I'm confused by this statement. Who has said "since I can't explain it, it
can't be true?" That's not a scientific outlook at all. It resembles
religious dogma more than anything.
On Apr 16, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Kris Sisk wrote:
>
> Besides the other approach suggests that if something can'
April 16, 2010 9:15 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
>
>
>> Ok, so once you start with "he created us"what more is there to
>> ask. You've already answered every question. "He created us,
>&
, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
> Ok, so once you start with "he created us"what more is there to
> ask. You've already answered every question. "He created us,
> therefore, it's his will, it's the way he acts, etc." It's an
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Kris Sisk wrote:
> For me it's more like "God created us, but how? And why?"
>
Those are my questions too.
"How"
Science: Big bang, the evolution
Religion/Philsophy: Intelligent design
"why"
Science: No comment.
Religion\Philosophy: This question is why
like women.
*nod* *nod*
On 16 April 2010 10:15, Kris Sisk wrote:
because there are things, even without taking any potential
supernatural influence out of the equation, that mankind will never
understand.
~|
Want to reach the C
> Ok, so once you start with "he created us"what more is there to
> ask. You've already answered every question. "He created us,
> therefore, it's his will, it's the way he acts, etc." It's an
> intellectual dead end. Everytime you can't figure something out, the
> default answer becom
>Kris - if you were bothered with me pointing out the obvious I
>seriously suggest you rejoin the list with a creatively anonymous
>name. I know you don't have the benifit of seeing several others on
>this list go through this ID changeover. I personally think it may be
>a good move to d
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Kris Sisk wrote:
> The scientific part of ID theory doesn't try to prove ID. It tries to
> DISPROVE the idea that life as we know it is possible without a guiding
> hand. And, unless you buy the idea of parts of a cell joining together for
> no reason to create c
>
>>
>>
>>
> Ok, let's get this clear: The state educational board gave ID a
> chance to go head to head with evolution to determine it's
> scientific relavance. The reason the decided it was relevant is
> because not one single scientist showed up to defend evolution. Not.
> One. Kinda ha
If someone posts from a work account using their real name that's a
pretty clear signal that they re okay with people knowing who they are
and where they work. I don't see anything wrong with plugging in the
domain to see what the company is. We have plenty of folks on this
list who mask
Ok, so once you start with "he created us"what more is there to ask.
You've already answered every question. "He created us, therefore, it's his
will, it's the way he acts, etc." It's an intellectual dead end. Everytime
you can't figure something out, the default answer becomes, "becaus
Yes, and the state school board is laymen. My point is that ID may not have
made it into the curriculum to begin with had anyone bothered to show up in
opposition to it. The scientific part of ID theory doesn't try to prove ID. It
tries to DISPROVE the idea that life as we know it is possible w
Sorry. I posted that a couple minutes after reading the post that put out my
personal details and, worse yet, implied that I might be connected to WBC
somehow. I was still steaming a bit and it seeped into the last part of that
post. Thank you though. If you like the site you might want to chec
Nice try asshole...
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 5:34 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Intelligent
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Intelligent design is not the same as hat you defined as theistic evolution.
> ID folk believe that created were designed by god rather than formed by an
> evolutionary process...ie the present forms are how we were when we were
> created..
I agree it was a little uncool to put those details up, which is why I
attempted to use those same details to show you a better welcome.
I will admit that I also run quick searches on new peeps on communities I am
active in when they start posting. I also do the same with dates after the
first on
On 4/15/2010 2:28 PM, Kris Sisk wrote:
> Kinda hard to justify turning away a theory as not valid when you can't get
> any of its critics to answer the invitation.
>
Probably because all the critics know it is not a "Scientific" theory.
But the problem becomes that in science the word theo
>Welcome, Kris.
>
>gckschools is a CF site!
>
>woohoo.
>
>I also see you are using Moodle. (a php-based lms). how do you like it? I
>have been meaning to install it locally and play with it (I spent a decade
>writing interactive video disk courseware, and lots of cbt, before
>multimedia was called
>> Hey, should we all be honored that Kirk Cameron has made an appearance
>> on our mailing list?
