Lying Brainwashing Christians

[MissileMan]

OK... true... I should have said

1 out of 100 sexually active children takes the risk of being exposed to a disease that can kill them (or a disease which could scar them for life e.g. chlamydia, HPV etc).... while believing that they are protected....

From what I can find on the subject, less than 5% of the population has an STD. For the sake of argument, let's say the figure IS 5%. Divide the 1% by 5% and you get the minimum odds of having a condom failure while having sex with an STD infected person. That's 1 in 2,000. If a person were to get a different partner every week, that's nearly 40 years. You're going to have to find a better argument against condom education than what you've posted so far.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

From what I can find on the subject, less than 5% of the population has an STD. For the sake of argument, let's say the figure IS 5%. Divide the 1% by 5% and you get the minimum odds of having a condom failure while having sex with an STD infected person. That's 1 in 2,000. If a person were to get a different partner every week, that's nearly 40 years. You're going to have to find a better argument against condom education than what you've posted so far.

Actually, I've read that as much as 33% of the population is infected with genital herpes. Many do not know, because, in males especially, its possible to have only one episode and then it remains dormant.

There isn't much of an argument against teaching people how to use condoms properly. The idea that people will stop having sex if we just tell them to is rather absurd. Welcome to humanity folks, we like to do it.

When I was 16 my parents handed me a condom and told me that if I ever have sex I'd better use it. Did that make me go out and have sex? No. I didn't have sex for the first time until I was 18. And I used a condom.

 

[KarlMarx]

From what I can find on the subject, less than 5% of the population has an STD. For the sake of argument, let's say the figure IS 5%. Divide the 1% by 5% and you get the minimum odds of having a condom failure while having sex with an STD infected person. That's 1 in 2,000. If a person were to get a different partner every week, that's nearly 40 years. You're going to have to find a better argument against condom education than what you've posted so far.

So, the analogy is that if you hand a kid a loaded gun with a thousand empty chambers and one loaded one.... he should go ahead and put that gun to his head.

That's if condoms are 99% effective, which means if they're always used "if used correctly and consistently.", which they're not .... some studies have shown 85% effectiveness... that raises the odds by a great deal...

So, as a worst case scenario, let's suppose that 33% of the population does have genital herpes and that condoms are 85% effective... that's raises the risk to 28% that a person can get infected. That's acceptable?

Abstinence education doesn't tell people to stop having sex. It encourages people to wait until marriage, then be monogamous.

Also, if society really were interested in combatting HIV/AIDS we wouldn't be messing around with "condoms for kids" and other PC lunacy. Instead, we would identify the infected persons, register them and make that information available to the public. When a person is reported as having the disease, it would be legally required that person give the names of all his/her sexual contacts (or fellow drug users). Then, those individuals can be tested for the disease. That's how you combat disease. Does this stigmatize people? Perhaps. But it also saves lives.... and brings the one best way to prevent people from having irresponsible sex... public shame and embarrassment.

BTW.... 20 years of the "safe sex" message and the incidence of HIV/AIDS is on the rise... what's with that?

But, before I go off on a tangent, here you are getting your knickers in a knot about "fundamentalists" believing in a young universe. My contention is "so what"? There are other things being taught in schools that have far greater consequences.... (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol.... http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm
gives an estimate of the cost of the Kyoto Protocol and deaths due to Malaria http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.htm )

I have to agree with the one poster who said, that the best, and simplest, way to solve this problem is to get the government out of the education business altogether. If parents want their child taught creation science, fine, then send them to a school that teaches that. If parents want their child taught evolution, fine, send them to a school that teaches that....

 

[Powerman]

So, the analogy is that if you hand a kid a loaded gun with a thousand empty chambers and one loaded one.... he should go ahead and put that gun to his head.

That's if condoms are 99% effective, which means if they're always used "if used correctly and consistently.", which they're not .... some studies have shown 85% effectiveness... that raises the odds by a great deal...

So, as a worst case scenario, let's suppose that 33% of the population does have genital herpes and that condoms are 85% effective... that's raises the risk to 28% that a person can get infected. That's acceptable?

Abstinence education doesn't tell people to stop having sex. It encourages people to wait until marriage, then be monogamous.

