Both or neither.

You might want to note that well over 700 Kuiper Belt objects have been discovered and have had their orbits calculated in the last decade or so. Only the bigger ones are detectable with today's technology, but the size distribution of those looks much like the distribution of Main Belt asteroids - a few big ones, and lots and lots of little one. Comet-sized little ones.You should compare what AiG wrote about the Kuiper Belt a decade ago with what they've written recently. The Truth (TM) seems to be evolving over at their place, too.

I thought the message this one is a reply to, was one of my best - Didn't get any response.Essentially, what I am proposing is that we push "creationism as pseudoscience" into the science classroom, to, in a way, give the creationists the exposure they crave.Then we'll see who's suing to get creationism removed from the science classroom.Moose

Sorry about just noding and agreeing with you. But yes, it maybe time to take this on and try to bring the whole damm thing to a head.However, is there time and enough good science teachers to handle the task. There are a lot of practised liars out there with simple-minded convincing stories.How about a set of DVD's with the aruguments on them. Invite the creationists to recorded debates with rebuttals and counters on DVD.

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-19-2004]

Just think of the public controversy that would be generated, if there was a grass-roots movement of scientists pushing to get various pseudo-science (as pseudo-science) into the public science education program.Part of a program to promote good science, is also to educate about bad science. If the fundementalists can push for creationism exposure in the schools, the science side can push for pseudo-science exposure in the schools.The practical reality is, the hub-bub over trying to push such an agenda could be as powerful as actually getting it in place.Moose[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-19-2004]

I dunno, I have a bad feeling about this. Thinking back to my school experiences I remember a lot less critical thinkers and a lot more people who were of the mind that "it must be true, because I heard it from a teacher."This seems like a schadenfreude situation that is too good to be true.

The old Gish Gallop, hum?Just because you are ignorant of the refutaions does not mean that they have not been refuted ... and they have, many times over. AIG doesn't want you to see tho whole story, of course, so they don't link to the sites containing the refutations.We do not know that "half(at least) were not only good theories but facts' .. we do know that all are at best incorrect and at worst willful lies, becuase we and others have thoroughly investigated them and evaluated them and discarded them.Try learning something for yourself instead of demanding that we serve it up for you on a silver platter.People like you are the reason the Founding Fathers wrote separation of church and state into the Constitution .. thank goodness they did! Without that, you'd be really dangerous.Ready to admit that creationism and ID are not taught in any public school classrooms in the U.S.?

And an incredibly dangerous and downright evil one. That's why we have separation of church and state.

Yes plants changing is evolution, but those plants did not turn into monkeys, lol. I agree that evolution in plants and bacteria happen - but not in huge jumps.

Mentioning an idea - and not supporting either - simply giving both theories is not evil.

You have explicitly stated that you want your religion, explicitly your religion and not the psuedoscientific "creation science", taught in science classes ... and you want only your religion taught. That's evil, and is a classic example of the reason that we need separation of church and state ... to protect us from people like you.You wrote "it won't do any harm". It will do harm. It will do tremendous harm. It will destroy the foundations of our free society. Thank goodness there's no way that your intolerance will win out.Science gets taught in science classes. "Creation science", creationism, ID, whatever you call it ... it has failed every test to be accepted as science, in the scientific arena and the legal arena and the political arena. Posting regurgitated lists of old AIG claims isn't going to change that.When the creationists stop publishing their creationism only in their vanity press house organs (reviewed only for dogmatic compliance); when they abandon the formal pledges to ignore any evidence that contradicts their preconceptions; when they follow the trail of evidence wherever it leads and give up quote-mining, cherry-picking data, and yes, deliberately misrepresenting the data ... then we'll talk about accepting it as science.Of course, the problem for you is that it's already proven that examining creationism with an honest scientific eye forces the sincere investigator to give up on the idea of a literal global flood, a young Earth, and young life. The great creationist geologists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, long before Darwin and long before radioisotope dating, did everything they could to maintain their YEC beliefs; but they were honest men, and finally admitted that the evidence they had gathered proved their original ideas wrong.Since then all the evidence we've gathered only reinforces and clarifies the conclusions they came to; the Earth is old, life is old, there was no global flood. Genesis contains many truths, has great value, is many things to many people, but one thing we know; it's not literally true.

I asked you this before and got no response so I'll ask it again:What creation theory? What are the exact contents of this "theory" and what testable predictions does it make? "God coulda done it" is not a legitimate theory.

quote:

---

I agree that evolution in plants and bacteria happen - but not in huge jumps.

---

Good. Scientists don't believe that evolution happens in huge jumps. So there is a lot you agree on.

I also asked you this before and got no response so I'll ask again:What barriers do you think exist that would prevent the evolution you recognize from amounting to the evolution that your incredulity restrains you from acknowledging? What's to stop small evolutionary changes from amounting to large ones over time?

quote:

---

I agree that evolution in plants and bacteria happen - but not in huge jumps.

---

Is this really what you need? If several of their arguments are shown to be inaccurate or otherwise flawed, you won't see that as an indication that the rest of it is untrustworthy? We can start by rebutting each of their points, one-by-one, but as long as their is one point that hasn't been rebutted you'll still consider them a trustworthy source?How many lies need to be exposed before you believe someone is a liar?

Are you saying that there is no way, in your mind, that God could have made everything you see today? Just because it doesn't meet the almighty SFS's standards for being a scientific theory doesn't make it not a possiblity. When referring to the observed data, are you also referring to radio-carbon-dating? Is that process, along with all/most of all of the other 'information' you speak of that has been gathered, not accurate or reliable depending of the situation?
I would also LOVE to here one of these "ad hoc explainations" that "frequently contradict one another". The truth is the reality you speak of, has absolutely no ^SOLID^ evidence for itself.