KawiZX900 0 #126 January 30, 2004 hey good news. Crown Point Elementary is facning a school closure here in Pacific Beach... stoopid kids and their stoopid edubacationz Accelerate hard to get them looking, then slam on the fronts and rollright beside the car, hanging the back wheel at eye level for a few seconds. Guaranteed reaction- Dave Sonsky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gary350 0 #127 January 30, 2004 QuoteSensible debate is clearly at an end here. Ya Think??? Kudos - you lasted WAY, WAY longer than I possibly could have. Speaking of dinosaurs, did you know that God also created light from the stars already "on its way"? How else to explain galaxies millions of light years away in a 6000 year old universe? Boy, God sure has a sense of humor - or way too much time on his hands. . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #128 January 30, 2004 QuoteBoy, God sure has a sense of humor - or way too much time on his hands. . . I always kinda wondered about that whole pesky 6 days ... so just how long is a day to god? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #129 January 30, 2004 This has been a really amusing thread. Reminding me that converts are often more fanatic than the ones brought up within a belief system. And making me laugh aloud a couple of times. ie: God just decided to add an appendix? Tough on those who died from appendicitis. >>Boy, God sure has a sense of humor - or way too much time on his hands. . . >> >I always kinda wondered about that whole pesky 6 days ... so just how long is a day to god? > A thousand years, I'm told. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #130 January 30, 2004 QuoteA thousand years, I'm told. But wasnt that already 6000 years ago?? Now if we could just figure out how many angles can dance on the head of a needle Worse yet would be finding out why they would want to dance there Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #131 January 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteSensible debate is clearly at an end here. Ya Think??? Kudos - you lasted WAY, WAY longer than I possibly could have. Speaking of dinosaurs, did you know that God also created light from the stars already "on its way"? How else to explain galaxies millions of light years away in a 6000 year old universe? Boy, God sure has a sense of humor - or way too much time on his hands. . . Clearly you can not sense the sracasm. I gave up first. My sarcasm ended the debate. Of course I believe in Creation so what do I know, I am a fantaic who is beyond reasoning with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #132 January 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteSensible debate is clearly at an end here. Ya Think??? Kudos - you lasted WAY, WAY longer than I possibly could have. Speaking of dinosaurs, did you know that God also created light from the stars already "on its way"? How else to explain galaxies millions of light years away in a 6000 year old universe? Boy, God sure has a sense of humor - or way too much time on his hands. . . it's a test of your faith dude. donchu know nuthin?namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #133 January 30, 2004 Quote Now if we could just figure out how many angles can dance on the head of a needle reply] Same as the number of Saxons?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gary350 0 #134 January 31, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteSensible debate is clearly at an end here. Ya Think??? Kudos - you lasted WAY, WAY longer than I possibly could have. Speaking of dinosaurs, did you know that God also created light from the stars already "on its way"? How else to explain galaxies millions of light years away in a 6000 year old universe? Boy, God sure has a sense of humor - or way too much time on his hands. . . Clearly you can not sense the sracasm. I gave up first. My sarcasm ended the debate. Of course I believe in Creation so what do I know, I am a fantaic who is beyond reasoning with. Honestly not trying to be offensive here, but I personally found it hard to tell what was sarcasm very early on in the exchange. . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites base311 0 #135 February 6, 2004 I realize that I hijacked this thread (to a degree) last thursday, but... just as a follow-up to my inflammatory repost of an Atlanta Journal/Constitution article regarding the word "evolution" being removed from Georgia schools curriculum, I am posting another article that appeared in today's edition. IMHO, her actions could safely be called political suicide. We'll see if the voters agree next go-around. -Gardner ___begin article___ Cox will recommend 'evolution' stay in curriculum By MARY MACDONALD Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer State Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox announced Thursday she will recommend that the word evolution be retained in Georgia's proposed curriculum for middle and high school science. "I made the decision to remove the word evolution from the draft of the proposed biology curriculum in an effort to avoid controversy that would prevent people from reading the substance of the document itself," Cox said in a statement. "Instead, a greater controversy ensued." Cox had proposed the phrase "biological changes over time," a term that scientists derided as meaningless, be used instead. "I am here to tell you that I misjudged the situation and I want to apologize for that. I want you to know today that I will recommend to the teacher teams that the word 'evolution' be put back in the curriculum," she said. Her decision followed a week of withering criticism from a variety of sources, including university professors, the National Science Teachers Association and even former President Jimmy Carter. The superintendent's office received about 900 to 1,000 online responses to the curriculum changes, most of it directed at the biology proposal, a spokesman said. "We have heard from the people of Georgia," said Cox's spokesman, Kirk Englehardt. "We've been receiving feedback from everywhere." Controversy over the teaching of evolution surfaced afterreports that Cox proposed eliminating the word "evolution" from the middle and high school science standards. The proposal is part of a massive revision of state curriculum. Cox explained that she regarded "evolution" as a buzzword that causes negative reaction in communities, enough to derail teachers' attempts to teach the major components of biology. She identified "intelligent design" as another acceptable scientific theory about the origin of life. Cox plans to reconvene the teacher and science advisory panels that had worked on the proposed standards sometime this month, earlier than she had initially proposed. Cox made no statement on her decision to not include in the biology proposal several national standards for evolution instruction that many scientists say are critical for students to understand it. Those standards, culled from the American Association for the Advancement of Science benchmarks, include the explanation for natural selection and statements about the origins of life on Earth such as "life on Earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4 billion years ago." Englehardt said the superintendent plans to put that issue before the curriculum advisory panels. At least one scientist hailed Cox's reversal on the word "evolution." "I am glad she came to her senses," said Jung Choi, associate professor of biology at Georgia Tech Thursday morning. "I expected she would. What I am concerned about is whether she will go on the other side and include creation science and intelligent design [in the curriculum], the so-called alternative theories that she has mentioned before." Choi said it is essential students study evolution before reaching college. "I think it is critical because biology does not really make sense without evolution. It is the very first topic that we cover in freshman biology. There's too many students that come to Georgia Tech that have not studied evolution before." Previously, Cox had said her proposed biology curriculum would allow teachers to present other scientific theories about evolution such as "intelligent design." She did not clarify that position Thursday. Intelligent design holds that living things are too complex and diverse to have evolved through random mutation. Its proponents argue instead that life on Earth resulted from a purposeful design by a higher intelligence. The proposed biology curriculum draws on national standards, but includes a truncated version of required knowledge for students on evolution. ___eof___ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 6 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
gary350 0 #134 January 31, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteSensible debate is clearly at an end here. Ya Think??? Kudos - you lasted WAY, WAY longer than I possibly could have. Speaking of dinosaurs, did you know that God also created light from the stars already "on its way"? How else to explain galaxies millions of light years away in a 6000 year old universe? Boy, God sure has a sense of humor - or way too much time on his hands. . . Clearly you can not sense the sracasm. I gave up first. My sarcasm ended the debate. Of course I believe in Creation so what do I know, I am a fantaic who is beyond reasoning with. Honestly not trying to be offensive here, but I personally found it hard to tell what was sarcasm very early on in the exchange. . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base311 0 #135 February 6, 2004 I realize that I hijacked this thread (to a degree) last thursday, but... just as a follow-up to my inflammatory repost of an Atlanta Journal/Constitution article regarding the word "evolution" being removed from Georgia schools curriculum, I am posting another article that appeared in today's edition. IMHO, her actions could safely be called political suicide. We'll see if the voters agree next go-around. -Gardner ___begin article___ Cox will recommend 'evolution' stay in curriculum By MARY MACDONALD Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer State Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox announced Thursday she will recommend that the word evolution be retained in Georgia's proposed curriculum for middle and high school science. "I made the decision to remove the word evolution from the draft of the proposed biology curriculum in an effort to avoid controversy that would prevent people from reading the substance of the document itself," Cox said in a statement. "Instead, a greater controversy ensued." Cox had proposed the phrase "biological changes over time," a term that scientists derided as meaningless, be used instead. "I am here to tell you that I misjudged the situation and I want to apologize for that. I want you to know today that I will recommend to the teacher teams that the word 'evolution' be put back in the curriculum," she said. Her decision followed a week of withering criticism from a variety of sources, including university professors, the National Science Teachers Association and even former President Jimmy Carter. The superintendent's office received about 900 to 1,000 online responses to the curriculum changes, most of it directed at the biology proposal, a spokesman said. "We have heard from the people of Georgia," said Cox's spokesman, Kirk Englehardt. "We've been receiving feedback from everywhere." Controversy over the teaching of evolution surfaced afterreports that Cox proposed eliminating the word "evolution" from the middle and high school science standards. The proposal is part of a massive revision of state curriculum. Cox explained that she regarded "evolution" as a buzzword that causes negative reaction in communities, enough to derail teachers' attempts to teach the major components of biology. She identified "intelligent design" as another acceptable scientific theory about the origin of life. Cox plans to reconvene the teacher and science advisory panels that had worked on the proposed standards sometime this month, earlier than she had initially proposed. Cox made no statement on her decision to not include in the biology proposal several national standards for evolution instruction that many scientists say are critical for students to understand it. Those standards, culled from the American Association for the Advancement of Science benchmarks, include the explanation for natural selection and statements about the origins of life on Earth such as "life on Earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4 billion years ago." Englehardt said the superintendent plans to put that issue before the curriculum advisory panels. At least one scientist hailed Cox's reversal on the word "evolution." "I am glad she came to her senses," said Jung Choi, associate professor of biology at Georgia Tech Thursday morning. "I expected she would. What I am concerned about is whether she will go on the other side and include creation science and intelligent design [in the curriculum], the so-called alternative theories that she has mentioned before." Choi said it is essential students study evolution before reaching college. "I think it is critical because biology does not really make sense without evolution. It is the very first topic that we cover in freshman biology. There's too many students that come to Georgia Tech that have not studied evolution before." Previously, Cox had said her proposed biology curriculum would allow teachers to present other scientific theories about evolution such as "intelligent design." She did not clarify that position Thursday. Intelligent design holds that living things are too complex and diverse to have evolved through random mutation. Its proponents argue instead that life on Earth resulted from a purposeful design by a higher intelligence. The proposed biology curriculum draws on national standards, but includes a truncated version of required knowledge for students on evolution. ___eof___ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
