"The world, after all our science and sciences, is still a miracle: wonderful, inscrutable, magical and more, to whosever will think it." -Thomas Carlyle<quoted text>
No debate needed for the logical:
Evolution = science (can be proven or disproven)
Creation = faith-based (cannot be proven or disproven)
The fact that evolution CAN be proven wrong (or right) is EXACTLY what makes it SCIENCE.
Creation (complex living animals from nothing) cannot be proven (or disproven) therefore it is NOT SCIENCE.
There are 31999 comments on the Dayton Daily News story from Feb 5, 2008, titled Our recommendation: Springboro voters should say 'yes' the first time to school levies. In it, Dayton Daily News reports that:
Recommended local sites More... UD sports info, pictures and discussions Are you a UD sports fan? Whether you like basketball, volleyball, soccer, men's or women's teams -- Doesn't matter -- this site is for ... via Dayton Daily News
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Dayton Daily News.
#30341 Feb 4, 2014
#30342 Feb 4, 2014
"This world, after all our science and sciences, is still a miracle: wonderful, inscrutable, magical and more, to whosoever will think it." - Thomas Carlyle
#30343 Feb 4, 2014
There is a BIG difference between evolution and "origin of the universe". "origin of the universe" (ie. who created the big bang) is also theology NOT SCIENCE.
It is not possible to debate the "origin of the universe". What would be the two sides? Aliens created us vs. "a creator" creating us? Both would be the same thing. I'm more interested in keeping my local priest employed by keeping religous theology out of the schools and into the church where it belongs. There is just as much proof that god made the earth as there is any number of other creators (scientology, budda, etc.). It is a personal belief. One that cannot be steered or diverted from just by someone else's word.
I hold with the billion others (plus the Vatican) that God created evolution. I can't for the life of me understand why that is so hard to accept. Unless you don't think God is powerful enough to pull that off.
#30344 Feb 4, 2014
Agreed and using evolution to create the life and varied species on this planet is even more wonderful. Glad God thought to do it that way.....
#30345 Feb 4, 2014
If you've never seen an unhappy horse, you've not spent ANY time around them. You do know how they make Bulls unhappy in order to get them ready to be ridden in a rodeo right? Pretty sure that when they do the to the bull the bull is NOT HAPPY.
"Anybody who can assert that birds and horses are not unhappy and never try to impress simply hasn’t been paying attention. Both have enough sense of self that they have no trouble being unhappy (most often because they are being mistreated by humans) or worrying what others think of them. Moreover,they are in no way shy about revealing their feelings. It speaks volumes – if not flashdrives full of ASCII text – that Carnegie never noticed, and, this blindness alone disqualifies him from making any general statements about existence. I would sooner trust someone who had never noticed gravity, or was unable to judge an oncoming car’s speed well enough to cross the road safely.
Carnegie further reveals the shallowness of his own perceptions (or perhaps how sheltered a life he lived) in his implication that all unhappiness stems from the wish to impress. Hunger, poverty, violence, envy, unrequited love – you can’t begin to list all the causes of unhappiness without sounding banal yourself. But the point is: how could he have missed the falseness in what he said? Did he simply not care about the truth of what he said, so long as it sounded clever? Or was he so obsessed himself with impressing others that he was trying to elevate his own personality to the status of a universal truth? Either way, he reveals himself as an untrustworthy guide to any part of life, and unfit to dispense advice of any kind." - http://brucebyfield.com/2010/11/16/dale-carne...
#30346 Feb 4, 2014
Judge berates Clearcreek Twp. officials for secret meetings
Resident sues trustees for preplanned talks behind closed doors
A Warren County judge on Friday lambasted Clearcreek Township officials for holding what could be viewed as illegal secret meetings.
“Frankly, I’m going to warn you right now: Don’t operate this way any longer,” Common Pleas Court Judge James Flannery told township officials.“You brought on a litigation that was totally unnecessary.”
Testimony wrapped up Friday in the two-day trial in which township officials are accused of violating the Ohio Open Meetings Act by holding prearranged, informal meetings in Administrator Dennis Pickett’s office a half-hour before the public session to discuss agenda items and other matters.
The law requires that public officials take official action and conduct all “deliberations upon official business” only in open meetings unless the subject matter is specifically exempt by law. It defines meetings as any prearranged discussion of public business that includes a quorum of the public body
At issue in this case is whether discussions held between a majority of the three-member board during the gatherings qualify as deliberations.
