Let me talk a bit more about clubs after school.
I have no problem with the following voluntary after school clubs on school grounds:

Gay club
Christian club
Buddhist club (hopefully chaired by our own Buddha)
Jewish club
Islam club
Atheists club
Agnostic club
Transgender club
Lesbian club
etc etc etc

Pretty much any club that doesn't promote illegal activity or discrimination.

I would support a comparative religion class as long as it gives equal time and consideration to all the major religions and examines them from a secular perspective w/o advocacy for any one of them over the other.

I would not support a Bible class or a Koran class etc.

Would you agree with any of these positions, Dixie ?

Quote:
Let me talk a bit more about clubs after school.
I have no problem with the following voluntary after school clubs on school grounds:

Gay club
Christian club
Buddhist club (hopefully chaired by our own Buddha)
Jewish club
Islam club
Atheists club
Agnostic club
Transgender club
Lesbian club
etc etc etc

Pretty much any club that doesn't promote illegal activity or discrimination.

I would support a comparative religion class as long as it gives equal time and consideration to all the major religions and examines them from a secular perspective w/o advocacy for any one of them over the other.

I would not support a Bible class or a Koran class etc.

Would you agree with any of these positions, Dixie ?

IMHO, all religions are right when put together and viewed as a whole, but no religion is right when seen individually as an ism.

You use the phrase, "..... students forming a gay support group.", what students might do ON THEIR OWN is the business of the students and their parents. What goes on in public schools with the support of the staff and administration is supported by my tax dollars and therefore is my business. Setting aside the PC language, yes, I oppose action on the part of the school to foster the practice of homosexuality by children.

I'm past being offended by your responses, Elk. Now I'm just amused.

Like you, I would not support a Bible class or a Koran class. Considering the poor showing of schools generally regarding the effective teaching of language arts, science, and math, I'm dubious whether comparative religion classes could meet with the standards you suggest. I would object to school involvement in any of the other activities you've listed. The areas concerned are the business of each individual student's parents and their churches. Part of the reason schools are falling down on their primary instructional responsibilities is that they are, instead, engaged in social engineering.

What social engineering are you referring to?
Specific examples please.

I not only write about schools and other things in the inner city, I actually live in the inner city. I don't mean some "tony" neighborhood where it's "safe" for whites after dark.
I realize your post wasn't aimed at me. I just had to comment. I couldn't help myself. I have a cold.

BTW: I happen to like Strunz and Farrah. Although I'm not a guitar player I am (or was) a bassist.

Quote:
I not only write about schools and other things in the inner city, I actually live in the inner city. I don't mean some "tony" neighborhood where it's "safe" for whites after dark.
I realize your post wasn't aimed at me. I just had to comment. I couldn't help myself. I have a cold.

BTW: I happen to like Strunz and Farrah. Although I'm not a guitar player I am (or was) a bassist.

JoeE , Could you post some links of your writings on schools or PM me? I would be interested to read your articles.

I'm not sure my neighborhood is "tony" but it probably does border the "tony" area. (at least that's what I'll tell the real estate agent)

It is easy to hear gunfire from where I live. But this IS texas where even the liberals have guns.

Here are a few examples, and here is my final word on this topic. It's been an enlightening exchange, tomjtx, but I've better things to do.

They teach that America is a democracy rather than a republic and their students have no idea what the difference is or why it is a significant difference. They deny the value of America as a melting pot, pointing to the new transcendent virtue of social diversity. Balkanism rather than unity as Americans, is supposed to make us stronger? They deny the notion of American exceptionalism and downplay love of country by portraying our history as that of bullying imperialists. They invade the domain of the family and the churches by supporting such activities as sex among children and homosexual behavior. They pervert the guarantees that our government will not establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of a religion into such absurd actions as renaming Christmas vacation. And at the same time they expose students to such crackpot holidays as Kwanza - the phony mid-twentieth century product of a government supported "intellectual" from Berkeley.