>
>Kris Sisk is posting from gckschools.com, which is Garden City Public
>Schools, Kansas - home of the "earth is only 6,000 years old and
>Dinosaurs were planted by scientists in a huge conspiracy" e
Nope its a traditional fake religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn
>From wikipedia:
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is the goddess of a parody religion
used to satirize theistic beliefs, taking the form of a unicorn that
is paradoxically both invisible and pink. This make
On Apr 15, 2010, at 9:24 AM, "Larry C. Lyons"
wrote:
> hey what about the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
I think that one's Scientology.
-Cameron
...
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them kno
hey what about the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Kris Sisk wrote:
>> Eh...right...that's like saying you dropped a laptop and the CPU
>> suddenly became a GPU for no reason.
>
> If you want to reduce it to thi
On Apr 14, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Kris Sisk wrote:
> Eh...right...that's like saying you dropped a laptop and the CPU
> suddenly became a GPU for no reason.
If you want to reduce it to this sort of nonsense analogy then 'the
big booming voice commanded it and the tooth fairy said it was good'
i
No I think I met him last week driving a cab in New York.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> That's because while we are looking for him in caves, he is sipping
> tea with his cronies somewhere in a luxury villa, awaiting
> instructions from his overlords for his next media stat
That's because while we are looking for him in caves, he is sipping
tea with his cronies somewhere in a luxury villa, awaiting
instructions from his overlords for his next media statement.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> All that tech and we still can't find a living pe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
The Blood Clotting Agents (Behe's cascade analogy), the IC Eye and
Flagellum arguments are easily refuted.
Behe's mousetrap Analogy fails as well.
Behe's Irreducible Complexity is based on a deliberate
misunderstanding of biochemical processes
>The problem with Irreducible Complexity is that it assume that the only
>function of all the parts of the complex object is for what the complex
>object is used for.
>
>It seems to ignore that the individual parts, while offering no benefit
>in their current purpose, could have been used for s
All that tech and we still can't find a living person hiding out in caves
;-)
That is pretty cool...
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:jmi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:03 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted Fro
>From 2005:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
God created humans in present form 51%
Humans evolved, God guided the process 30%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process 15%
IS IT POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE IN BOTH GOD AND EVOLUTI
typical short circuit logic on Sam's part here.
Without your twisting everything to suit some (I suspect) perverse
sense of humour, its simple those people who respond in a survey that
they prefer ID or creationism are against evolutionary theory.
Numerous followups have shown that.
On Mon, Apr
I saw that discovery on rww last week:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/scientist_uses_google_earth_to_find_ancient_ancest.php
Very cool that he used google earth/google maps to find 200 new caves, one
of which held this find.
Also, it was his 9 year old son who found the first bones, anothe
I get it... they say they do but we know they're liars.
Gotcha.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:46 PM, G Money wrote:
>
>>
>> We're not discussing whether their beliefs are science, we're
>> discussing if they believe in evolution
>>
>>
> OK.they don't.
>
> --
~~~
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> We're not discussing whether their beliefs are science, we're
> discussing if they believe in evolution
>
>
OK.they don't.
--
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
~~
On 4/12/2010 10:21 AM, Eric Roberts wrote:
> Actually Orangutans are closer...
>
> In that line of thought you are skipping a whole slew of scorpids, and other
> aquatic critters, proto-reptiles, reptiles, mammal like reptiles that
> eventually evolved into mammals that eventually developed into
>
We're not discussing whether their beliefs are science, we're
discussing if they believe in evolution
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:25 PM, G Money wrote:
>
> We've been over this a billion times, but here it is one more time:
>
> Intelligent Design is not science. Discussing it in terms of science i
On 4/12/2010 10:19 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> that mental image caused me to throw up in my mouth a little.
>
So you emphasize with how powerful of an affect seeing that could have
on somebody, causing them to mistype a word or two here or there.
~
They lost the Minority leader in Vancouver?
-Original Message-
From: G Money [mailto:gm0n3...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 11:46 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
Where'd Kirk Cameron go...?
I wanted to ask him about l
You believe an explosion caused dna, formed a single cell organism and viola.
They believe god formed that single cell organism and the process of
evolution to get it to where it is today.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Intelligent design is not the same as hat you de
10 11:43 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> How is it a trick question (especially since it is a statement *grin*)?
The question was is it true or false.
Since most here believe
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> So they can't believe in evolution because their science is wrong?