Also, if society really were interested in combatting HIV/AIDS we wouldn't be messing around with "condoms for kids" and other PC lunacy. Instead, we would identify the infected persons, register them and make that information available to the public. When a person is reported as having the disease, it would be legally required that person give the names of all his/her sexual contacts (or fellow drug users). Then, those individuals can be tested for the disease. That's how you combat disease. Does this stigmatize people? Perhaps. But it also saves lives.... and brings the one best way to prevent people from having irresponsible sex... public shame and embarrassment.

BTW.... 20 years of the "safe sex" message and the incidence of HIV/AIDS is on the rise... what's with that?

But, before I go off on a tangent, here you are getting your knickers in a knot about "fundamentalists" believing in a young universe. My contention is "so what"? There are other things being taught in schools that have far greater consequences.... (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol.... http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm
gives an estimate of the cost of the Kyoto Protocol and deaths due to Malaria http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.htm )

I have to agree with the one poster who said, that the best, and simplest, way to solve this problem is to get the government out of the education business altogether. If parents want their child taught creation science, fine, then send them to a school that teaches that. If parents want their child taught evolution, fine, send them to a school that teaches that....

I think we should teach people to use condoms and promote abstinence but that's another issue.

But to people lying to kids and trying to brainwash them you say "so what?"

I don't get it. Lying is wrong. Brainwashing is wrong. These kids have literally zero chance of passing any college level science courses if this nonsense is drilled into them. We should want the best education for all of our children.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So, the analogy is that if you hand a kid a loaded gun with a thousand empty chambers and one loaded one.... he should go ahead and put that gun to his head.

Last I checked, there isn't any sort of base human urge which would be satisified by putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. In fact, that would go entirely against instinct. So you have a rather poor analogy.

That's if condoms are 99% effective, which means if they're always used "if used correctly and consistently.", which they're not .... some studies have shown 85% effectiveness... that raises the odds by a great deal...

Probably people don't how to use them correctly because they don't know how to use them correctly. Does that sound logical? Education, just maybe, there's a snoballs chance in hell, but I think education could possibly be used to teach people what they don't know.

So, as a worst case scenario, let's suppose that 33% of the population does have
genital herpes and that condoms are 85% effective... that's raises the risk to 28% that a person can get infected. That's acceptable?

The above calculation is predicated on the assumption that someone sleep with a different person every week for 40 years. We should definitely teach people that if they sleep with a different person every week they should EXPECT to get genital herpes.

Abstinence education doesn't tell people to stop having sex. It encourages people to wait until marriage, then be monogamous.
/QUOTE]

Alright, fine, but if it comes at the expense of teaching people to use protection it only harms.

Also, if society really were interested in combatting HIV/AIDS we wouldn't be messing around with "condoms for kids" and other PC lunacy. Instead, we would identify the infected persons, register them and make that information available to the public. When a person is reported as having the disease, it would be legally required that person give the names of all his/her sexual contacts (or fellow drug users). Then, those individuals can be tested for the disease. That's how you combat disease. Does this stigmatize people? Perhaps.

Does this turn our free society into a fascist regime? Probably. Its already against the law to knowingly have HIV and to have intercourse with someone without informing them.

But it also saves lives.... and brings the one best way to prevent people from having irresponsible sex... public shame and embarrassment.

Yeah, lets go back to the Dark Ages.

 

[KarlMarx]

Last I checked, there isn't any sort of base human urge which would be satisified by putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. In fact, that would go entirely against instinct. So you have a rather poor analogy.

But there is something criminal about telling someone that they're safe in engaging in something when they, in fact, may not be. The analogy is a good one.

Probably people don't how to use them correctly because they don't know how to use them correctly. Does that sound logical? Education, just maybe, there's a snoballs chance in hell, but I think education could possibly be used to teach people what they don't know.

As I said before 20 years' worth of the "safe sex" message and more than 30 years worth of sex education in our schools and we have an AIDS epidemic to show for it. Apparently, "education" doesn't work as well as attaching a social stigma to promiscuous behavior.

Does this turn our free society into a fascist regime? Probably. Its already against the law to knowingly have HIV and to have intercourse with someone without informing them.

