A push for creationism gains in Springboro

Aug 1, 2011 Full story: Dayton Daily News 650

The school board needs one more vote to OK it. Submitted Springboro Junior High School has been updated, with additional classrooms in the back and new offices and this main entrance in the front.

Full Story
LostForWords

Jefferson City, MO

#634 Oct 5, 2011
cpeter1313 wrote:
Most liberals are religious people; they just want to keep the government SECULAR.
Free speech allows you to voice your religious opinions, AND allows others to criticize those opinions.
<quoted text>
I would like to agree but these people who are stopped and many times sued for saying things says you are wrong. Also the confusion of religious vs spiritual or beliefs. Religion is organised, spiritual is individual but can be shared.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#635 Oct 5, 2011
LostForWords wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong, I have no need for faith, I believe, why, because I have seen enough proof, not blind faith in something I have not seen but in what I have seen but you have not. In the most part I have faith in what science has said and learned but I have not seen much of it, therefore I must have faith in it or question it.
You have the right to believe in whatever you are told and/or have proven by seeing for yourself. I call most of what you believe in as faith in as much as science has told you something which in the most part non of us have seen to prove for ourselves.
FAITH
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
BELIEF
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
You have seen proof! No, you have seen something that you claim is proof of God. There is a difference. No one has managed to apply any level of acceptable rigor to show that what you saw is actually proof, all they do is offer opinion. This makes it a matter of faith, no matter how much you wish to argue the point. I include scientists in that because many have said things like 'The more I learn to deeper appreciation I have for God.' Nice thought, but conjecture none-the-less.

There is no proof of God, only what you wish to see as proof. There have been thousands of Gods over thousands of years and you wish to believe you have it more correct than anyone else. Yea, right!

Science requires no proof. In fact in science the word 'proof' acually means 'test', as in 'proving grounds'. In science we do not prove things, we explain things based on the evidence. If the evidence supports the conclusions, then that is the explanation we use. You can call it proof, but it is very different than using the word to support your belief system.

The point you seem to be missing is that regardless of your belief system, science works. You don't even have to believe in it at all. You car runs using the same science that some Creationists claim is false. Your computer is using more science that Creationists say isn't real. The advances in medicine are amazing, and many of them are the direct result of studying evolution. You don't need to believe in it, it keeps working.

I know a firm Creationist who performs animal testing for medicines. He refuses to accept that the reason animal testing works is because of the evolutionary relationship we have with other animals. Fine, he doesn't want to believe it. He's allowed. But it still works regardless of his belief.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#636 Oct 5, 2011
LostForWords wrote:
<quoted text>
I have evidence, the only problem is I can not just show it to you without you being willing to do what it takes to see it.
In other words you have no evidence. If you did you shouldn't be showing it to me, you should be sharing it with the world. There are millions of believers who will be thrilled.

I have had many people make many claims to evidence, things like 'look at the world around you', or 'spontaneous remission of a dangerous disease', or 'flowers' and nonsense like that. Look at the world is evidence of the world. Spontaneous remission means there are things going on we do not yet understand, and flowers come from other flowers and if you go back further in the generational life of a particular flower you can trace an evolutionary pathwway -- probably not Natural Selection, but still evolutionary.

Your evidence is probably more of the same. It is not my willingness you need, but my gullibility.

Yes, you think I have a closed mind, you are wrong. An open-mind is one who when facing the evidence accepts it. A closed-mind is the opposite, one that when faced with the evidence ignores it. My contention is that you, nor any believer, has yet to present any credible evidence. The ball has been in your court for centuriesd and you simply refuse to play.
LostForWords

Jefferson City, MO

#637 Oct 5, 2011
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
You have seen proof! No, you have seen something that you claim is proof of God. There is a difference. No one has managed to apply any level of acceptable rigor to show that what you saw is actually proof, all they do is offer opinion. This makes it a matter of faith, no matter how much you wish to argue the point. I include scientists in that because many have said things like 'The more I learn to deeper appreciation I have for God.' Nice thought, but conjecture none-the-less.
There is no proof of God, only what you wish to see as proof. There have been thousands of Gods over thousands of years and you wish to believe you have it more correct than anyone else. Yea, right!
Science requires no proof. In fact in science the word 'proof' acually means 'test', as in 'proving grounds'. In science we do not prove things, we explain things based on the evidence. If the evidence supports the conclusions, then that is the explanation we use. You can call it proof, but it is very different than using the word to support your belief system.
The point you seem to be missing is that regardless of your belief system, science works. You don't even have to believe in it at all. You car runs using the same science that some Creationists claim is false. Your computer is using more science that Creationists say isn't real. The advances in medicine are amazing, and many of them are the direct result of studying evolution. You don't need to believe in it, it keeps working.
I know a firm Creationist who performs animal testing for medicines. He refuses to accept that the reason animal testing works is because of the evolutionary relationship we have with other animals. Fine, he doesn't want to believe it. He's allowed. But it still works regardless of his belief.
Where did I ever say I had it right over everybody else? I said, I have seen proof, I never said anything about a religion, as a matter of "fact" after listening to other beliefs which I do take that on faith, all religions and beliefs have it right to some degree from what I have seen and heard, as well as you atheists, you are no less than anyone else or no better.