“The issue is, did they do it? And it sounds like they did it. Now I need to know, what are they doing behind closed doors?” Flannery said.
He also cautioned the township’s administrator:“If you want to talk to any of (the trustees) individually, don’t involve this court. Talk to any of them about any topic you want to talk about. You get two of them in the same room, though, you have problems.”
Resident Jack Chrisman sued the township and trustees in 2011, saying those “pre-meeting meetings” violate state law because public business was being discussed by a majority of the three-member board.
The public was not invited, nor did trustees give notice of the meetings or file minutes of what was discussed, his suit alleges
Flannery initially tossed out the case at the request of the township, saying there was no evidence the trustees were conducting formal deliberations at the meetings.
Chrisman appealed the case and won. Judge Robert Ringland of the Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals wrote that Flannery improperly dismissed the case because there were too many unanswered questions about the meetings.
John D. Smith, an attorney representing the township, argued that while agenda items may have been discussed at the open-door meetings, the unscheduled gatherings were merely “fact-finding” sessions and no deliberation took place
Flannery ordered both sides to submit their closing arguments by Feb. 14, after which he will issue his ruling.
#30347 Feb 4, 2014
It's a flagrant violation of long established rules of scientific method to make assumptions that "God created evolution" on planet Earth, or for that matter, anywhere else in the universe. I believe Nye might say you're conveniently injecting "God" as a lazy man's means to answering the eons-old question about the origin of life and the universe.
My thoughts..... If science was to someday unravel the semysteries...what then? Will we have no choice but to worship science?
#30348 Feb 4, 2014
Worth Repeating, Now that You Know......
#30349 Feb 4, 2014
I am a believer in God, for sure, so I wish HAM would have stuck to science, both natural and historical.(I'm convinced that I'm not the only person who believes in creationism who's not a big supporter of Ham) His opening arguments were more solid but he ended up using the debate as a forum for ministering rather than sticking with a point/counterpoint approach. I believe he turned people off to Christ and he backfired when he began to use the debate to evangelize. I am convinced that if he truly wanted to use the debate to win over people to creationism he should have met the opponent(s) where they were. My belief is that if we want to lead people to Christ, we need to meet them where they are. If they are scientists, we appeal to them through science. Like the Apostle Paul who claimed to help people to come to know Christ by becoming "all things to all people", I believe Ham would have been more compelling if he would convincingly and intelligently appealed to the SCIENCE of his arguments. He would have maintained credibility and listening ears. As Nye admitted several times, there are several mysteries that can't yet be explained by science. He admitted that he didn't have all then answers but stood strong on what he did know. That was enough of a door for Ham. As well, it became evident that there are so many phenomena that scientists can't yet explain and none of us, scientists or not, may ever know the answers to in our lifetime. Billions of stars, the bend of light, inconsistent dating systems, etc. Bill's whole premise was keeping our minds open to the excitement of exploring the universe and learning more about the unexplored wonders of the world we live in. Why couldn't a Christian like Ham use that as another door to appeal to the naysayers by agreeing with Nye on that point and going with it instead of keeping himself within a narrow, dogmatic box and refusing to leave it? After all, this universe is truly mind-blowing and amazing and I believe God created it all. How amazing is that? It's beyond my comprehension but that's why God is God and I'm not, either is Ham. But I am for certain this (the existence of organic and inorganic matter, let alone the existence of a conscience, that unseen voice that speaks to us, often making an emotional appeal) didn't just happen by accident. I have no definite proof, but neither does Nye or any other believer in the Big Bang. The truth is, we don't have all the answers, both creationists and evolutionists, and the reason creationists live by "faith" is for that exact reason, we have no definite proof. Faith is PERSONAL but science must maintain objectivity. Ham lost objectivity the more he spoke. As a result, Ham's reference to the Bible meant nothing to those who don't believe in the Bible or to those who may not believe in the Christian version of creationism. Nye brought up other religions of the world that don't share the same views of creationism but Ham didn't make a respectable acknowledgement of his point. Again, his dogmatism came through. As a result, his lack of open-mindedness and objectivity led to him losing an audience who may have otherwise been willing to consider valid science-based counterpoints he presented. He knows science well enough to use it to create a defense. Why would he stray away from it? Once he began referring to the Bible, he lost any potential consideration an evolutionist would have given to hearing him out......To his credit, I'm sure Ham was was doing what he felt God wanted him to do. There were undoubtedly thousands of people praying for him and there's a good chance that I'm way off base in my belief about the approach he should have taken. If so, I trust God will open my eyes to an approach more pleasing to Him in order to carry about the great commission, Matthew 28:
#30350 Feb 5, 2014
I noticed the same thing. Interesting that Nye got more into asking questions (that were not truly answered) and Ham kept thumping the Bible louder and louder. In the end it was what I expected. One side sounding more "educated" and "scientific" while the other sounded "preachy" and "pushing faith". Can you imagine what would happen in our schools? The debate did nothing but prove even more that faith-based beliefs cannot hold up to science and have NO PLACE in ANY school system. Leave it to the priests & preachers.