No, it does not. In fact, what I proposed is what is done to contain other diseases. It's unfortunate that people like you are more concerned about saving people's privacy rather than their lives. Also, forced sex education is more like Socialism rather than Fascism. Socialism has killed more people than fascism ever did...

Yeah, lets go back to the Dark Ages.

Those "Dark Ages" were not too long ago. During that time, man had conquered polio, discovered electricity and built 20th century civilization. He did that by diverting his energies towards a body part above the shoulders rather than below the belt.

As I said before, the best way to combat HIV is to attach a social stigma to promiscuous sexual behavior... shame and embarrassment are powerful forces.

Still.. how about that Kyoto Treaty and DDT? We seem to be stuck on this one issue....

 

[Powerman]

But there is something criminal about telling someone that they're safe in engaging in something when they, in fact, may not be. The analogy is a good one.

That's why we need sex education. If people are informed then they do whatever they do at their own risk.

As I said before 20 years' worth of the "safe sex" message and more than 30 years worth of sex education in our schools and we have an AIDS epidemic to show for it. Apparently, "education" doesn't work as well as attaching a social stigma to promiscuous behavior.

Well I don't know what you mean by attatching a social stigma to personal behavior. Are you trying to say that people should wear a Scarlett letter of sorts? If that's what you are saying then you truly do live in the past.

No, it does not. In fact, what I proposed is what is done to contain other diseases. It's unfortunate that people like you are more concerned about saving people's privacy rather than their lives. Also, forced sex education is more like Socialism rather than Fascism. Socialism has killed more people than fascism ever did...

So why do we not want to educate people about sex. This would violate the presmise of your first point.

Those "Dark Ages" were not too long ago. During that time, man had conquered polio, discovered electricity and built 20th century civilization. He did that by diverting his energies towards a body part above the shoulders rather than below the belt.

I don't know what you're talking about here but it sounds like nonsense. We have accomplished much more recently than we have in the dark ages.

As I said before, the best way to combat HIV is to attach a social stigma to promiscuous sexual behavior... shame and embarrassment are powerful forces.

I don't know about that. Stress personal accountability for your actions. I don't know what your fixation is with shame and embarassment. But you certainly have some retrograde ideas.

 

[dmp]

That's why we need sex education. If people are informed then they do whatever they do at their own risk.

What makes you thinks Kids have enough wisdom to make good choices, simply because they have 'the information'? Kids make POOR choices...Kids who make poor choices who are cuddled and pumped up with 'aww...it's YOUR choice..you aren't a bad person...if it feels good - go for it!" end up being adults who buy into stupid shit - lies...such as:

"Give kids all the information they need, to make good choices."
"Speed Kills!"
"GWB brought us into an illegal war!"
"Only morons believe in ID!"

 

[Hobbit]

Saying that knowledge of sexual mechanics and safety measures makes you qualified to make a decision regarding proper usage would be like giving every airplane mechanic a pilot's liscence.

 

[Powerman]

What makes you thinks Kids have enough wisdom to make good choices, simply because they have 'the information'? Kids make POOR choices...Kids who make poor choices who are cuddled and pumped up with 'aww...it's YOUR choice..you aren't a bad person...if it feels good - go for it!" end up being adults who buy into stupid shit - lies...such as:

"Give kids all the information they need, to make good choices."
"Speed Kills!"
"GWB brought us into an illegal war!"
"Only morons believe in ID!"

If they will make poor choices wouldn't you rather them know that there are consequences for their actions? If you stop teaching sex ed teens will still have sex. If you teach it at least they are aware of the involved risks. I don't think that teaching sex education endorses sex. People know that they want to have sex because it's in our nature. Educating kids about sex is not bad any way you look at it.

 

[Powerman]

Saying that knowledge of sexual mechanics and safety measures makes you qualified to make a decision regarding proper usage would be like giving every airplane mechanic a pilot's liscence.

I didn't say that. But they're going to have sex anyway. It's not like we're teaching them different positions and techniques in class. Most of the sex ed is biology and anatomy. I know because I took sex ed myself. IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL RELIGION CLASS!!!

 

[archangel]

If Mother Earth would have insisted on Jupiter using a condum...we would not have this silly debate on how fast baby Moon is moving away from Mommie! :cof:

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Saying that knowledge of sexual mechanics and safety measures makes you qualified to make a decision regarding proper usage would be like giving every airplane mechanic a pilot's liscence.

Lame analogy. Humans aren't driven by base urges to fly airplanes.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

But there is something criminal about telling someone that they're safe in engaging in something when they, in fact, may not be. The analogy is a good one.

I'm not aware of anyone on this board or in the public arena who advocates that we lie to people and tell them condoms are 100% effective. So again, you have no point.




Should we not tell people how to use safety belts in cars, since they don't prevent death 100% of the time?

 

[KarlMarx]

I see where this is going.... we'll come up with a boatload of analogies, but you'll exclude them all as being bad... apparently, you've reserved the right (at least in your mind) to determine what is and what isn't a valid analogy...

Well, I'm not wasting my time and I'm not going there....

The attitude I see here is just incredible.

First, the thread starts off that Christians (not Hindus, Jews, Moslems, or even tree worshipping Pagans... just Christians get singled out for the diatribe) are liars because some of them believe that the earth and the universe are young. And the attitude is "how dare they!!!!", we will have to drag those idiots out of their backwards way of thinking and replace it with our, more enlightened, way of thinking, for their own good, of course!!!!!

Then, when I bring up the subject of abstinence education and of course, the attitude still is...Oh no, we are going to teach your kids all about condoms and how to use them, because we know better and besides, it's all for their own good, of course!!!!!!

And of course, when I say that it would be a good idea if people who engage in promiscuous behavior were made to feel embarrassed or ashamed of themselves.. the attitude is "why that's the beginning of a Fascist State (as if a Socialist State were a good one)! Why that's returning us to the Dark Ages!!! (Notice the term Dark Ages, which brings up mental images of cathedrals and monks, and the Church running everything). Why, if we expected our kids to control themselves, why we'd soon return to the days of the Black Death and a feudal society!!!

Of course, nothing was said of the other topics that I brought up... just the sex education part.

But no one stops and thinks, yes Fascism is bad, but Socialism is worse. Because that is what you're advocating, isn't it? Society will determine what people are going to be taught (for their own good of course), society is going to determine what people think (for their own good, of course). Parents don't have the right to determine what's best for their kids (especially those awful CHRISTIAN parents). An oligarchy of government bureaucrats is going to control what people can and can't believe.

Everyone must think alike!!!! Is it "1984" or is it "Fahrenheit 451"???

That sounds like State control of peoples' minds to me. Why don't you just say that you're in favor of making Science the State Religion and be done with it?

 

[Powerman]

Whoa buddy calm down. Try to make one point at a time and not get too scatterbrained over there.

Let me offer a couple of my opinions regarding things you touched on. I do think that we should stress abstinence but we should also teach sex education. I think putting on a condom is pretty self explanatory. Hell they have directions on the boxes of condoms. Actually I just looked and it's on the inside of this particular box. There is also a disclaimer on the box saying that it is not 100% fool proof. But if I'm going to have sex I'll choose to have a condom on until I'm ready to have children.

Now as far as embarassment, isn't it somewhat shameful to have to go to a clinic to get tested? I don't know what type of weird shameful display you are advocating here. Perhaps you can tell us. I'd really love to know what the hell you are talking about.

And on your point about Christians:

First, the thread starts off that Christians (not Hindus, Jews, Moslems, or even tree worshipping Pagans... just Christians get singled out for the diatribe) are liars because some of them believe that the earth and the universe is young. And the attitude is "how dare they!!!!", we will have to drag those idiots out of their backwards way of thinking and replace it with our, more enlightened, way of thinking, for their own good, of course!!!!!

Well I don't know about you but I live in America so I generally talk about things that pertain to this country. If there were a movement by Jews or Hindus to teach junk science in class I'd be all over their collective asses about it too. The reason Christians are singled out is because they are the ones putting up Christian Apologetic Websites spreadind LIES about science so they can attempt to defend their faith. Why not just say "What we believe is not supported by the scientific community but we still believe it because it's part of our faith" or something to that effect...

But no one stops and thinks, yes Fascism is bad, but Socialism is worse. Because that is what you're advocating, isn't it? Society will determine what people are going to be taught (for their own good of course), society is going to determine what people think (for their own good, of course). Parents don't have the right to determine what's best for their kids (especially those awful CHRISTIAN parents). An oligarchy of government bureaucrats is going to control what people can and can't believe.

Yes socialism is bad because it's just a lesser form of communism. THe problem you don't get here is no one in THIS COUNTRY is telling you what you can believe. You have the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit. You can teach your kids whatever you like at home. If you want your kids to learn about Bible stories in school then I suggest you send them to a Christian school. If you can't afford to do so then it's your responsibility as a parent to instill those values and beliefs into your kids on your own time. None of this should be in public schools. I don't think any of that is in line with socialism.

 

[Annie]

Whoa buddy calm down. Try to make one point at a time and not get too scatterbrained over there.

Let me offer a couple of my opinions regarding things you touched on. I do think that we should stress abstinence but we should also teach sex education. I think putting on a condom is pretty self explanatory. Hell they have directions on the boxes of condoms. Actually I just looked and it's on the inside of this particular box. There is also a disclaimer on the box saying that it is not 100% fool proof. But if I'm going to have sex I'll choose to have a condom on until I'm ready to have children.

Now as far as embarassment, isn't it somewhat shameful to have to go to a clinic to get tested? I don't know what type of weird shameful display you are advocating here. Perhaps you can tell us. I'd really love to know what the hell you are talking about.

And on your point about Christians:



Well I don't know about you but I live in America so I generally talk about things that pertain to this country. If there were a movement by Jews or Hindus to teach junk science in class I'd be all over their collective asses about it too. The reason Christians are singled out is because they are the ones putting up Christian Apologetic Websites spreadind LIES about science so they can attempt to defend their faith. Why not just say "What we believe is not supported by the scientific community but we still believe it because it's part of our faith" or something to that effect...

www.dictionary.com definition of science:

ns)
n.

1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.

On the bolded, ID is open to inquiry.

Ok, maybe I'm biased or dictionary.com is. Here is google results for 'scientific method':
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:scientific+method


Definitions of scientific method on the Web:

* n principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
tangents.home.att.net/data/rlgdef.htm

* the 'tool' that scientists use to find the answer to questions (The Scientific Method allows scientists to solve complicated problems by taking a series of smaller steps:
education.jlab.org/beamsactivity/6thgrade/vocabulary/

* the step by step process by which scientists investigate hypotheses using experiments
www.tallpoppies.net.au/florey/glossary/main-content.html

* A procedure used by scientists to test hypotheses by making predictions about the outcome of an experiment before the experiment is performed. The results provide support or refutation of the hypothesis.
helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/glossary/s.htm

* A process that is the basis for scientific inquiry. The scientific method follows a series of steps: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions.
www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html

* the means of science by which phenomena are observed, hypotheses are tested, and conclusions are drawn.
darkwing.uoregon.edu/~mmoss/GLOSSARY.HTM

* The process of conducting scientific inquiry.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072549238/student_view0/glossary.html

* The set of rules used to guide science, based on the idea that scientific laws be continually tested, and modified or replaced if found inadequate.
astronomy.nju.edu.cn/astron/AT3/GLOSS_S.HTM

* orderly process by which theories are developed, tested, and either verified or disproved.
www.ocean-institute.org/edu_programs/materials/P/Glo/S_Glos.htm

* A systematic approach to observing phenomena, drawing conclusions and testing hypotheses.
www.smm.org/catal/introduction/glossary/

* Systematic approach of observation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing and hypothesis evaluation that forms the basis for modern science.
blue.utb.edu/biology/Oliva/terms_and_definitions_for_quiz_1.htm

* A method for doing science based on the assumption that all true knowledge is verifiable using empirical evidence. Well-ordered, successive stages--defining a research problem, constructing hypotheses, data gathering and analysis, and prediction of facts--are outlined.
academics.smcvt.edu/geography/posing.htm

* Systematic methods used in scientific investigations of the natural world, which include designing controlled experiments, gathering data, and developing and testing hypotheses.
www.environment.nelson.com/0176169040/glossary.html

* procedure scientists use to gain knowledge about the physical universe
wwwf.countryday.net/FacStf/ms/schniebec/Glossary%20.htm

* the procedure scientists follow to understand the natural world1) the observation of phenomena or the results of experiments; (2) the formulation of hypotheses that describe these phenomena and that are consistent with the body of knowledge available; (3) the testing of these hypotheses by noting whether or not they adequately predict and describe new phenomena or the results of new experiments; (4) the modification or rejection of hypotheses that are not confirmed by observations or ...
www.astro.utoronto.ca/~hudon/ast210/210.glossary.html

* in contrast to fishing by "luck," fishing based on the observation of the environment
www.outdoor-links.com/tvo/chapter14.htm

* is a procedure for conducting research that states that a testable hypothesis should be verifiable and the results repeatable
academics.tjhsst.edu/psych/oldPsych/ch1/terms.html

* An approach that can be used to discover accurate information. It includes the following steps: conceptualize the problem, collect data, draw conclusions, and revise research conclusions and theory.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007249199x/student_view0/chapter2/key_terms.html

* a plan of inquiry that uses science process skills as tools to gather, organize, analyze, and communicate information
www.mrs-twedt.com/fcat_science_glossary_part_1.htm

* a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Yes socialism is bad because it's just a lesser form of communism. THe problem you don't get here is no one in THIS COUNTRY is telling you what you can believe. You have the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit. You can teach your kids whatever you like at home. If you want your kids to learn about Bible stories in school then I suggest you send them to a Christian school. If you can't afford to do so then it's your responsibility as a parent to instill those values and beliefs into your kids on your own time. None of this should be in public schools. I don't think any of that is in line with socialism.

Wrong PM, YOU are trying to say what we should think/believe based on your own opinions, which you CLAIM are rooted in the logical, but in truth are anything but. Heck, you have me arguing for inclusion of ID on university level, when I started out saying it did NOT belong in secondary curriculum. Some mean feat there.

 

[Powerman]

www.dictionary.com definition of science:

On the bolded, ID is open to inquiry.

Ok, maybe I'm biased or dictionary.com is. Here is google results for 'scientific method':
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:scientific+method


Definitions of scientific method on the Web:

Wrong PM, YOU are trying to say what we should think/believe based on your own opinions, which you CLAIM are rooted in the logical, but in truth are anything but. Heck, you have me arguing for inclusion of ID on university level, when I started out saying it did NOT belong in secondary curriculum. Some mean feat there.

You do of course realize that when someone says they have something down to a science they aren't talking about the scientific method right?

And literally anything on the universe is "open to inquiry" I could inquire about why you just posted this but it probably doesn't belong in a university.

I don't think that you really believe that ID belongs in universities. I think that your hatred for me is just so great that is has given you the ability to take the opposite side of me on everything. OK I'm just joking there Kathy.

That's a lot of definitions you have there. I don't know if I'll be able to address all of them tonight but I'll get to a few of them.

 

[Powerman]

Kathianne you're a smart woman. I challenge you to refute any of the points I made in opposition to the evolution cruncher website which I challenged earlier. If you can prove that I'm just randomly making things up and not stating facts then I'd be impressed.

But let me ask you this. If you knew that these websites were in fact knowingly telling lies about science which I claim that they are then what would your opinion on them be? Would it be ok for them to lie because they believe it is good for their following? Or would it not be ok?

 

[Annie]

You do of course realize that when someone says they have something down to a science they aren't talking about the scientific method right?

And literally anything on the universe is "open to inquiry" I could inquire about why you just posted this but it probably doesn't belong in a university.

I don't think that you really believe that ID belongs in universities. I think that your hatred for me is just so great that is has given you the ability to take the opposite side of me on everything. OK I'm just joking there Kathy.

That's a lot of definitions you have there. I don't know if I'll be able to address all of them tonight but I'll get to a few of them.

Seriously, I think any topic that a significant percentage of the students or facualty wish to have addressed should be. ID qualifies for that. My initial take is that it will be brought over the coals and be shown to be psuedo science. But then again, science is not my field. Does that answer that part of the question?

My problem with you is that you want NO discussion. Just dismiss based on YOUR belief system. That is just wrong.