Instead of generations of independent, capable, strong, proud, Americans with a history of action to defeat tyranny at home and abroad, their product is becoming a band of ignorant drones, convinced that the country owes them a living to make up for alleged past wrongs, and seeing themselves as members of little groups of hyphenated Americans each group entitled to its rightful piece of a reparations pie.

Increased awareness of these problems has led to the growth of home-schooling and increasing numbers of private schools. National norms have, for years, shown higher achievement levels for students in these alternatives to the public system. You may recall that this thread began with a story about a student enrolled in a private school because the public schools available where he lived had woefully low ratings. The best of our young people are as capable as those anywhere else, but unfortunately the rest are not - and that is not by accident.

Those are my final words on this topic. Condemn me for them if you will, and I'm sure you will. Good Luck.

I don't write specifically about inner city life. Comments pertaining to it find their way into my posts on this and other forums on which I participate.
Specifics are reserved for the book I'm attempting to write.

Quote:
Here are a few examples, and here is my final word on this topic. It's been an enlightening exchange, tomjtx, but I've better things to do.

They teach that America is a democracy rather than a republic and their students have no idea what the difference is or why it is a significant difference. They deny the value of America as a melting pot, pointing to the new transcendent virtue of social diversity. Balkanism rather than unity as Americans, is supposed to make us stronger? They deny the notion of American exceptionalism and downplay love of country by portraying our history as that of bullying imperialists. They invade the domain of the family and the churches by supporting such activities as sex among children and homosexual behavior. They pervert the guarantees that our government will not establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of a religion into such absurd actions as renaming Christmas vacation. And at the same time they expose students to such crackpot holidays as Kwanza - the phony mid-twentieth century product of a government supported "intellectual" from Berkeley.

Instead of generations of independent, capable, strong, proud, Americans with a history of action to defeat tyranny at home and abroad, their product is becoming a band of ignorant drones, convinced that the country owes them a living to make up for alleged past wrongs, and seeing themselves as members of little groups of hyphenated Americans each group entitled to its rightful piece of a reparations pie.

Increased awareness of these problems has led to the growth of home-schooling and increasing numbers of private schools. National norms have, for years, shown higher achievement levels for students in these alternatives to the public system. You may recall that this thread began with a story about a student enrolled in a private school because the public schools available where he lived had woefully low ratings. The best of our young people are as capable as those anywhere else, but unfortunately the rest are not - and that is not by accident.

Those are my final words on this topic. Condemn me for them if you will, and I'm sure you will. Good Luck.

WOW, I don't think I've ever seen so many "dittohead" talking points crammed into a single post. You should definitely get an invite to the" Rush Limbaugh Memorial Day BBQ"

Quote:

Quote:
Here are a few examples, and here is my final word on this topic. It's been an enlightening exchange, tomjtx, but I've better things to do.

They teach that America is a democracy rather than a republic and their students have no idea what the difference is or why it is a significant difference. They deny the value of America as a melting pot, pointing to the new transcendent virtue of social diversity. Balkanism rather than unity as Americans, is supposed to make us stronger? They deny the notion of American exceptionalism and downplay love of country by portraying our history as that of bullying imperialists. They invade the domain of the family and the churches by supporting such activities as sex among children and homosexual behavior. They pervert the guarantees that our government will not establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of a religion into such absurd actions as renaming Christmas vacation. And at the same time they expose students to such crackpot holidays as Kwanza - the phony mid-twentieth century product of a government supported "intellectual" from Berkeley.

Instead of generations of independent, capable, strong, proud, Americans with a history of action to defeat tyranny at home and abroad, their product is becoming a band of ignorant drones, convinced that the country owes them a living to make up for alleged past wrongs, and seeing themselves as members of little groups of hyphenated Americans each group entitled to its rightful piece of a reparations pie.

Increased awareness of these problems has led to the growth of home-schooling and increasing numbers of private schools. National norms have, for years, shown higher achievement levels for students in these alternatives to the public system. You may recall that this thread began with a story about a student enrolled in a private school because the public schools available where he lived had woefully low ratings. The best of our young people are as capable as those anywhere else, but unfortunately the rest are not - and that is not by accident.

