. There were some news recently, that aminoacids themselves were found in a meteorite (if I trust my memory). So, perhaps materials from meteorites helped catalyse life 3,5 billions ago.

But references to the proper ingredients and their proper analogies only shows an ignorance about how quite normal laws of physics, chemistry, and also thermodynamics, can lead to biological substances, and then on to life systems. Life is not a mixture of this and this analogy of ingredients, it is an organised system of substances (ingredients, if you must called them like this).

No, my friend, we are yet to construct a living system, for instance a cell. But that is hardly a support for religious explanations.
-.

I am very surprised by the level of ignorance and unscientific beliefs shown by people here. If they disagree so much with science, can they please leave us alone in this scientific site?

I propose that people should read, and ideally study, the history of science. And also, the philosophy of science. In many aspects, knowing science is identical to knowing the history of science.

Religion is not science. But religion in history and religion in our and other people's society, can be studied similarly to other matters. We can have no definite conclusions about these, because these matters have to do with human beings. And human beings, unlike numbers and physics, are infinite by nature, and so they always display more and more aspects. Also: humans have a choice.

Start with a search on "Biblical Studies". Its about the Bible in its historical context. Very interesting, if you like letters and history. But not a pleasant reading if you believe the Bible is a fax from heaven.
-.

the history of science.

The first great scientists also believed in God and were motivate into science by their faith, to study and understand God's creation. If they could understand God's creation, maybe they could better understand God.
Yes, please, let's discuss the history of science.

The first great scientists also believed in God

No the first great scientists were pagans. But as far as the post-xian era goes, EVERYBODY believed in god. If scientists didnt at least profess this belief they would have been deemed heretics and witches and BURNED, which you know.

and were motivate into science by their faith...If they could understand God's creation, maybe they could better understand God.

Unfortunately the more they learned the more their god appeared to be a sham. And whenever they chanced to acknowledge this they were BURNED.

Yes, please, let's discuss the history of science.

Yes lets, beginning with how institutionalized superstition has hindered the pursuit of knowledge for the last few millenia. And continues to try to do so today.
http://www.youtub...UiuZvUuw

-You should watch vids. A pic is worth 1000 words, and moving ones are worth even more. You can see the insanity in this creation scientists eyes as he speaks. Chilling.

the history of science.

The first great scientists also believed in God and were motivate into science by their faith, to study and understand God's creation. If they could understand God's creation, maybe they could better understand God.
Yes, please, let's discuss the history of science.

I can't help you with that.

You use the word scientist in a modern sense and apply it to the begginings of the human activity that led to science. Then you present one step of this history, and silently imply that it characterizes the whole.

So, I can't help you. If you can't read among the lines of your own thought, then you will always missing the general picture. And you will always take for granted the very things you want to prove.

How exactly is studying black holes help us understand "God's creation"? As you said, though without realizing it, we can do this by a faith: the faith that it helps us understand God's creation.
-.

How exactly is studying black holes help us understand "God's creation"?

That's the point of the exercise, to understand.

I can't help you with that.

Then you have no understanding of the history of science.

How exactly is studying black holes help us understand "God's creation"?

That's the point of the exercise, to understand.

I can't help you with that.

Then you have no understanding of the history of science.

YOU have no understanding of the history of science. Start with galileo
http://en.wikiped...o_affair

Here is a comprehensive overview

"A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
by
ANDREW DICKSON WHITE
LL.D. (Yale), L.H.D. (Columbia), PH.DR. (Jena)
Late President and Professor of History at Cornell University"
http://cscs.umich...i/White/

"Galileo, it might be noted, was a deeply religious man. Despite his trial and conviction, he did not reject either religion or the church, but only the attempt of Church authoritie to stifle investigation of scientific matters. Later generations have quite righlty admired Galileo as a symbol of revolt against dogmatism, and against authoritarian attempts to stifle freedom of thought. "
http://www.adhere...lei.html
Stifle freedom of thought? That is just what the AGWites attempt to do with their 'settled science' and what the atheists are attempting to do with any theory that the universe was created.