>
> Or are you just trying to use a technicality to save your position
> that they don't believe in evolution?
>
We've been over this a billion times, but here it is one more time
So they can't believe in evolution because their science is wrong?
Or are you just trying to use a technicality to save your position
that they don't believe in evolution?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:54 PM, G Money wrote:
> Heh heh..you left off the sentence that appears right before that:
>
>
typical cherry picking of the evidence. It serves his cause to engage
in creative editing.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:54 PM, G Money wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Sam wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.ideacenter.org/about/mission_beliefs.php
>>
>> We recognize that investigations on orig
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 11:32 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
I believe the majority of believers go for Theistic evolution
Young Earth creationism:
Earth is 6,000 years
that mental image caused me to throw up in my mouth a little.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Ian Skinner wrote:
>
> On 4/12/2010 9:35 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>> what does psychoanalytic underwear have to do with it?
>>
>
>
> Seeing a psychoanalyst with a beard, mustache and a large cigar ru
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> http://www.ideacenter.org/about/mission_beliefs.php
>
> We recognize that investigations on origins raises questions that are
> both religious and scientific in nature, but we are careful not to mix
> scientific claims with religious claims, and r
I thought we were discussing creation and evolution co-existing.
Did this thread change to religion in science class someplace?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Nope, intelligent design is very different. If you're going to discuss
> the issue, at least make sure you
http://www.ideacenter.org/about/mission_beliefs.php
We recognize that investigations on origins raises questions that are
both religious and scientific in nature, but we are careful not to mix
scientific claims with religious claims, and recognize that the two
are distinct and different, though c
So what's your point?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Vivec wrote:
>
> Intelligent Design and Theisitc evolution are still centered around
> Religious Beliefs, as proponents assume a Christian God,
> not simply some Universal Architect or Force.
~~~
Where'd Kirk Cameron go...?
I wanted to ask him about losing his Boner in Vancouver.
(i'm going to hell.)
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Dana wrote:
>
> political autocorrect-ness run amok, I say.
>
> =) <--- politically correct humor icon
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Ian Skinner
You're the one that says they are not compatible. As far as I know
only fundies believe they are not.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> I have always argued that as a means of the 2 being completely compatible,
> but other that you Sam, I have NEVER heard anyone (on the C
political autocorrect-ness run amok, I say.
=) <--- politically correct humor icon
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Ian Skinner wrote:
>
> On 4/12/2010 9:35 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>> what does psychoanalytic underwear have to do with it?
>>
>
>
> Seeing a psychoanalyst with a beard, mustac
Ya, Freudian slips can happen to anybody. For instance just this morning
when I was having breakfast with my wife I meant to say "Can you pass the
butter." but instead I said "You ruined my fucking life you bitch!"
badumbum.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Ian Skinner wrote:
>
> On 4/12/2010
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> How is it a trick question (especially since it is a statement *grin*)?
The question was is it true or false.
Since most here believe we did not evolve from monkeys or ferrets it's
a misleading question.
> We ALL evolved from single cel
On 4/12/2010 9:35 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> what does psychoanalytic underwear have to do with it?
>
Seeing a psychoanalyst with a beard, mustache and a large cigar running
around in his slip obviously caused Mr. Vivec to mistype his message.
~
Austin home of Molly Ivins and the Keep Austin Wierd campaign? Naw
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Eric Roberts
> wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't that require actual liberals in texas?
>
> There are actual liberals in Texas, just not normally
Nope, intelligent design is very different. If you're going to discuss
the issue, at least make sure you've got the terms correct. Otherwise
you're just embarrassing yourself.
>From wikipedia:
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the
universe and of living things are bes
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> I believe the majority of believers go for Theistic evolution
>
> Young Earth creationism:
> Earth is 6,000 years old
>
> Old Earth creationism
> Earth is billions of years old but doesn't believe evolution
>
> Theistic evolution
> believe all
Intelligent Design and Theisitc evolution are still centered around
Religious Beliefs, as proponents assume a Christian God,
not simply some Universal Architect or Force.
On 12 April 2010 12:32, Sam wrote:
> I believe the majority of believers go for Theistic evolution
>
> Theistic evolution
>
what does psychoanalytic underwear have to do with it?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Ian Skinner wrote:
>
> On 4/12/2010 9:25 AM, Vivec wrote:
>> How did that happen...:-\
>>
>
> Freudian slip?