Nye keep making statements to task us to inquire and search for answers through science..
Ham keep pointing to a book, written thousands of years ago, translated no less than twice to finally end up in English and stated the answers were there.(Either up to literal or figurative interpretation, depending on what HE wanted to take literally or figuratively).
I also find it interesting that on the site you could buy dvd's or downloads of the debate. Nye's website has it up for free.
#30351 Feb 5, 2014
I also find it interesting that on the site you could buy dvd's or downloads of the debate. Nye's website has it up for free.
I also find it interesting that Nye kept addressing the "Taxpayers and Voters" appearing (to me) to be preaching FEAR in loss of knowledge in our schools; if critical thinking skills were applied by students in the classrooms discussing both sides of all issues, including evolution/creationism.
Get Real -- Nothing is free in America -- including Nye's website.
Guess WHO is footing the bill?
#30352 Feb 5, 2014
Q) What's the motive behind this new board majority Malone Stuckey and Anderson leveraging Todd Petrey to hire an expensive outside facilitator to conduct about 30 face-to-face meetings per year between district staff and the community?
A) Malone Stuckey and Anderson are for conducting 30 very carefully crafted brainwashing sessions so that they can attempt to suck the heart of this community away from four years of Children First. The purpose of this facilitator is to lead citizens of this district blindly toward MSA's prime directive. That prime directive is creating more less-than useful district jobs so that the SEA will become stronger, as well as doing everything necessary, including encouaging unneccessary levies, in order to fill SEA Members Back Pockets First.
Since: Dec 09
#30353 Feb 5, 2014
Hear that sucking sound ? IT'S the new school board majority starting to squander away the school surplus with their agenda. Don't blame me, I voted for Bitner/Vaughn.
#30354 Feb 5, 2014
heard around town that sucking sound was just old man Malone trying to catch his breath after doing the limbo dance with the SEA for SURE ...... lol...... how low can he go?
#30355 Feb 6, 2014
Lowest level of complexity 8th grade Ohio Achievement Assessment (OAA) Math test question.
If a facilitator is to have 30 meetings at taxpayer expense and be paid the princely sum of $12,000, how much would that facilitator be making per meeting?
D) none of the above
C)$400 per meeting to spread the word that 32% on an OAA 8th grade math test really is PROFICIENT.
I wonder how much time you get at a meeting for $400?
As a nod towards equal time for opposing viewpoints, will the taxpayers also be affording the time for necessary prepared rebuttal by the Children's First group at each of these publicly funded coffee klatches?
#30356 Feb 6, 2014
I know how we as a district can save this $12,000 in question. Make it mandatory that parents must attend once-a-year parent-teacher conferences in all grade levels.
Our Springboro school board busom-buddy lifelong-pal majority Malone Stuckey & Anderson, are collectively being influenced heavily by teacher's union interests. Since before they were sworn in. freely wasting district tax dollars doesn't seem to be much of a problem for MSA. Hey! Maybe that's their mission plan! Throw $5 grand of public tax dollars away here. Throw another $12 grand of public tax dollars away threre. Inevitably, largely as a result of their own irresponsible spending practices, this new board will be forced to vote to place a school levy on the ballot. Oh! won't Babb Carlisle and Bindemann et al be ecstatic!
Why did these guys throw our tax dollars away for OSBA membership while the district already has free access to virtually every service OSBA has to offer? Oh! I know! This is because the 60 year old, highly corrupted Ohio School Board Association serves as a lobbying arm for the Ohio Education Association (OEA), the NEA, and of course locally the SEA. Of course, all three of these unions support Barack Obama's plan to socialize education, to take control of curriculum away from local control and to place all public school curriculum in all 50 states squarely in the hands of Washington DC bureaucrats who will care little or nothing about regional interests.