We can argue till we are both blue in the face and that will still prove nothing unless the other one is willing to learn how to see the proof for themselves, no matter what the subject matter is, until then it is not accepted or accepted on faith.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#638 Oct 5, 2011
LostForWords wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I ever say I had it right over everybody else? I said, I have seen proof, I never said anything about a religion, as a matter of "fact" after listening to other beliefs which I do take that on faith, all religions and beliefs have it right to some degree from what I have seen and heard, as well as you atheists, you are no less than anyone else or no better.
We can argue till we are both blue in the face and that will still prove nothing unless the other one is willing to learn how to see the proof for themselves, no matter what the subject matter is, until then it is not accepted or accepted on faith.
I am not an atheist, stop making assumptions.

No, I won't be blue in the face. Evidence trumps a lack of evidence every time. Science requires no faith at all because it still works. It matters not if you agree or disagree, it still works.

My single issue, as evidenced by this particular Topix thread, is that your belief system, whether or not you want to call it a religion is immaterial, should not be taught in science class as if it were a science. When a school board member starts making noises about having her religious belief taught in that respect, she is wrong. Hopefully the folks in SPringboro will realize it when she stands for re-election -- just like certain school board members in Ohio, Pa, Ks, and Tx found out in recent years. Proclaiming your belief system might win you an election, but pushing it in science class appears to be a good way to be removed.

Your smokescreen of 'all it takes is a willingness' is just that a smokescreen. Others making comments of 'it's only fair to teach it' is just another one. Science, the same science that took us to the moon, keeps advancing medicine, built a world-wide communications system ...among other things, should be taught in science class as science. Belief systems do not belong there and any attempt to equate science with being a belief system is an error because, once again -- evidence trumps non-evidence, conjecture, opinion, and wishful thinking.
Crazy World

Texarkana, AR

#639 Oct 5, 2011
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not an atheist, stop making assumptions.
No, I won't be blue in the face. Evidence trumps a lack of evidence every time. Science requires no faith at all because it still works. It matters not if you agree or disagree, it still works.
My single issue, as evidenced by this particular Topix thread, is that your belief system, whether or not you want to call it a religion is immaterial, should not be taught in science class as if it were a science. When a school board member starts making noises about having her religious belief taught in that respect, she is wrong. Hopefully the folks in SPringboro will realize it when she stands for re-election -- just like certain school board members in Ohio, Pa, Ks, and Tx found out in recent years. Proclaiming your belief system might win you an election, but pushing it in science class appears to be a good way to be removed.
Your smokescreen of 'all it takes is a willingness' is just that a smokescreen. Others making comments of 'it's only fair to teach it' is just another one. Science, the same science that took us to the moon, keeps advancing medicine, built a world-wide communications system ...among other things, should be taught in science class as science. Belief systems do not belong there and any attempt to equate science with being a belief system is an error because, once again -- evidence trumps non-evidence, conjecture, opinion, and wishful thinking.
I agree with you. leave evolution out of the curriculum and teach nothing but science. now you're talking.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#640 Oct 6, 2011
Crazy World wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you. leave evolution out of the curriculum and teach nothing but science. now you're talking.
I think it needs to go a touch further as well. Creationists need to stop bring up religious-based alternatives AND need to stop trying to disguise religious-based alternatives to make them more palatable to science. Creationism and, it's little brother Intelligent Design, are religious-based alternatives to science. Proponents need to stop pushing for their inclusion and be honest for a change. If you don't think ID is religious, Google the 'Wedge Document' and read the real purpose behind ID.