"science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldnt be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified."
"I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from thats not a scientific question to nobody knows. The favorite reply is, There is no reason they are what they are they just are. The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. "
http://www.nytime...nted=all

"Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. "
http://www.nytime...nted=all

"I have written before about how the left loves to invoke the example of Galileo in order to present themselves as the great defenders of science against all of those knuckle-dragging religious bigots who don't believe in global warming. But these same people don't understand science very well themselves so they end up using Galileo, a man who defied the "consensus" of his day, as a propaganda talking point to enforce the consensus of today."
"there is a modern-day equivalent to Galileo, specifically on the issue of global warming"
"That man is the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who seems to have discovered the most important factor that actually regulates Earth's climate, and who is quietly in the process of proving it."
http://www.realcl...090.html

"Thomas Jefferson put it best: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

If the government got out of schooling and let people choose how and where to spend their money on their children's schools and on other children's schools (I'm assuming that, consistent with history, many more-affluent people who are free to choose how to spend their money would willingly subsidize the schooling of those who are less affluent5), the problem would go away. "
http://www.econli...hts.html

science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way.

In the above, we are told that "science has faith-based beliefs."

Immediately after, we are told that "science proceeds on the assumption.."

These are two different things.

The correct one is the second: science has assumptions.

Does this makes a difference?

Yes, it does. People with assumptions change them if facts make this necessary.

But people with beliefs are unable to change them. For a believer a belief is the conclusion, not the starting point. There is no (logical) way to challenge a belief.

That is why you should not argue with a believer. Life is short. But then, we are all in need of other human beings, even as unpenetrable discussants.

In the above, I didn't said "assumptions change...". Rather, I consciounsly said "people with assumptions change them...". I said it this way because science is a human activity.
-.

Yes, faith is belief without proof.
But faith needs to be reinforced. Scientists have faith the universe has laws that don't change. If the data stops supporting this faith, that faith may be questioned.
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'
"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."
Max Planck
Read more at http://www.brainy...0fFAz.99

Yes, faith is belief without proof.

NO IT IS NOT, I've told you this a dozen times in the past, is your brain made of cement?

All beliefs are without proof, you don't have to believe in something if it is proven, you simply KNOW it. Faith is belief without EVIDENCE, not belief without proof, because ALL belief is without proof.

Can you remember this this time so I don't have to write this all over again every month for you?

Faith is belief without EVIDENCE,

Most Christians then do not have faith, they KNOW God exists in their lives as they have evidence.

"belief that is not based on proof"
http://dictionary...se/faith

Faith is belief without EVIDENCE,

Most Christians then do not have faith, they KNOW God exists in their lives as they have evidence.

"belief that is not based on proof"
http://dictionary...se/faith

Any religionist who feels these things is suffering under self-delusion, a common affliction. The epiphany is a wholly physiological phenomenon. All gods in all religions are capable of eliciting this exact same feeling in people just like you. Your god is not unique in this respect.

You FEEL that it is evidence of some supernatural presence because someone told you this. Someone human and very real.

You have been deceived for someone elses benefit. Now that you know, doesn't it make you feel a little silly? A little angry maybe?

It should.

Jefferson said:

"Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."

-He also wrote his own bible, editing out all the religious mumbo jumbo. Did you know that?
And as a politician and a public figure he was compelled to ascribe to the church as everybody was back then.

But he was a rational man. Had he lived today, and knowing what we now know about religion and science, he would no doubt be a rabid antireligionist like myself. At least in private. Because he could well see what this particularly ruinous addiction is threatening to do to the world.

"Galileo, it might be noted, was a deeply religious man. Despite his trial and conviction, he did not reject either religion or the church, but only the attempt of blah"

Quote mining from a religionist site...

