Republican Party Modus Operandi

[Drake]

No, because the Fathers very clearly stated 'The power to tax is the power to destroy' and thus would violate the 1st Amendment. And the Supreme Court agrees with me.



Who knows. I'm no scientist, but I do know those saying it can were caught changing data and throwing out data. Then they admitted it themselves! The people denying man made global warming are not doing that. So, who has more credability?

And they ALSO said this in no way changes the rest of the overwhelming data in support of manmade global warming. Don't pick and choose. Either use it in context to what they said or don't use it at all.

[MasterKiller]

Which I agree with. But how is this relevant as to whether schools should teach (and NOT exclusively) Creationism is schools?

Which version? Hindu creationism? American Indian creationism? Austrailian aborigine creationism?

But you do not work in a research center designed to study man made global warming, correct?

I work as a ghost writer at a research center in an industry at the forefront of the climate-change controversy. I see a lot of data and talk to a lot of scientists who do indeed study this stuff in the private sector.

[1bad65]

Because creationism is not a theory. You can call it that, but it isn't.

No, it's not "quite possible". You are inferring something from the "big bang" in which there is no scientific evidence or even a logical sequence of events. It's a guess.

Look at it this way; the "Big Bang" is an accepted theory. So we agree it should be tought, right? If it is tought, one of the explanations for it is God. Others are coincedence, intellegent design, etc. I feel if you teach the "Big Bang" theory, you should tell the students of VARIOUS reasons it could have happened.

Is this radical thinking?

[1bad65]

And they ALSO said this in no way changes the rest of the overwhelming data in support of manmade global warming. Don't pick and choose. Either use it in context to what they said or don't use it at all.

Do what?

Decades of this "overwhelming data" were found to have been data that was manipulated, while the raw data was thrown out! And this is not 1bad65 saying this, the very people who did that admitted doing so.

[1bad65]

Which version? Hindu creationism? American Indian creationism? Austrailian aborigine creationism?

Lump it all together for all I care. If I'm not mistaken, they all agree on a Creator/Supreme Being, they just differ on who it was. Right?

I work as a ghost writer at a research center in an industry at the forefront of the climate-change controversy. I see a lot of data and talk to a lot of scientists who do indeed study this stuff in the private sector.

Do you guys throw out raw data? Do you manipulate, and then publish the manipulated data as truth? Be honest, that is not how legit, unbiased scientists do things. Of course those with an ulterior motive do....

[Drake]

Look at it this way; the "Big Bang" is an accepted theory. So we agree it should be tought, right? If it is tought, one of the explanations for it is God. Others are coincedence, intellegent design, etc. I feel if you teach the "Big Bang" theory, you should tell the students of VARIOUS reasons it could have happened.

Is this radical thinking?

You are trying to merge scientific theory with something in which there is not a single scientific connection. If you want creationism taught, then teach it at home.

And no, you don't teach students that god caused the big bang. You explain how the theory came to be, what happened, and teach any indicators of how it was before. You do NOT tread outside of scientific theory. There's no place for it, and I don't see why that is so difficult for you to understand. It's inappropriate, and in the end, will make our children look stupid for trying to speak scientifically and at the same time violating ALL rules of science.

[Drake]

Do what?

Decades of this "overwhelming data" were found to have been data that was manipulated, while the raw data was thrown out! And this is not 1bad65 saying this, the very people who did that admitted doing so.

Um... source that, please. Last time I checked, it was some minor data that was apparently some guy's pet.

[1bad65]

And no, you don't teach students that god caused the big bang. You explain how the theory came to be, what happened, and teach any indicators of how it was before. You do NOT tread outside of scientific theory. There's no place for it, and I don't see why that is so difficult for you to understand. It's inappropriate, and in the end, will make our children look stupid for trying to speak scientifically and at the same time violating ALL rules of science.

Drake, this is exactly what I said should be tought. That, and add in the theories of what could have caused the "Big Bang". Of course God is one of those possibilities.

[Drake]

Drake, this is exactly what I said should be tought. That, and add in the theories of what could have caused the "Big Bang". Of course God is one of those possibilities.

No. Do not add speculation based off what you "wanted" to have happened. Again... you lose massive credibility when you go and say "maybe god", because it goes against all scientific reason. We teach children science in schools. If you want your kids to learn about god, then take them to church. It is NOT the responsibility of the school to dumb down our children by telling them the basic responsibilities of scientific research and then teaching them the opposite.

There is ZERO evidence pointing towards the big bang being caused by any god. Not a single shred. Anywhere. And the only references people have to any god lies in religious doctrine. Keep it there.

[1bad65]

Um... source that, please. Last time I checked, it was some minor data that was apparently some guy's pet.

Here is what I found so far. I'll look later for where they admitted they threw out decades of raw data. BTW, to my knowledge the never explained why they threw out raw data.

Here is Phil Jones, head of UEA's Climatic Research Unit, admitting it (emphasis mine):

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

I don't consider 20 years of data to be "some minor data". Do you?

And why would he want to "hide the decline"? Hmmm.....

Here is Jones again, this time trying to keep out relevant, and not manipulated data:

"The other paper by MM is just garbage. [...] I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

That about speaks for itself.

Sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-leaked-emails
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...us-quotes.html
http://www.webcitation.org/5m33TOj7p

[1bad65]

There is ZERO evidence pointing towards the big bang being caused by any god. Not a single shred. Anywhere. And the only references people have to any god lies in religious doctrine. Keep it there.

This is not true.

It is one of the possibilities.

[1bad65]

If you want creationism taught, then teach it at home.

The very political Party trying to keep God out of schools is the one who votes against home-schooling. And vouchers. But they are the "pro-choice" Party, right?

[Drake]

The very political Party trying to keep God out of schools is the one who votes against home-schooling. And vouchers. But they are the "pro-choice" Party, right?

That's because your god doesn't belong in schools. If your kid becomes an atheist, you blame the school system?

If you want to home school your kid, then fine. Just don't be shocked if your cirriculum ends up degrading your child's opportunities in the future.

Ok, then how about this? We'll add god to the schools. And your children will get to learn all about Ahura Mazda and the salvation he provides. He MAY HAVE caused the big bang, right?

[Drake]

This is not true.

It is one of the possibilities.

No, it isn't. That is factless speculation.

[dimethylsea]

This is not true.

It is one of the possibilities.

It is also one of the (remote, unsupported, pretty much disproven) possibilities that the Stork brings babies despite all the massive amounts of evidence that sex causes them.

Your position is logically equivalent to arguing that even if sex is the direct cause of babies the reason people want to have sex is because the Stork is behind the scenes making people want to have sex.

See how silly this is, when it's put in terms like Storks and babies?