Another activity theists need to stop is persecuting public school teachers and officials who are doing their job and teaching science. There are science teachers in this country that are so nervous about mentioning hot-button terms like 'evolution' and 'climate change' that they only cover the subject to the narrowest possible degree. There have been teachers harrassed, re-assigned, and even fired over it. It's one thing to fire a teacher for failure to perform, but whent he local environment makes it impossible for them to do their job ... that has to stop.(Chris Comer is one example) I think that would do wonders for science education.

The third thing has to do with teachers and their own belief systems, like the recently fired John Freshwater of Mt Vernon OH. He was fired for a number of reasons one being that he was teaching ID and Creationism and lying about science and evolution to the point teaachers in later grades had to re-teach subject to studeents. Like any professional a teacher is hired to teach, frequently a particular subject. Modifying that subject to assert their personal religious beliefs is wrong and they deserve to be fired because of it.

One person told me that I was holding teachers to a double standard. On the one hand I want them protected and on the other I want them fired. The difference to me is that I expect teachers to be protected when they are actually doing their job. I also expect teachers who are not doing their job, for whatever reason, to be fired. One of the reasons is when they let their personal relgious beliefs interfere with them doing their job. I mean would you hire a vegetarian butcher who refuses to cut meat? Or like Woods Hole Oceanographic who fired an evolutionary biologist who, after being hired, said he could not do most of the job because he didn't believe in evolution. That to me is a huge difference.

Again, I think these sort of things would greatly enhance science education in the country!
LostForWords

Jefferson City, MO

#641 Oct 6, 2011
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not an atheist, stop making assumptions.
No, I won't be blue in the face. Evidence trumps a lack of evidence every time. Science requires no faith at all because it still works. It matters not if you agree or disagree, it still works.
My single issue, as evidenced by this particular Topix thread, is that your belief system, whether or not you want to call it a religion is immaterial, should not be taught in science class as if it were a science. When a school board member starts making noises about having her religious belief taught in that respect, she is wrong. Hopefully the folks in SPringboro will realize it when she stands for re-election -- just like certain school board members in Ohio, Pa, Ks, and Tx found out in recent years. Proclaiming your belief system might win you an election, but pushing it in science class appears to be a good way to be removed.
Your smokescreen of 'all it takes is a willingness' is just that a smokescreen. Others making comments of 'it's only fair to teach it' is just another one. Science, the same science that took us to the moon, keeps advancing medicine, built a world-wide communications system ...among other things, should be taught in science class as science. Belief systems do not belong there and any attempt to equate science with being a belief system is an error because, once again -- evidence trumps non-evidence, conjecture, opinion, and wishful thinking.
I agree belief systems is not science and therefore evolution is not science and should also not be taught. Where I see the problem being in evidence is your mind is closed on the subject of belief systems having proof. There is much in written text which say there is proof, it's just not visible to the naked eye without special, let's call it training. Without training we can not see much of todays science, therefore to someone like myself and most of the population we take what we are being told on faith!

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#642 Oct 6, 2011
LostForWords wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree belief systems is not science and therefore evolution is not science and should also not be taught. Where I see the problem being in evidence is your mind is closed on the subject of belief systems having proof. There is much in written text which say there is proof, it's just not visible to the naked eye without special, let's call it training. Without training we can not see much of todays science, therefore to someone like myself and most of the population we take what we are being told on faith!
And therein lies your error. Evolution is not a belief system, it is a scientific theory and deserves a place at the science podium.
The principle difference between a belief system and a scientific theory is one is based on faith, the other on evidence. You have faith in your belief system -- good for you. No faith is required for a scientific theory because even if you do not believe in it, it still works. Deny it all you like, but it still works.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#643 Oct 6, 2011
Evolution is science, it is based on evidence and a codified set of precepts supported by that evidence. One does not need special training to see the evidence, just objectivity.

What you are describing is much closer to a cult mindset, where only the chosen can see things. That isn't proof of anything.

I don't take science on faith; if I have a question about how something works I do research and I may or may not agree with the premise. I don't just accept it.
LostForWords wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree belief systems is not science and therefore evolution is not science and should also not be taught. Where I see the problem being in evidence is your mind is closed on the subject of belief systems having proof. There is much in written text which say there is proof, it's just not visible to the naked eye without special, let's call it training. Without training we can not see much of todays science, therefore to someone like myself and most of the population we take what we are being told on faith!

