tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post2361840407098954444..comments2024-03-19T07:45:47.298-05:00Comments on Althouse: Watch Christine O'Donnell dominate debate, even as Wolf Blitzer tries to control her.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger210125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24489477176477875092010-10-15T20:10:08.070-05:002010-10-15T20:10:08.070-05:00@Synova:
I don't know if you're still rea...@Synova:<br /><br />I don't know if you're still reading, but let me say that I usually like and enjoy your commentary. I think on this subject you are wrong, but I don't think you are dumb or anything and I do respect you. <br /><br />What I do think is that what you are saying is well-intentioned but pernicious, because there are premises and consequences to this argument that I don't think you are aware of. Obviously I feel very strongly about it.<br /><br />Even-handedness and promoting free inquiry and teaching critical thinking and all that are of course worthy objectives. But there are people, not just creationists, who use this rhetoric as a cover for goals that are diametrically opposed to the ones they profess. And you can can catch them at it, as happened (spectacularly) in the Dover trial. The whole point of the rhetoric is to trick people.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44014472214719579742010-10-15T19:32:33.146-05:002010-10-15T19:32:33.146-05:00@Synova:
Telling students to question scientists ...@Synova:<br /><br /><i>Telling students to question scientists and facts in their science textbook is not going to hurt them. They'll be interested or they won't. They'll understand or they won't. If they are interested it will not impair, even minutely, their path to becoming scientists. It might actually assist.</i><br /><br />Uh huh. Do you encourage your kids, when they are little, to question your motives and moral proscriptions? No?<br /><br />Kids have to learn the basics first. They can be taught scientific controversies, if those are presented neutrally and fairly.<br /><br />But there is very little scientific controversy over evolution. There is a great deal of religious and political controversy, but creationists deal in distortions and lies about evolution, and they want those taught as fact.<br /><br />Lynn Margulis made her name in biology by questioning whether the eukaryotic cell could have evolved by natural selection. She is now universally accorded to have been right--the cell nucleus was not evolved, but the result of symbiosis or parasitism. That was a scientific controversy which kids could have been taught about, same with continental drift before it was proved to everyone's satisfaction.<br /><br />But that's not what the stickers and the Dover decision were about. Those were about presenting lies in science class to accommodate people's religion.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53935831681637030672010-10-15T19:24:45.921-05:002010-10-15T19:24:45.921-05:00You're talking about scientists, I'm talki...You're talking about scientists, I'm talking about students and lay people.<br /><br />Science itself is very good about questioning and adapting and being responsive to facts.<br /><br />With people who aren't it's very different. Maybe, it's possible, that being on the inside you're unable to see this.<br /><br />Telling students to question scientists and facts in their science textbook is not going to hurt them. They'll be interested or they won't. They'll understand or they won't. If they are interested it will not impair, even minutely, their path to becoming scientists. It might actually assist.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66788965761587422662010-10-15T19:23:47.263-05:002010-10-15T19:23:47.263-05:00@Synova:
You can find the sticker ruling here:
h...@Synova:<br /><br />You can find the sticker ruling here:<br /><br />http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf<br /><br /><i>We will begin with the facts that appear to be undisputed. In 1995 the Cobb<br />County School District had an official policy concerning the instruction of<br />students on “Theories of Origin.” The policy acknowledged that “some scientific<br />accounts of the origin of human species as taught in public schools are<br />inconsistent with the family teachings of a significant number of Cobb County<br />citizens.” It provided that “the instructional program and curriculum of the school<br />system shall be planned and organized with respect for these family teachings.”<br />An accompanying regulation explained how the policy was to be<br />implemented. The 1995 regulation stated that out of “respect for the family<br />teachings of a significant number of Cobb County citizens,” the subject of the<br />origin of human species would not be taught in the elementary and middle schools, and instruction in it would not be mandatory in the district’s high schools. <b>The<br />regulation did state that elective courses on alternative theories of the origin of<br />human species, including creation theory, would be offered to high school students<br />and noted in curriculum catalogs and listings</b>. In compliance with the 1995 policy<br />and regulation, the school district provided students with science textbooks only<br />after any section containing material on evolution had been torn out of the books.</i><br /><br />Yeah, it was all done to promote inquiry and skepticism. Come on.<br /><br />In "Kitzmiller vs Dover" this was what Judge Jones found so disgusting, that ostensibly religious people were lying to him, and had left plenty of evidence to show that they did so.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26014583369155002322010-10-15T19:16:46.572-05:002010-10-15T19:16:46.572-05:00Synova, "defiling" is your word.