Well it is hard to know what galileos personal beliefs were isn't it? He lived in the midst of the inquisition, and had tasked himself with what was considered at the time heresy. In order to SURVIVE and prevail he would at least have had to convincingly pretend to believe.

He did father 3 illigitimate kids, particularly uncatholic behavior, as was challenging the idea that the earth was ground zero.

Galileo was a rational man. Had he lived today, and knowing what we now know about religion and science, he would no doubt be a rabid antireligionist like myself. At least in private. Because he could well see what this particularly ruinous addiction is threatening to do to the world.

Re your Paul Davies quotes:

"...published in the New York Times generated controversy over its exploration of the role of faith in scientific inquiry...The Edge Foundation presented a criticism of Davies' article written by Jerry Coyne, Nathan Myhrvold, Lawrence Krauss, Scott Atran, Sean Carroll, Jeremy Bernstein, PZ Myers, Lee Smolin, John Horgan, Alan Sokal and a response by Davies beginning I was dismayed at how many of my detractors completely misunderstood what I had written. Indeed, their responses bore the hallmarks of a superficial knee-jerk reaction to the sight of the words "science" and "faith" juxtaposed. While atheists Richard Dawkins and Victor J. Stenger have criticised Davies' public stance on science and religion, others, including the John Templeton Foundation have praised his work."

-Well of course they did.

Scientific 'faith' - the increasing confidence that science can continue to explain the universe because of overwhelming evidence that it has done quite well so far.

Religionist faith - continued adherence to religious doctrine DESPITE increasing evidence that it does not explain the universe.

-So what does religionist faith provide that enables it to persist despite overwhelming evidence that it fails to explain the universe? We are left with the compulsion of addiction, and the people who would exploit this for their own personal gain...either monetary, prestige, or to maintain their own addiction.

These are much the same reasons that we see aging rock stars and celebrities conspicuously using tobacco in videos and movies. Product placement.

ncreasing evidence that it does not explain the universe.

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

"About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation."
http://www.umich....bang.htm

Which was published first?

Where is 'liberal' support for academic freedom?

This is not about "academic freedom, but about forcing people to accept your religious world view. It is about trying to teach religion as science. This does not belong in a science class. It should be taught in a religion studies class.

You want to call your faith science without requiring it to adhere to science's standards.

When I read the comments left by so-called religious people, it really makes me afraid for America's future. Many of them are not satisfied with believing in god and living a life of faith, they have the need to force others to fallow their path as well. Some of these people are very close to a group like the Taliban in their thinking.

they have the need to force others to fallow their path as well.

Sounds like the current 'progressive' regime that wants to force us to not smoke, to not eat salt, to not eat sugar, to not eat meat, to not burn oil, to not.....

Most of these conservative religious fanatics hate science and view it as one of their great adversaries. They want to be able to infiltrate the science class room so that they can try to undermine everything that it stands for. The scientific method is the opposite of what they view as being the best way to understand the world and reality.

about forcing people to accept your religious world view.

The law before this bill forced teachers to present the atheist world view.
The US govt has established the atheism IS a religion.

They want to be able to infiltrate the science class room so that they can try to undermine everything that it stands for.

Sounds just like what socialists are doing to attack Christians, the US Constitution, free markets, and promote dogmatic 'science' such as AGW, forcing students to watch AlGore's propaganda.

"the Reformation paved the way for a free society, where the government would not dictate the beliefs of the people. The Martin Luther Bible helped make that happen by putting the Scriptures in the hands of the people of Europe."
http://www.christ...ble.html

The theocracy of early Massachusetts required parents to teach their children to read so they could read the Bible for themselves.
Harvard was established to provide the best educate for religious leaders.

"God did it" or "Nature did it".

The naturalists have established themselves as the required religion in schools. In America, a state religion is anathema, so it is only to be expected that efforts would be made to allow the expression of other religions in school.

The first amendment to the constitution was created to prevent these very arguments by telling the government to leave these issues alone, but our courts have essentially negated that amendment and established a state religion.

Any laws which tend to restore the first amendment right of free expression and religious freedom are good laws.

ncreasing evidence that it does not explain the universe.

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

"About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation."
http://www.umich....bang.htm

Which was published first?

Which one tells you absolutely nothing?

The first amendment to the constitution was created to prevent these very arguments by telling the government to leave these issues alone, but our courts have essentially negated that amendment and established a state religion.

The lack of religion is not a religion. Conflating science with religion is stupidity.

What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation."
http://www.umich....bang.htm

Which was published first?

Which one is right? Which one actually explains something? Which one is based on evidence? Which one is made up?

Harvard was established to provide the best educate for religious leaders.

Again, everyone at the time who expected to participate in society was required to be religious, which you know. Higher learning was able to be established due to the waning power of the church. Higher learning was meant to replace religious superstition with reason. And it has.

Maybe I don't know the ID hypothesis that well, but all of this seems pretty dang simple to me. ID has no specific, direct evidence that biology is being affected by forces outside our current understanding of reality. Therefore, it is hypothesis, not theory, and therefore has no more science to it than any other hypothesis we could ever imagine. Therefore, it should not be taught in science class and should not compared to evolution in front of impressionable children.

This debate is only appropriate in college-level philosophy class, probably when it's time to study Popper.

Am I missing something?

it is hypothesis, not theory, and therefore has no more science to it than any other hypothesis we could ever imagine.

Maybe this is the fundamental failure of science education in the US.
Science is a process, not a collection of data. It is taught by poorly educated teachers as a collection of unquestionable facts.
I agree that some level of nomenclature in needed in any subject area, but the fundamental process of science begins with observations, hypotheses, experiments and maybe a theory. This is a natural process we all experience and somewhere in the 'education' process, it is killed by indoctrination.
How are biology teachers supposed to answer how did life begin? This is a simple question young and old students ask, but biology does not have an answer. Maybe someday they will, but how readily do they acknowledge their ignorance?
It is not often we hear from scientists "We don't know."
Just read the headlines in phyorg. All imply some level of 'knowing', not uncertainty

It is not often we hear from scientists "We don't know."
Just read the headlines in phyorg. All imply some level of 'knowing', not uncertainty

You don't hear it because your head is in your ass. Scientists often do, and will never hesitate to say "we don't know." I don't know where you get this crap. The writers for phsyorg aren't scientists, however why preface every article headline with "We don't know for sure, but..." Your posts are asinine.

Scientists often do, and will never hesitate to say "we don't know."

When and where?
If they have, few are listening and few bother to correct those who report on their work in 'popular' press like this.

... but the fundamental process of science begins with observations, hypotheses, experiments and maybe a theory.

...and HS children are NOT scientists. Comparing ID (hypothesis) to evolution (mature theory) is the job of Scientists, and is NOT appropriate for general HS students. We should be helping them to UNDERSTAND Theories, and NOT ask them to perform peer review of immature Hypotheses.

We should be helping them to UNDERSTAND Theories,

Why?
Afraid to teach people to think for themselves?
It is well documented the current method of teaching science is failing.
Don't you think students will better understand theories if they learn how to create their own?

HS children are NOT scientists

Who says, you?

Don't you think students will better understand theories if they learn how to create their own?

You don't create a theory, you create a hypothesis... the theory either follows the hypothesis or does not.

I wonder if you would better understand theories if you paid attention in high school.

HS children are NOT scientists

Who says, you?

By definition, high school students are high school students...

I wonder if you would better understand theories if you paid attention in high school.

Paid attention to whom?
Haven't you noticed that US schools fail to teach science or math well?
And one reason a law like the one in TN was passed is because theories are sold as absolute facts.
Apparently those who teach science do not teach what a theory is well.

And who has been in charge of the US school system for decades? 'Progressives', unionized teachers and university education departments.

The scientific theory of evolution is a fact in every rational meaning of the word 'fact'. But, ya know, you go ahead and keep playing word games. See how far that gets ya. I'll keep reading how understanding evolution has enabled more and more actual progress.