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#644 Oct 6, 2011
Crazy World wrote:
<quoted text>
but you still never see a fossil of feathers turning into scales. to quote: In Eichstátt, Germany, in 1994 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny minority thought that it was actually one of the small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs].
There are also design similarities between reptiles, mammals and living birds too. Birds have a distinctive, specialized skeleton because, as one distinguished evolutionist who is also an ornithologist once said,‘Birds are formed to fly.’ So was Archaeopteryx
feathers are not just simply applied to the surface of the bird. Where they are attached to bone by ligaments, we see tiny ‘bumps’. So in Archaeopteryx, the primary and secondary wing feathers are attached to the ‘hand’ and ulna, respectively. And the feathers on the tail are actually minutely attached to each of the 20 vertebrae. There are also a lot of small feathers on the legs and body of this bird, and there is compelling evidence that the head was covered with feathers too. However, when you see pictures of Archaeopteryx or its imaginary ancestors, it’s quite common for artists to show a scaly head.
What about the wishbone?
Archaeopteryx has a robust wishbone [furcula]. Some recent fascinating studies using moving X-rays of birds as they fly show how the shoulder girdle has to be flexible to cope with the incredible forces of the power.
You need to broaden your view... Dinosaurs had quill knobs (Velociraptor, for example) and "wishbones".

The skeletal features of Archaeopteryx are clearly a mix of Dinosaur and Bird. Skull, jaw, hip, tail, feet...Dinosaurian.

Many feathered Dinosaurs have been found...so many that it's getting hard to tell the Dinos from the Birds.

You might try some more recent literature, too...

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#645 Oct 6, 2011
Crazy World wrote:
<quoted text>
...you're full of shi_t.
So you're just an obnoxious and childish individual whose opinion has no value.

My mistake... I though you were an adult desiring intelligent conversation; clearly you wouldn't recognize THAT if it bit you.

I have to get back to my teaching now...

You can carry on kid...

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#646 Oct 6, 2011
Crazy World wrote:
<quoted text>

...they date the fossil by the rock layers and the rock layers by the fossils...
Wrong... and only the ignorant make THAT claim.

But we've already established your credentials there.
Crazy World

Texarkana, AR

#647 Oct 9, 2011
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong... and only the ignorant make THAT claim.
But we've already established your credentials there.
and you live in an imaginary world. we've established that for sure. have you ever left your house?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#648 Oct 10, 2011
He pointed out a simple error on the poter's part--they do not just date rocks and fossils by association. That isn't imaginary; it's something that kids learned in school even back when I was in school over 40 years ago. Were you homeschooled?
Crazy World wrote:
<quoted text>
and you live in an imaginary world. we've established that for sure. have you ever left your house?

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#649 Oct 10, 2011
Crazy World wrote:
<quoted text>
and you live in an imaginary world. we've established that for sure. have you ever left your house?
30 years as a professional geologist, kid...

Back to grade school for you...
Crazy World

Texarkana, AR

#650 Oct 10, 2011
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
30 years as a professional geologist, kid...
Back to grade school for you...
SORRY, but that only tells me you are MORE indoctrinated than the average person is. you have become adapt in a reality that doesnt actually exist. you have become a professor of NOTHING. i know you guys have big egos and i will probably burst your bubble, but thats the truth. sorry. evolution is not only NO KNOWLEDGE, it is ANTI-KNOWLEDGE. you know a whole lot about nothing.
Crazy World

Texarkana, AR

#651 Oct 10, 2011
cpeter1313 wrote:
He pointed out a simple error on the poter's part--they do not just date rocks and fossils by association. That isn't imaginary; it's something that kids learned in school even back when I was in school over 40 years ago. Were you homeschooled?
<quoted text>
really? I have about 30 or 50, cant count all of them, articles of recent fossil finds printed in the news media that says the fossils were found in a certain rock layer and supposedly dated the same age as the rock layer, a theory which in itself, has yet to be proven. for nowhere on the face of the earth does this geological column exist.
Crazy World

Texarkana, AR

#652 Oct 10, 2011
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to broaden your view... Dinosaurs had quill knobs (Velociraptor, for example) and "wishbones".
The skeletal features of Archaeopteryx are clearly a mix of Dinosaur and Bird. Skull, jaw, hip, tail, feet...Dinosaurian.
Many feathered Dinosaurs have been found...so many that it's getting hard to tell the Dinos from the Birds.
You might try some more recent literature, too...
well, once again, flightless birds do not prove evolution. Feathers are unique to birds. Under a microscope, the intricate design consisting of barbicels, barbs, barbules and shafts can be seen. These are all interwoven to produce an airfoil unsurpassed in complexion of design. Also, did evolution provide the birds their oil glands for them to condition their feathers? no.

Consider: Bird's bones are thin and hollow for flight. Yet strength is required for flight, so inside the bird's bones are struts, like braces on airplane wings. Another marvel of birds is their muscular wings. They beat for hours, or even days, in flight generating much heat. Yet it has no sweat glands. A system of air sacs reach into almost every important part of the body, even to the hollow bones, and body heat is relieved by this circulation of air. At first the air goes to certain air sacs; which serve as bellows to push the air into the lungs. From the lungs the air goes into other air sacs, and these eventually expel it.

This means that there is a stream of fresh air constantly going through the lungs in one direction, much like water flowing through a sponge. The blood in the capillaries of the lungs is flowing in the opposite direction. It is this countercurrent between air and blood that makes the bird's respiratory system exceptional. Because of it, birds can breathe the thin air of high altitudes, flying at over 20,000 feet for days on end as they migrate for thousands of miles. In dinosaurs the lungs take in and give out air, like a bellows..

Could birds have migrated while developing these new features? no.(Evolution only works in the minds of the scientist.)
Crazy World

Texarkana, AR

#653 Oct 10, 2011
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it needs to go a touch further as well. Creationists need to stop bring up religious-based alternatives AND need to stop trying to disguise religious-based alternatives to make them more palatable to science. Creationism and, it's little brother Intelligent Design, are religious-based alternatives to science. Proponents need to stop pushing for their inclusion and be honest for a change. If you don't think ID is religious, Google the 'Wedge Document' and read the real purpose behind ID.
Another activity theists need to stop is persecuting public school teachers and officials who are doing their job and teaching science. There are science teachers in this country that are so nervous about mentioning hot-button terms like 'evolution' and 'climate change' that they only cover the subject to the narrowest possible degree. There have been teachers harrassed, re-assigned, and even fired over it. It's one thing to fire a teacher for failure to perform, but whent he local environment makes it impossible for them to do their job ... that has to stop.(Chris Comer is one example) I think that would do wonders for science education.
The third thing has to do with teachers and their own belief systems, like the recently fired John Freshwater of Mt Vernon OH. He was fired for a number of reasons one being that he was teaching ID and Creationism and lying about science and evolution to the point teaachers in later grades had to re-teach subject to studeents. Like any professional a teacher is hired to teach, frequently a particular subject. Modifying that subject to assert their personal religious beliefs is wrong and they deserve to be fired because of it.
One person told me that I was holding teachers to a double standard. On the one hand I want them protected and on the other I want them fired. The difference to me is that I expect teachers to be protected when they are actually doing their job. I also expect teachers who are not doing their job, for whatever reason, to be fired. One of the reasons is when they let their personal relgious beliefs interfere with them doing their job. I mean would you hire a vegetarian butcher who refuses to cut meat? Or like Woods Hole Oceanographic who fired an evolutionary biologist who, after being hired, said he could not do most of the job because he didn't believe in evolution. That to me is a huge difference.
Again, I think these sort of things would greatly enhance science education in the country!
In short... as long as they agree with your "interpretation" of the evidence, then they should be allowed to teach or work. Students should not be allowed to think critically of evolution. in fact to do so, would require them to be re-indoctrinated to conform to your beliefs. sounds like nazism to me. its a historical fact that to not believe in evolution in pre-war germany meant expulsion and termination especially from the infamous universities......... and to some...... death.

remember the Museums of Evolution: Professor Wolfram Seivers, Department of Anatomy, Germanys Finest University: Strassberg. Tried in Nuremberg and executed for creating museums of evolution where real humans were killed and stuffed for the purpose of "Academic Research".

actual film footage of the museum, document more than 30 years ago:

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tea Party Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who is the Tea Party in Oklahoma? (May '10) 3 hr Dee 762
Tea Partiers Are Right: Jeb Is a RINO Dec 19 Foster 6
Tea party leader arrested in Miss. Senate race ... Dec 17 Swedenforever 53
Tea Partiers on Eric Cantor's Wall Street Job: ... Dec 17 swedenforever 8
GOP group seizes on Landrieu's 'I did not vote ... Dec 6 Ace McMillan 1
Samuel L. Jackson echoes Morgan Freeman, says T... (Oct '11) Dec 4 swedenforever 34
Force Pres. Obama to reveal the US Sovereignty ... Dec 3 Dave F 1
More from around the web