The st...Synova, "defiling" is your word.<br /><br />The state put stickers on the book giving kids the impression that what they were learning isn't "real science". That was why they were put there. That was a lie. Those kids' parents object to anything but a literal interpretation of the Bible. Evolution by natural selection is only one of the many scientific facts they have a beef with.<br /><br />The stickers were never about promoting free inquiry and skepticism. All you have to do is pay attention to what the people who fought for the stickers said about why they wanted them there, just like the school board in Dover.<br /><br />And yet I'm the irrational one.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-30067072411105457302010-10-15T19:12:33.343-05:002010-10-15T19:12:33.343-05:00@synova:
is mitigated by the fact that your boogi...@synova:<br /><br /><i>is mitigated by the fact that your boogie men know *less* and really, all I actually suggested or meant to suggest was respecting people's concerns. You made up what that meant all on your own.</i><br /><br />The guys who believes in the talking snake and the worldwide flood are the vast majority of those trying to change the definition of science by legislative fiat.<br /><br /><i>I think it's snowballed because of attitudes like yours... where just saying "theory"... not on everything but just maybe under that stupid apes turning into a naked Caucasian picture... is a bridge too far.</i><br /><br />Because when you say "theory" you mean "unsupported speculation". When a scientist says "theory", he means "a conceptual framework which explains a great deal of observations and predicts future ones".<br /><br />To call evolution an "unsupported speculation" is a lie. To call it a scientific theory is accurate, but to put a sticker saying implying that it's all speculation and no one really knows for sure is a lie. Tell your own kids that lie if you want. Don't use taxpayer money to tell it to mine.<br /><br />I look forward to telling my kids all kinds of stuff they are taught is false--but I don't demand that the state put my objections in the science book if the scientific community disagrees.<br /><br /><i>If you want to be all inclusive and thorough, give everyone a 2 x 3 inch disclaimer sticker they can put anything they want on it and stick in the front of the text book. The kids won't pay them any attention and everyone will have a band aid for their boo-boo.</i><br /><br />Again, how post-modern of you.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26283052461574972742010-10-15T19:08:43.108-05:002010-10-15T19:08:43.108-05:00"This textbook contains material on evolution..."<i>This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.</i>"<br /><br />You. Are. Irrational.<br /><br />Okay... You don't like that they say evolution specifically regarding the origins of living things (genesis) is not a fact. Note that this is not even evolution of species or the genetic change in cells over time, but specifically origins of life, not even origins of *people*, just life. And then you manufacture outrage that they have the gall to say something about open minded study and critical consideration... not because it's *wrong* but because that's what scientists should do.<br /><br />And THIS is going to destroy science education in America. THIS is too much, too defiling a thing?Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39632023443730238212010-10-15T19:06:16.323-05:002010-10-15T19:06:16.323-05:00@synova:
I've never thought that, or said i...@synova:<br /><br /><br /><br />I've never thought that, or said it. People can criticize the science all they want, and that's a good thing. But I care if they lie about the science, and that;s what the denialist movement does, and that's what creationists do about all science--like O'Donnell and her statement about Mt St Helens rocks. It's a lie about physics, and been exposed as one, and she repeats it and wants my kids to be taught it in school. <br /><br /><i>how dare you question the Lab Coat. </i><br /><br />AGAIN, you can question all you like. But you can't lie about what he says, or why he says it--and if you want me to take what you say seriously you have to know the subject as well as he does--and he's put the time in. You haven't.<br /><br />Case in point: continental drift. Proposed over a hundred years ago. Few geologists took it seriously. Then the mid-ocean ridges were discovered, and then it was in all the textbooks within ten years?<br /><br />Why? Because Wegener could not explain how solid rock could move. When the Earth was shown to have molten layers and the mid-ocean ridges were found with rocks getting older as you got farther from the ridges it was obvious what the mechanism was.<br /><br />Wegener's adherents did the work. When the weight of evidence was on their side geologists converted in short order.<br /><br />Now there's geologists in Tanzania who've said for fifty years that the Earth is expanding, and no one takes them seriously--because they don't have the evidence for the mechanism. If they do, then the opinion will change.<br /><br />All of this involves "questioning the Lab Coats".Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90385821778366028922010-10-15T19:01:44.816-05:002010-10-15T19:01:44.816-05:00"No, she wasn't. She wants to leave out l..."<i>No, she wasn't. She wants to leave out large chunks of science that offend people. And she has no idea HOW MUCH she'd have to leave out, because she doesn't know enough about it:</i>"<br /><br />Oh for Pete's sake, Gabriel. I didn't say a thing about how much and my not knowing enough (thank you) is mitigated by the fact that your boogie men know *less* and really, all I actually suggested or meant to suggest was respecting people's concerns. You made up what that meant all on your own.<br /><br />Sure, it's all snowballed. I think it's snowballed because of attitudes like yours... where just saying "theory"... not on everything but just maybe under that stupid apes turning into a naked Caucasian picture... is a bridge too far.<br /><br />If you want to be all inclusive and thorough, give everyone a 2 x 3 inch disclaimer sticker they can put anything they want on it and stick in the front of the text book. The kids won't pay them any attention and everyone will have a band aid for their boo-boo.<br /><br />It's not a Holy Book after all, so that it would become defiled by being touched by irrationality cooties.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44911863777817626262010-10-15T18:58:14.176-05:002010-10-15T18:58:14.176-05:00@Synova:
a sticker for the inside of the front co...@Synova:<br /><br /><i>a sticker for the inside of the front cover of the textbook that said something or other about theory or people disagreeing.</i><br /><br />The sticker was a lie and a misrepresentation. Shall I quote it for you?<br /><br /><i>This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.</i><br /><br />The first sentence is true. The second theory contains two misrepresentations. The third is trite, because biologists have never done anything else.<br /><br />The two misrepresentations:<br /><br />"Theory" and "fact" are presented as opposites. A stone falls when you drop it, that's a fact, and gravity is the theory that explains how it happens. Likewise, humans are related to the other primates, this is a fact, and the theory of evolution by natural selection explains it.<br /><br />"Evolution" is not concerned with the origin of life, and evolution by natural selection has still happened however the first life got there.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-89260104696625110772010-10-15T18:52:33.359-05:002010-10-15T18:52:33.359-05:00And if you don't think that unquestioning fait...And if you don't think that unquestioning faith in the Lab Coat is a problem and THE reason you can't get more traction trying to convince people of global warming, just keep beating your head on that wall. It must feel good.<br /><br />For every embarrassingly ignorant New Earth Creationist out there there are two vapid watermelon crusaders wanting to remake the world economy into an agrarian paradise, three journalists aiding and abetting, and a fellow with a club ready to explain that Freeman Dyson doesn't have the credentials to criticize computer models, and how dare you question the Lab Coat. <br /><br />I think his name is Jeremy.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28243348220654103172010-10-15T18:51:56.988-05:002010-10-15T18:51:56.988-05:00@blake:
Well, yeah, actually anyone can. That'...@blake:<br /><br /><i>Well, yeah, actually anyone can. That's kind of the beauty of it. Science doesn't respect Authority.</i><br /><br />Science respects knowing what you are talking about. An argument from authority of course is not a scientific argument. But if you think you know science better than those who do it for a living, you are almost certainly wrong, not because some university gave them a piece of paper but because they've been doing the work and you haven't.<br /><br /><i>Of course, that wasn't what Synova was doing. She was simply pointing out that integrity was necessary to pursue Science effectively.</i><br /><br />No, she wasn't. She wants to leave out large chunks of science that offend people. And she has no idea HOW MUCH she'd have to leave out, because she doesn't know enough about it:<br /><br /><i>I would contend that the areas most concerned with the evolution boogieman are the least rigorous of all "science" offered to High School students. We would not be crippled in the sciences to lose it.<br /><br />Frankly, I'd almost call this creation/evolution issue a fetish, a science-fetish. At *best* what the argument is over is a wish by parents to allow a measure of grace for their children not to have their religious faith attacked by government mandatory indoctrination during science class.<br /><br />In HIGH SCHOOL the depth of scientific study about evolution in text books can't even be called "depth". Nothing whatsoever would be lost if the two pages about the theory of human origins was left out. Add two pages about peptide chains and we'd all be ahead of the game.</i><br /><br />But that wouldn't be enough, as I pointed out. There are too many religious prejudices that cannot be accommodated without a) preferring one religion over others or b) gutting science.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72726112090180693402010-10-15T18:46:33.269-05:002010-10-15T18:46:33.269-05:00Yeah, one of those terrible horrible Creationist i...Yeah, one of those terrible horrible Creationist ideas that had to be defeated at all costs or the world would end... was... drumroll... a sticker for the inside of the front cover of the textbook that said something or other about theory or people disagreeing.<br /><br />OH. MY. GOD.<br /><br />If the kids were allowed to even see that their brains would turn to snot and flow out their ears.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-35471988362166662462010-10-15T18:44:45.200-05:002010-10-15T18:44:45.200-05:00@Synova:
I guess I just don't have this overw...@Synova:<br /><br /><i>I guess I just don't have this overwhelming fear of someone being wrong about something.</i><br /><br />That's not it at all. There is nothing wrong with incomplete knowledge or honest errors.<br /><br /><i>You've made assumptions that it's a critical problem if people believe the wrong thing.</i><br /><br />No. It's a critical problem when people lie about what is, and is not, science.<br /><br />When I had to teach evolution in my class, I told my students that I don't care what they believe about it. All they had to do was demonstrate that they understood the material presented.<br /><br />I'm not interested in making anyone believe anything. Homeschool your kids if you want, tell them the stork brings babies. They can grow up to be idiots. More jobs for my kids.<br /><br /><i>But people believing the wrong things brought us modern medicine, space travel, nuclear power, and spandex.</i><br /><br />What a bizarre statement. People believing the wrong things brought us bleeding and leeches, too.<br /><br />The "wrong" things were corrected by applying the principles of science, not by persistently being wrong about things.<br /><br />I have a lot of patience for alternative scientific theories--meaning they have to follow the rules. I have no patience for misrepresentations and lies, such as creationism or cell phones causing cancer or homeopathy.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7173684990487452772010-10-15T18:41:13.595-05:002010-10-15T18:41:13.595-05:00Because you know SO MUCH ABOUT SCIENCE that you ca...<i>Because you know SO MUCH ABOUT SCIENCE that you can just pronounce on how it works.</i><br /><br />Well, yeah, actually anyone can. That's kind of the beauty of it. Science doesn't respect Authority. <br /><br />Of course, that wasn't what Synova was doing. She was simply pointing out that integrity was necessary to pursue Science effectively.<br /><br /><i>I am against fables being taught as science in science classes funded by taxpayers.</i><br /><br />Find some place where Synova suggested she was for that.<br /><br />wv: pophyok (indeed!)blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05430444326700437630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-20809636658531660352010-10-15T18:39:23.293-05:002010-10-15T18:39:23.293-05:00I guess I just don't have this overwhelming fe...I guess I just don't have this overwhelming fear of someone being wrong about something.<br /><br />You've made assumptions that it's a critical problem if people believe the wrong thing. But people believing the wrong things brought us modern medicine, space travel, nuclear power, and spandex.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-21176335208125426872010-10-15T18:35:25.979-05:002010-10-15T18:35:25.979-05:00@blake:
Clearly you don't understand that the...@blake:<br /><br /><i>Clearly you don't understand that the sole purpose of Science class is to destroy religion.</i><br /><br />It's to understand the natural world. The natural world cannot be understood if we appeal to supernatural causes when we don't understand something.<br /><br />Religion is fine. I am not against religion. I am against fables being taught as science in science classes funded by taxpayers.<br /><br />It's one thing to say God is love. it is something entirely different to say that God created the universe last Thursday, including our memories preceding last Thursday, and that this needs to be taught in science class because my religion is offended otherwise.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52690020079210004162010-10-15T18:32:20.720-05:002010-10-15T18:32:20.720-05:00I'm convinced that Science and the scientific ...<i>I'm convinced that Science and the scientific process was utterly dependent on the mental disciplines of theological study of abstract concepts and that Science... is now dead.</i><br /><br />Did you know that Isaac Newton missed out on a discovery because he assumed that God and His angels kept the planets stable in their orbits? And the discovery was made by someone else a hundred years later.<br /><br />Yes, by all means we need more arguments from theology.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40712425444941480462010-10-15T18:30:11.128-05:002010-10-15T18:30:11.128-05:00Synova--
Clearly you don't understand that th...Synova--<br /><br />Clearly you don't understand that the sole purpose of Science class is to destroy religion.blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05430444326700437630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-27650058731350971972010-10-15T18:28:01.138-05:002010-10-15T18:28:01.138-05:00I'm convinced that Science and the scientific ...<i>I'm convinced that Science and the scientific process was utterly dependent on the mental disciplines of theological study of abstract concepts and that Science... is now dead.</i><br /><br />Yeah, NOTHING has happened in science since Newton, right? Give me a break.<br /><br />Because you know SO MUCH ABOUT SCIENCE that you can just pronounce on how it works. Everybody who actually IS A SCIENTISTS just doesn't know what they are doing.<br /><br />You know, I wouldn't tell a plumber that. Yet people who didn't spend their entire adult lives doing science feel perfectly free to tell those who have that they're doing it wrong.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-31629893617953698742010-10-15T18:25:12.096-05:002010-10-15T18:25:12.096-05:00It's the utter unquestioning faith given anyth...<i>It's the utter unquestioning faith given anything in a Lab Coat that is the problem.</i><br /><br />That's the problem of the people who misplace their faith, isn't it?<br /><br /><i>Working SO HARD to perpetuate this unquestioning faith doesn't serve science at all.</i><br /><br />This UNQUESTIONING FAITH exists only your imagination. Ask me what I think about the reality of electrons and fields sometime. I can write REAMS on whether those things are, or are not, really REAL. If science was about UNQUESTIONING FAITH how could I do that?<br /><br /><i>but *origins* as theory. Because it is.</i><br /><br />GERMS are "theory". GRAVITY is "theory". "Theory" is not an unsupported speculation.<br /><br />The origins of life itself are speculative, but the origins of humans among the primates is not--it is as well supported by evidence as the fact that Jupiter is made of hydrogen, or that smallpox is caused by germs.<br /><br />Creationists object to ALL of it. Anything that contradicts their pet book. You're trying to pretend that doesn't happen. But it does. They don't want the age of rocks discussed, or how long ago people came to the Americas.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67523491197119842832010-10-15T18:22:06.776-05:002010-10-15T18:22:06.776-05:00It's like speaking into the aether.
It really...It's like speaking into the aether.<br /><br />It really is.<br /><br />Seriously, how do you follow a scientific train of thought from one point to another? <br /><br />I amend my statement.<br /><br />I'm convinced that Science and the scientific process was utterly dependent on the mental disciplines of theological study of abstract concepts and that Science... is now dead.<br /><br />And that dead corpse will be strangled with great vigor in the futile belief that strangling it even harder will bring it back to life.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-32753518131373319302010-10-15T18:19:29.125-05:002010-10-15T18:19:29.125-05:00Synova, let's walk down memory lane--you were ...Synova, let's walk down memory lane--you were alive in the 80s.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas<br /><br /><i>A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas by various parents, religious groups and organizations, biologists, and others who argued that the Arkansas state law known as the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act (Act 590), which mandated the teaching of "creation science" in Arkansas public schools, was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.</i><br /><br />Science textbooks don't have "Goddidit" in them anymore. Creationists were upset. Having had over a hundred years to scientifically validate their claims, and failed to do so, they decided to use government power to force the teaching of their religion in science class as equally scientific.<br /><br />And to you this is about scientists and their "baseless" attacks on religion?<br /><br />They had their chance, in the scientific world, and they lost. Just like astrologers and flat-earthers. And they just decided to legislatively mandate that away? And you're okay with it, and blaming the victims. Fantastic.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91499847851263278982010-10-15T18:16:46.013-05:002010-10-15T18:16:46.013-05:00I'd like to leave one last thought here.
You&...I'd like to leave one last thought here.<br /><br />You've complained about the difficulty of getting people to take global warming science seriously.<br /><br />What the deniers are objecting to is certainty. <br /><br />It's not a *lack* of faith in Science that is the problem. It's the utter unquestioning faith given anything in a Lab Coat that is the problem.<br /><br />Working SO HARD to perpetuate this unquestioning faith doesn't serve science at all. <br /><br />I'm not advocating teaching creationism in the classroom, or intelligent design or anything else but asking public schools to serve their students by presenting origins... not evolution... but *origins* as theory. Because it is.<br /><br />BUT I can think of far far worse results for scientific inquiry than inserting a good huge dose of uncertainty and doubt into High School science texts.<br /><br />Perhaps the children taught this way will want more proof than Lab Coats.<br /><br />And that would be a huge step forward.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53525283193509355912010-10-15T18:13:05.618-05:002010-10-15T18:13:05.618-05:00I honestly can't understand your position, Syn...I honestly can't understand your position, Synova. To accomodate these people<br /><br />http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/10/15/dinosaurs-in-the-lobby<br /><br /><i>This lobby display of children playing near two young T.-rexes is designed to get people’s attention, and to cause them to think from a biblical perspective. Since both man and land animals—including dinosaurs—were created on the sixth day, we can be certain that man lived at the same time as dinosaurs. </i><br /><br />you want their demonstrably, empirically false claim taught in school to kids on par with what actually happened.<br /><br />Un-freaking-believable. How postmodernist of you.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.com