"The new scientific method, as talked about in the Wired article, could look like this: scan the data, look for patterns, draw conclusions, find truth. No more would a scientist have a sudden thought and seek to prove it. Instead, "regular" people would contribute data that, when aggregated, would reveal the secrets of science. "
http://www.eetime...-method-
I think this is the way the process has really worked, for thousands of years.
People observe, consciously and unconsciously, collecting data, looking for patterns...
I don't think any scientists just had a 'sudden thought' without some prior observations, (conscious or unconscious), proposed a hypothesis and proceeded down the path of the defined scientific method.

The scientific theory of evolution is a fact in every rational meaning of the word 'fact'. But, ya know, you go ahead and keep playing word games. See how far that gets ya. I'll keep reading how understanding evolution has enabled more and more actual progress.

If words don't have well defined meanings in science, then why bother with words?
Shouldn't science be precise in its terminology and definitions?
BTW, what precisely do you mean by "scientific theory of evolution"?
And if the theory is a fact, no one should be working in the field, all the facts are known.

Sorry, there isn't enough time in the Universe to teach you these things. The way you phrase your questions implies such a deep ignorance I honestly don't even know where to begin. As a matter of fact, this is the reason that I STILL don't know if you are Really this ignorant or just being a troll.

Also, you are the same guy who claims complexity and nuance is something not to be considered in economics, so I have no hope that any explanation I give would make you or the world any better.

Sorry, there isn't enough time in the Universe to teach you these things.

This must explain the sorry state of STEM in the US. No one know how to teach.

"Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. But theories only explain the facts; they are not the facts themselves."
http://chem.tufts...eory.htm
From the same source:
"In any language, usage determines the meaning of a word."
One would have thought that there would be an ISO or NIST based definition of the term instead of 'usage' and 'peer' review.
No wonder science has degraded over the years, few standards.

HA! Mongo thinks he deserves to be taught by me; a total stranger. Your sense of entitlement is ironically staggering.

And if the theory is a fact, no one should be working in the field, all the facts are known.

A theory is not a fact, a theory is composed of many facts. A theory is an overarching idea that is best supported by the physical evidence. A theory must be testable, it must have predictive power, and it must be falsifiable. Theories are NEVER considered facts, for good reason, to prevent dogma. The "work" being done is to settle TINY unknown details of the theory that do not themselves compromise the overall theory in any way.

This would not be an issue if the state did not control the education system.
But, the 'progressives' need to control education to engineer the 'perfect' society.
But when the 'progressives' loose the majority, and another agenda replaces theirs, we see the results here.
If you 'progressives' really wanted to educate, you would demand the end of state funded education. If you can't bring yourself to that, then follow the example of Sweden and provide students with vouchers so parents can choose the best school.
But then the 'progressives' loose control, don't they?
What is more important to the 'progressive' results or control? So far, the answer is control.

If you 'progressives' really wanted to educate, you would demand the end of state funded education.

Excellent observation. If we really wanted to restore America's education system to the excellence it once had, we could simply get the federal government out of the education system.

If you 'progressives' really wanted to educate, you would demand the end of state funded education.

Excellent observation. If we really wanted to restore America's education system to the excellence it once had, we could simply get the federal government out of the education system.

Another motive for keeping govt controlled schools is property values. A town that controls the school and maintains a good reputation increases the property values in that town. Not very egalitarian. With no district lines based upon city, county, people can choose where to live, not based upon the local school district. Other factors would then come into play on housing values.
If charters or vouchers existed, the city of Niagara, NY would not have been motivated to force Hooker Chemical to sell Love Canal to them for a $1 to build a school.

Since you social darwinists can't argue that ID is science, you....once again....revert to political philosophy. You have no credibility in reason and your misology makes me sick.

Since you social darwinists can't argue that ID is science, you....once again....revert to political philosophy. You have no credibility in reason and your misology makes me sick.

It is interesting that the evolutionists don't seem to worry too much about killing off the next stage in human evolution. If, as they say, evolution is a continuous process then all life is one more step on the path. But the 'progressives' support killing babies, especially those that are 'deformed', which could be an evolutionary adaptation. They want to limit the number of people on the planet. Fewer people means fewer opportunities to observe human evolution.
'Progressive' evolutionists, by their actions, don't seem to want humans to evolve further.

Sorry, there isn't enough time in the Universe to teach you these things. The way you phrase your questions implies such a deep ignorance I honestly don't even know where to begin. As a matter of fact, this is the reason that I STILL don't know if you are Really this ignorant or just being a troll.

...And so we can begin to appreciate the extreme difficulty of educating religionists, who are already well educated to the fact that anything you have to teach them is evil. Like these guys:

"Boko Haram, translates as "Western education is sacrilege""
http://en.wikiped...ko_Haram

-And we can also appreciate why religion-based cultures often need to be destroyed as they cannot be expected to evolve along with the rest of the world. Because they are DESIGNED to destroy, and will destroy, by propagation or by the rifle as the good islamist said:
http://www.youtub...pp_video

cont

But the 'progressives' support killing babies, especially those that are 'deformed'

Religionists are responsible for the necessity of abortion because they are so intent upon outreproducing the other religions which are all doing the same thing.

Western populations are now growing in concert with the carrying capacity of the regions in which they live. But they are being inundated by the overflow from exploding religionist cultures.

And so we are left with the only solution to stem overpopulation; abortion. ONE BILLION ABORTIONS within the last 100 years. And still the world is critically unstable as religionist cultures hemorrhage and spread their poison worldwide.

Ryggy and his brethren would pray to their god for a solution, but the answer is always 'If everyone believed as you do there would BE no problem'. But the only way to make this happen is by propagation or by the rifle, as the good books all inform.

Evil is as evil DOES. Religion is evil in the very worst of ways.

There is also no contradiction of conservation of energy because the total energy of the universe is 0. Was 0 before the big bang and remains 0 13.7 B years afterwards.

God is an abortionist. Did you know that over half of all FERTILIZED eggs don't attach to the walls of the uterus and are flushed out during a woman's normal period?

Which means that any sexually active woman (even married women) who have had multiple periods are by a conservative's definition a serial killer.

If it's good enough for god, it's good enough for me.

I kill millions of babies every day.

Look at this numbnuts
http://www.youtub...e=fvwrel

-A muslim shows him how xian doctrine is bogus and how the bible is bogus and so he accepts allah. I wonder how hard it will be now to show him these same things about islam? Apostasy is a different matter now isnt it numbnuts?

Theyre all false. The only solution is to avoid them ALL.

half of all FERTILIZED eggs don't attach to the walls of the uterus and are flushed out during a woman's normal period?

To the 'progressive' evolutionist, this is natural selection at work. Nature made the choice.
Killing babies is a choice man makes. Man decides to take the place of nature, to play at being God.
Is that why so many want to kill babies? It makes them feel like a god?

Killing babies is a choice man makes. Man decides to take the place of nature, to play at being God.

Man also decides to make babies for the sole purpose of dying on the battlefield and in the streets in support of his god. Man in this case also perverts nature.

Is that why so many want to kill babies? It makes them feel like a god?

Men wrote books which tell god-believers to martyr themselves on the battlefield and in the streets in support of their god. Did that make these men feel godlike? Certainly.

Killing babies is a choice man makes. Man decides to take the place of nature, to play at being God.

I thought you revered property rights. What is a greater property right than controlling one's own body? Instead you advocate tyranny to make women do your bidding, troll.

Killing babies is a choice man makes. Man decides to take the place of nature, to play at being God.

I thought you revered property rights. What is a greater property right than controlling one's own body? Instead you advocate tyranny to make women do your bidding, troll.