#30357 Feb 6, 2014
You can make it mandatory, but what do recourse do you possess in the event they fail to show up anyway?
I recall the catcalls and howls from the audience about investing $15,000 in a study involving charter school possibilities in Springboro. Where are those anti waste busters now?
The OSBA is the lobbying arm of the teachers union in Ohio, they lobby for the best interests of the union. If one takes the time to read their information, one will find very little about children and a great deal about what it takes to support unionized adults.
As a resource it generally produces more of the same, not earth shakers or movers, not reformers or visionaries, but status quo, union beholden individuals.
#30358 Feb 6, 2014
The penalty ought to be public embarrassment to not personally support your own childrens academic performance. In the local newspaper, publish names of each parent who fails to show up for parent-teacher conferences. These names should be placed adjacent to public notices of court notices and traffic offenses.
#30359 Feb 6, 2014
California, New York, Illinois. It’s no secret that liberal philosophies are running these states into bankruptcy. On the other hand, states like Wisconsin that have embraced conservatism are making an amazing turnaround.
Local school boards have traditionally been dominated by the liberal education establishment. Those policies have school districts constantly pleading for more money at both the state and local level. But now, after getting nowhere with the same ole, same ole approach towards education, some communities are giving conservatism a try. And, it’s working.
Liberals in education have told us that without more money there’s no way to offer the current level of service “to the children”. Their template for arm twisting taxpayers for more loot is to threaten important services for kids and parents: no busing, no new books, high class sizes, high fees, no field trips, and no athletic programs.
Communities across the state of Ohio and beyond are recognizing that the one cost control liberals in education never consider is the hyperbolic rate of increase on their union driven salaries and benefits that comprise 70-80 percent of your typical school budget. Citizens are stunned to learn that for years they’ve been coerced into passing levies “for the children” when the reality was more money was necessary to sustain the unsustainable increases in school employee compensation.
Now let’s pause for a moment. Conservatives believe in fair compensation. But what’s fair about a community average household income increasing at 1% per year, or declining in some cases, while school compensation increases at 6% per year? What’s fair about community members paying through the nose for their own medical insurance AND paying 80-90% of the freight for a Cadillac plan for their school employee counterparts?
The reality conservatives have brought to school boards is that by managing the cost of compensation the budget becomes manageable. Suddenly, there IS money for busing, books, technology, field trips, and more teachers. This doesn’t mean harming teachers and it certainly does not harm children – unless you see maintaining busing and books as something bad. To a conservative,“managing” does not mean “cutting”, it means balancing priorities within fiscal constraints.
The prime difference between the philosophies is that conservatives are willing to stand up on principle and not yield to the increasingly powerful unions. To conservatives, educational services for children are not something to be bargained way for excessively large pay increases and gi-normous insurance benefits for adults.
Of course, this doesn’t set well with the unions. They’re out organizing teachers and parents against conservative school board members labeling them as “extremists” and using their other 12 Rules for Radicals to wrestle back control and return to the status quo. They are quite good at making noise. When conservatives are managing your school board, the union is screaming.
Citizens, be alert. If you want fiscally responsibility, balanced priorities, and a “children-first” approach to managing school resources, then elect conservatives to your local school board. And by all means, stay clear of the philosophy that sent Detroit to bankruptcy.
#30360 Feb 7, 2014
That seems a bit draconian and also quixotic, in that fewer and fewer people subscribe to the Dayton Daily News and I suspect even fewer read the public notices.
In America, stupid is a choice and you can't make laws making stupidity a crime.
If you could our legislators would all be in jail.
Add your comments below
|The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10)||32 min||Jose||20,982|
|Anyone know Matt Morrow? (Oct '15)||Sun||Amazed||139|
|dennis schroll||Sun||old friend||2|
|Nathan Dunn (Aug '16)||Jul 22||kaitlyn hill||4|
|18-year-old Arrested After Baby Remains Found||Jul 21||We live in an ugl...||1|
|shannon cope (Mar '15)||Jul 21||Kitty Grabs Back||4|
|Mart Crowe (May '12)||Jul 17||Ky Gal||74|
Find what you want!
Search Springboro Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC