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.

Read more
First Prev
of 33
Next Last

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#654 Oct 11, 2011
"Anti-knowledge"? Your world IS crazy. Here on earth, however, such a concept doesn't exist. Nor do I think you will be "bursting his bubble" since he has all the facts on his side.
Crazy World wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#655 Oct 11, 2011
Without seeing the articles,I can only assume they did not go into the methodology of testing, which is rather dry reading for the average person.

Radio-isotope dating was proven decades ago. I larned about it 40 years ago, in school. A CATHOLIC school, I might add. We used standard science texts, not religious ones.

As for those "non-existant" articles:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ben...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmenta...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#c...
Crazy World wrote:
<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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#656 Oct 11, 2011
You make a series of dogmatic statements but you can't make them stick. Why wouldn't flightless birds prove evolution? Birds ares till a separate species whether they take to the air or not. Since there were flying reptiles and walking reptiles, there certainly could be flying birds and walking birds. There are even flying mammals.

The complexity of feathers is a matter of opinion; both scales and hair are equally complex if you study their structure. Oil glands developed over time. Moreover, they do not exist in all birds--most tellingly, many flightless birds:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/474...

Birds developed skeletons more suitable for flight; you haven't told us WHY they could not have evolved. No birds fly for days; research into migratory activity show that even the best fliers COAST when they can. Not to mention the very act of flying may produce heat, but like volkswagens, they are constantly air-cooled as well. As a matter of fact, birds in flight have been found to actually freeze to death and fall to the ground.

Lung structures vary; that does not negate evolution. Since these are ADAPTATIONS to particular circumstances, they actually enforce evolutionary principles. You might as well say the african lungfish--a fish having both lungs and gills--is not the product of adaptation either.

Why couldn't birds migrate while adapting? Adaptation is generational; one generation could still migrate, stop, reproduce with mutations, and then migrate again. Birds don't migrate all year long. Some don't migrate at all.

You've got a lot of arguments but few facts; denial is not a scientific approach.
Crazy World wrote:
<quoted text>
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.)

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#657 Oct 11, 2011
Evolution is not a belief system. Whether you like it or not, it is based on sound scientific research and evidence.

You don't have to take science on faith; if you don't understand a scientific principle, you can do objective research for yourself, especially in this internet age. IF you choose not to do the research, fine, but you don't then get to deny that the science is accurate.
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!

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#658 Oct 11, 2011
Crazy World wrote:
<quoted text>
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =bmlrByuE-sAXX
No, I never said that. But when they interpret something differently, they need to be able to support their interpretation. That's the part that they fail to do.

For example a Paleontologist dates a fossil to 120 million years. A Creationist claim that it's only 4,000 years old. Are they really two different interpretations from the same data? Oh hell no.

The Paleontologist lays out all of the Radiometric data, and shows where the fossil fits into teh timeline of other fossil discoveries, the geological data,... in other words actual evidence backed up by multiple science disciplines.

What does the Creationist bring to the evidence table? Nothing! At best they drop a copy of the Bible.

Do you really think they are equivilent? Now if they brought actual evidence, then your comment might be correct. But actual verifiable evidence doesn't seem to be in their quiver.

Dr. Mark A. Chancey, chair of the Department of Religous Studies, said it quite well: "When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day." ( http://www.smudailycampus.com/opinion/religio... )

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#660 Oct 12, 2011
Crazy World wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Sayeth the ignorant...

Funny... you confuse "experience" with "indoctrination"!

"Indoctrination" is what YOU suffer from; I'm sure you ARE an expert on that subject.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#661 Oct 12, 2011
Crazy World wrote:
<quoted text>
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.)
Why would Birds migrate until they had such features? Logically, long-range migration developed after Birds were capable fliers; attempting to claim that migration disproves that Birds evolved from Dinosaurs is absurd.

Flightless Birds don't prove evolution... but feathered Dinosaurs sure point strongly in that direction! Feathers are NOT unique to Birds! You just call every feathered Dinosaur a "bird"!(I knew a guy JUST like you more than 30 years ago back at the University...is that you, Thor?)

There are a number of species of feathered Dinosaurs known; MANY fossils of these species have been found; you just need to deal with that fact.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#662 Oct 12, 2011
I'm not sure why he thinks migration proves anything about evolution. Some birds migrate, some don't, regardless of flight capability; I have at least 2 dozen chickadees who live in our courtyard year-round, with their offspring staying each year as well. I guess they didn't evolve?

I would posit that flightless birds tend not to migrate because they face more danger of predation on the ground; successful species would most likely not take such risks.
FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would Birds migrate until they had such features? Logically, long-range migration developed after Birds were capable fliers; attempting to claim that migration disproves that Birds evolved from Dinosaurs is absurd.
Flightless Birds don't prove evolution... but feathered Dinosaurs sure point strongly in that direction! Feathers are NOT unique to Birds! You just call every feathered Dinosaur a "bird"!(I knew a guy JUST like you more than 30 years ago back at the University...is that you, Thor?)
There are a number of species of feathered Dinosaurs known; MANY fossils of these species have been found; you just need to deal with that fact.

Since: Mar 07

Sunnyvale, CA

#663 Aug 26, 2012
For years elected officials have been caving in to negotiations between labor unions and city/state government. They cave just about every time and give labor what they want.

Most new contracts being negotiated today, whether it is a neo-liberal or just a plain liberal in office, are already eliminating many of the provisions which have led to our current predicament. Why??? No revenue to negotiate with. This is perhaps the greatest gift (or plague) the GOP has given America.

Government services cost money. They are not profit driven, thus efficiency is a moot concept. If the public does not want to properly tax for services that support the health and welfare of our citizenry, then the public will get what they deserve. Already crime rates are skyrocketing in certain areas of California due to severe police and fire cuts.

Get ready for more! Run fer da hills!
fact wrote:
<quoted text>
Get the straight facts from Ohio's Newspapers....Even Dayton Daily News reported the straight facts...
"It's even harder to defend aspects of Ohio's collective-bargaining law...Many public adminiustrators and elected officials insist they don't have the flexibility to manage their counties, cities and schools in ways that would benefit taxpayers. They have valid criticisms." - Dayton Daily News (editorial 2/29/11)
"The basic intent of Senate Bill 5 is to restore to the taxpayers and their elected representatives the right to manage the public's business." - The Columbus Dispatch (editorial 2/23/11)
"Senate Bill 5 would let local governments free themselves from employee work rules that enshrine inefficiency and form a seniority-above-all standard in layoffs and other staffing decisions." -The Plain Dealer,(Kevin O-Brien 4/28/11)
"Ohio's cockeyed public employee collective bargaining system has helped bring the state to the financial cliff. Enacting Senate Bill 5 into lawy can help reform this bad system..." (editorial 3/16/11)
"The basic intent of Senate Bill 5 is to restore to the taxpayers and their elected representatives the right to manage the public's business." The Columbus Dispatch (editorial 2/23/11)
England 2012

UK

#664 Aug 27, 2012
Creationism in US schools!, FFS you lot and that fcuking baby Jesus cult

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 33
Next Last

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
News Warren: Ted Cruz has no shot to be prez, but is... Mar 26 woodtick57 42
News Samuel L. Jackson echoes Morgan Freeman, says T... (Oct '11) Mar 24 swedenforever 36
News House Bill 2165 would de-criminalize marijuana ... Mar 19 Eddie A 1
News Tea party leader arrested in Miss. Senate race ... (Jun '14) Mar 13 swedenforever 59
News Oklahoma Tea Party Candidate Endorses Stoning Gays (Jun '14) Mar 10 swedenforever 74
News Actor Morgan Freeman smears Tea Party as racist... (Sep '11) Mar 9 swedenforever 638
Obamatrade will destroy American Sovereignty Feb '15 Frank Gulipi 1
More from around the web