Humans do not reproduce asexually. The baby is a unique human being with genetics different than the mother.
Killing the baby is a violation his inherent right to life.
I guess this is one reason 'progressives' are opposed to inherent rights.

@ryggesogn2 Killing the baby is a violation his inherent right to life.
I guess this is one reason 'progressives' are opposed to inherent rights.

What "baby"? There's just a cell cluster with salamander eyes. Why don't you worry about the rights of dogs, cats and cattle? Or the mother, for that matter? After all, she has a parasite growing in her body. What ever happened to your revered property rights? It doesn't apply to women anymore? Just cell clusters the body often spontaneously aborts? Aren't you a hypocrite saying that women are not worthy of property rights, while robber barons should hoard resources the point of stagnation?

After all, she has a parasite growing in her body.

Like your fellow socialists, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim,... you must dehumanize before murdering.

Following your parasite thread, why aren't children, welfare recipients, invalids, mentally ill, the aged, etc. considered parasites, too?

Following your parasite thread, why aren't children, welfare recipients, invalids, mentally ill, the aged, etc. considered parasites, too?

Well they are to you, because they don't have lots and lots of money.

Following your [kochevnik's] parasite thread, why aren't children, welfare recipients, invalids, mentally ill, the aged, etc. considered parasites, too?

Actually, ryggesogn2, to the socialist, they are all parasites on society. That is why they hate them and seek their destruction.

Like your fellow socialists, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim,... you must dehumanize before murdering.

-As well as religionists like hitler, the Japanese emperor, the grand inquisitor, who only bred them for battle. No difference remember? Plus we determined that Marx was a religionist who got his mandate from god as well.

Remember?

Following your parasite thread, why aren't children, welfare recipients, invalids, mentally ill, the aged, etc. considered parasites, too?

Social parasites are people of no value. Like unbelievers, pagans, heretics, apostates, etc. At least believers make good martyrs yes?

Following your [kochevnik's] parasite thread, why aren't children, welfare recipients, invalids, mentally ill, the aged, etc. considered parasites, too?

Actually, ryggesogn2, to the socialist, they are all parasites on society. That is why they hate them and seek their destruction.

Yes, it is the socialists who support killing the aged, but they love welfare recipients as they provide the power base for the socialists, until they reach the utopian level of the DPRK and then all they need is a vicious army. They don't need to worry about elections.

Yes, it is the socialists who support killing the aged, but they love welfare recipients as they provide the power base for the socialists, until they reach the utopian level of the DPRK and then all they need is a vicious army. They don't need to worry about elections.

The aged and the infirm are among the first to suffer and starve in religionist cultures which are forcing overpopulation. 'Warfare of the cradle' is what Teddy Roosevelt called it.

The people are made to suffer, and then their books and their clerics tell them that this is the fault of the heathens next door. They are told that this enemy must be either converted or killed. And since their god never does things for himself, it is up to the people to do the killing and the converting.

Religion thrives on suffering. It could not exist otherwise.

Warfare of the cradle' is what Teddy Roosevelt called it.

He was a 'progressive'.

Religion thrives on suffering. It could not exist otherwise.

You sound like Ayn Rand.

Warfare of the cradle' is what Teddy Roosevelt called it.

He was a 'progressive'.

Religion thrives on suffering. It could not exist otherwise.

You sound like Ayn Rand.

Your perceptions are tainted. Teddy was only stating the obvious. And so am I.

LOL the most socialist nation is Europe also reports the highest level of happiness: Norway.