>
>
>
~|
Want to reach the C
I believe the majority of believers go for Theistic evolution
Young Earth creationism:
Earth is 6,000 years old
Old Earth creationism
Earth is billions of years old but doesn't believe evolution
Theistic evolution
believe all the science but think god designed evolution
Intelligent design
On 4/12/2010 9:25 AM, Vivec wrote:
> How did that happen...:-\
>
Freudian slip?
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fusion mailing lists
Archive:
http://www.ho
hmm...
that's interesting.I clearly meant to write THREAD hijack...but
instead I wrote ThreAT hijack.
and I did it twice.
How did that happen...:-\
On 12 April 2010 12:22, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> darn and here I was sharpening the knives...
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Vivec wrote
darn and here I was sharpening the knives...
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> threat hijack imminent!
>
> AWGA!! AWGA!!!
> Alert! Alert!
>
> Threat hijack imminent!
>
> On 12 April 2010 11:39, Jerry Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Welcome, Kris.
>>
>> gckschools is a CF site!
>>
ammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:32 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
Didn't we all agree last year or the year before that evolution
doesn't cover the beginning?
The majority of creationists believe in both, g
That explains a lot...
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Cameron Childress [mailto:camer...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:25 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
ROFL...
-Original Message-
From: Zaphod Beeblebrox [mailto:zaph0d.b33bl3b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 9:57 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
Hey, should we all be honored that Kirk Cameron has made an appearance on
our
Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
"Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals."
Looks like a trick question. Asking did we develop from earlier
species of animals, implying other than human? I was taught we all
started as a single cell being in the water a
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Didn't we all agree last year or the year before that evolution
> doesn't cover the beginning?
> The majority of creationists believe in both, god created than
> evolution took over.
>
I'm not so sure about that. A Creationist is generally someon
threat hijack imminent!
AWGA!! AWGA!!!
Alert! Alert!
Threat hijack imminent!
On 12 April 2010 11:39, Jerry Johnson wrote:
>
> Welcome, Kris.
>
> gckschools is a CF site!
>
> woohoo.
>
> I also see you are using Moodle. (a php-based lms). how do you like it? I
> have been meaning to ins
Welcome, Kris.
gckschools is a CF site!
woohoo.
I also see you are using Moodle. (a php-based lms). how do you like it? I
have been meaning to install it locally and play with it (I spent a decade
writing interactive video disk courseware, and lots of cbt, before
multimedia was called multimedi
True..and his voice will be heard! :-)
Oh dears...I see this getting vociferous.
Let's at least try to play nice!
Gosh..this list is so great.
A real live CREATIONIST!! From Kansas no less!
:-)
This is stuff I would normally only read about in the news.
On 12 April 2010 11:25, Cameron Childres
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Sam wrote:
> No need to get ugly.
Sorry, I was born with this face.
-Cameron
...
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fusion mail
No need to get ugly.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
> wrote:
>> Hey, should we all be honored that Kirk Cameron has made an appearance
>> on our mailing list?
>
> Kris Sisk is posting from gckschools.com, which
Didn't we all agree last year or the year before that evolution
doesn't cover the beginning?
The majority of creationists believe in both, god created than
evolution took over.
Looks like KS is in the minority.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:23 AM, G Money wrote:
>
> When Creationists or ID'ers try
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
> Hey, should we all be honored that Kirk Cameron has made an appearance
> on our mailing list?
Kris Sisk is posting from gckschools.com, which is Garden City Public
Schools, Kansas - home of the "earth is only 6,000 years old and
Dinosa
When Creationists or ID'ers try to play in the realm of REAL science...these
are the results. Irreducible complexity and lectures about bananas.
I can't fathom why true believers would need to bother with science, short
of needing it as a vessel to force their beliefs on others.
On Mon, Apr 12,
And what examples of irreducible complexity would you like to cite?
Such a laughable term. I remember when the ID crowd was citing the
Eye. After all, they said, what good is part of an eye? Except, of
course, part of an eye is quite useful. Being able to distinguish
shadows of incoming predators,
Hey, should we all be honored that Kirk Cameron has made an appearance on our
mailing list?