"Education is the new Republican enemy. No more free thinking and empirical evidence, just the Bible, rumour and Fox News. Not content with merely waging war on women, Republicans are targeting another enemy of conservatism: education. New Hampshire state Republican Jerry Bergevin recently railed against science and the atheist eggheads who call themselves teachers: 'I want the full portrait of evolution and the people who came up with the ideas to be presented. It's a world view and it's godless.'" http://www.guardi...-schools

"Education is the new Republican enemy. No more free thinking and empirical evidence, just the Bible, rumour and Fox News. Not content with merely waging war on women, Republicans are targeting another enemy of conservatism: education. New Hampshire state Republican Jerry Bergevin recently railed against science and the atheist eggheads who call themselves teachers: 'I want the full portrait of evolution and the people who came up with the ideas to be presented. It's a world view and it's godless.'" http://www.guardi...-schools

Who is opposed to charter schools and vouchers in the US?
'Progressive' teachers and their unions that keep funding democrat political campaigns.

LOL the most socialist nation is Europe also reports the highest level of happiness: Norway.

Because they can stay drunk most of the time.
But 'happy' is just bit too much with Jante' Law running in the background.
It's more like they are 'happy' because it is difficult for anyone to work more, to earn more than anyone else.
They are resigned to mediocrity.
Better to have never tried at all than to try and fail, or worse, try and be very successful and earn the envy and jealousy of your 'friends' and neighbors.
And success cannot be hidden. All income tax records in Norway are public record and on-line so you can see everyone's salary and profits.
I'm glad my ancestors emigrated from Norway.

LOL the most socialist nation is Europe also reports the highest level of happiness: Norway.

For how long?
"Many Danes had to pinch themselves a month ago when their new prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who heads a coalition of leftist parties, launched a strategy document called Denmark 2032. This addressed frankly the need for Denmark to define some tough spending priorities. Its underlying presumption was that the universal welfare state with its generous entitlements would not be able to survive in its current form. "
http://www.bloomb...ate.html

Under Soviet rule in my home country, the state "religion" was the religion of Communism. Many people now deny this, but it is true. Everyone was expected to bow down to authority of the state. Children were taught songs that glorified the Communist system of government and its leaders, and to inform on those who did not and who refused to submit to those in authority, no matter how unfair they were treated. I remember it well as if it were yesterday. My parents and their parents were spied on and if they ever mentioned that they were of the Russian Orthodox religion, I cannot imagine what would have happened to them. My parents were required to work and I was reared by my mother's parents who were elderly. It was they who taught me about God and Jesus and they warned me not to speak of such things to my friends or anyone else. I loved them so I kept quiet about it. They were religious at home. There was no such things as going to the priest for us, or to church.

In retrospect, I think that it would have been nice to learn both evolution and creationism in school and to be able to make a choice. But we were not allowed a choice, only that glorious Communism was the best ideology and that Capitalism and the western countries were our enemies.
And now that my country has embraced some Capitalistic business ventures, but rejected the Western values to much degree, I must wonder if it should have been more liberal in so many ways under Communism, instead of the strict and unrelenting hammering of the psyche of children, teens and young adults to keep their loyalty to the state and our leaders. We had no choice or very little. Many people were religious, but kept very quiet about it. I think that the ACLU believes in no choices in public schools, and longs for Socialism for the children and to avoid dialogue and discussion on merits. I do not understand the fear and dread if the creationism are taught along with evolution.

There was no such things as going to the priest for us, or to church.

With good reason. The majority of us were and are not religious. Teaching fairy tales as fact will not make Russia a better place.

Who is opposed to charter schools and vouchers in the US? 'Progressive' teachers and their unions that keep funding democrat political campaigns.

Charter schools like University of Phoenix and Devry, which accentuate grabbing the cash then putting on a slide show or pushing the 'play' button on a VCR?

Charter schools like University of Phoenix and Devry,

Better look up charter schools:
http://www.kippin...-school/

Heard this not too long ago:
"There are times when you glance at the leftist Daily Kos blog and wonder if they're being sabotaged from the inside. Case in point: a blog titled "The fetus is a parasite."

Read more: http://newsbuster...se4gXw6k
"
Of course any woman who really feels this can have herself spayed and the responsible 'progressive' would do the same for any parasite daughter they are unfortunate enough to birth.
Ever hear of the Shakers?
Let's hope these 'progressives' keep removing themselves from the gene pool.