:)
On Apr 12, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Evolution has been disproven? You have got to be kidding. Where is the
> conflicting evidence?
>
>
>
> still waiting...
>
> As for the ir
Evolution has been disproven? You have got to be kidding. Where is the
conflicting evidence?
still waiting...
As for the irreducible complexity arguments, well some time look up on
scholar.google.com and see how discredited that old creationist saw
has become. The god in the gaps argument is j
On 4/12/2010 7:10 AM, Kris Sisk wrote:
> (irreducible complexity, look it up before you flame)
>
The problem with Irreducible Complexity is that it assume that the only
function of all the parts of the complex object is for what the complex
object is used for.
It seems to ignore that the i
"Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals."
Looks like a trick question. Asking did we develop from earlier
species of animals, implying other than human? I was taught we all
started as a single cell being in the water and evolved, but I can't
seem to find anything
Big Bang as we know it: The universe started from nothing. There was an
explosion and in 1/1 of a second it had already expanded to thousnds of
light years.
Biblical account: God said let there be light and there was.
Why do people think those are incompatible? Seriously? The Big Bang soun
The US, where evolution is optional. (We want our thumbs)
~Bill Hicks
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> *giggles quietly*
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
>
> The US is down at the bottom with countries like Turkey and Latvia.
> hee hee hee
I wish there were more countries listed there.
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Vivec wrote:
>
> *giggles quietly*
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
>
> The US is down at the bottom with countries like Turkey and Latvia.
> hee hee hee
> ...
> ...
> ...
> :-I
That's cheating, using a left leaning pro-democratic shill that
uses facts.
I really ought to put sarcasm tags around that one.
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Vivec wrote:
>
> *giggles quietly*
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
>
> The US is down at the bo
*giggles quietly*
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
The US is down at the bottom with countries like Turkey and Latvia.
hee hee hee
...
...
...
:-I
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with so
You don't know the half of it. I am reviewing social sciences texts,
and so far the one I read that was Texas approved in some areas seem
very lacking when compared to books that were not on that list. Mind
you, that is my subjective opinion, but hey most areas of psychology
depend on the theory o
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Wouldn't that require actual liberals in texas?
There are actual liberals in Texas, just not normally a majority.
Houston, for instance, just elected an openly lesbian Democrat mayor.
The final race was between her and another liberal, blac
Yes Sam I am absolutely sure that you're in touch with them and have a
laser guide to what they decided. Have you seen the books approved by
the Texas School Board? Have you seen the revisionist history standard
that they have decided on. I have and from everything you've said,
you're demonstratin
ught the komodo was a baby.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 3:14 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: FW: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
>
>
> And a lot of the recommended r
California doesn't use a single board to decide and purchase
textbooks. Its more distributed. So because of Texas' unique method of
deciding on and purchasing texts, it has an influence that's way
beyond its size.
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> As of the last numbers released
Wouldn't that require actual liberals in texas?
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 9:58 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
Larry's right, Texas still has the biggest in
Are you saying a third of the population doesn't believe in evolution
or that they were forced to choose between evolution and creationism
to explain the beginning of life as we know it? I love this country
and I know there's a lot of morons in it, I just choose to be a little
more optimistic abou
Larry's right, Texas still has the biggest influence on text book
publishers. Where he's wrong is which group is craziest in Texas, I've
heard the liberal revisionism in Texas is just as bad if not worse
than the fundie side.
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> As of the last num
Few people are in the camp it's one or the other.
Most creationists, so I've read, believe they co-exist. Evolution
doesn't cover the beginning, just what happens after. While some
creationist believe the world started 6k years ago most do not, so
I've read :)
But you're referring to the literal
Roflsnort
-Original Message-
From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 3:20 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
I would be ok with both being taught as theories and letting the
children decide for
nkers.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 3:15 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
I had a heated debate on Facebook with some of my cousins who live in
Texas when I sugg
ossil or something like that and thought the komodo was a baby.
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 3:14 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
And a lot of the recommended rem
Having lived next to Texas, I would tend to agree heheheh
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 3:04 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
Texas is not the largest state in
45% is closer to 1\2 than 1\3rd.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 2:42 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
yes about 1/rd the US population doesn't make a
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