Those are my final words on this topic. Condemn me for them if you will, and I'm sure you will. Good Luck.

WOW, I don't think I've ever seen so many "dittohead" talking points crammed into a single post. You should definitely get an invite to the" Rush Limbaugh Memorial Day BBQ"

What's not so clear to me is how he ties this preposterous rant to a few simple facts:

1) The enlightenment movement, which was a predecessor of the scientific method, was something that the founders were very much a part of.

2) The founders were of all sorts of mythic beliefs, from Adam's protestanism, to Jefferson's Gnostic hieracy, to Paine's loudly avowed atheism or Franklin's ridicule of religion altogether. This is not a christian country, it is nothing of the srot.

3) The scientific method, not some ancient book written and then rewritten, over and over again by generations of people looking to their own self-interest, is why this country has become what it is. It is scientific advancement, technology, and invention that have taken us from a third-world country defending itself from the indigenous peoples it displaced to a world power.

4) The idiotic, anti-American people who hawk deliberate lies like "intellegent design" and "creation science" are trying to destroy this country, and remake it into their version of the Taliban's country, a Christian Taliban, as it were, instead of an Islamic one, but one that still insists on rote obeidence to myth, obeisance to their word, never mind their own misconduct, and one that will regress, just like the Moorish civilizations of the 1100-1350AD or so period did, from when they were the hotbead of pre-science, where they invented mathematics as it stands today, and where science and art flourished in a civilization that did not require abject misery, into the present miserable, worse-than-3rd world totalitarian religious states of today.

That is what the "creation scientist" and "intellegent design advocates" would do to the USA.

Their behavior is anti-American, anti-Patriotic, treasonous attempts at destroying the USA and making the life of its residents into Hell on Earth.

Supporting them is an act of ultimate hatred against the USA.

Quote:
I'm past being offended by your responses, Elk. Now I'm just amused.

Cool!

Too bad you are afraid of the questions.

Excellent points, j_j.

j_j;
You da man!!!!!

Quote:
They teach that America is a democracy rather than a republic and their students have no idea what the difference is or why it is a significant difference.

This intrigues me.

This country is a representative democracy (republic) rather than a direct democracy. This I learned attending a public junior high.

But I haven't given any serious thought to the difference other than the practical difficulties of engaging in a direct democracy once the number of citizens is greater than a couple thousand.

What significant difference between these systems should be taught to public school students?

Quote: What's not so clear to me is how he ties this preposterous rant to a few simple facts:

What follows is ever more preposterous ranting than the object of your over-the-top derision.

Quote:
3) The scientific method, not some ancient book written and then rewritten, over and over again by generations of people looking to their own self-interest, is why this country has become what it is. It is scientific advancement, technology, and invention that have taken us from a third-world country defending itself from the indigenous peoples it displaced to a world power.

You almost make dixie's case...

The decline of our connection with the natural world in the pursuit of materialism is not a hallmark of greatness, but rather shame. The indigenous people we slaughtered and their cultures we destroyed were more compatible with sustainable civilization than the direction we're heading.

Quote:
4) The idiotic, anti-American people who hawk deliberate lies like "intellegent design" and "creation science" are trying to destroy this country...That is what the "creation scientist" and "intellegent design advocates" would do to the USA.

Political hatred has trumped critical thinking. Being a scientist does not excuse you from offering logical conclusions based on evidence, but rather obviates the need. Do you really believe this stuff??

Quote:
Their behavior is anti-American, anti-Patriotic, treasonous attempts at destroying the USA and making the life of its residents into Hell on Earth.

Supporting them is an act of ultimate hatred against the USA.

Not only is patriotism the last refuge of the scoundrel, it apparently is useful for outlandish hyperbole.

I think we can have different opinions without resorting to a rant of a different color. But not on these forums.

Quote:

Quote:
3) The scientific method, not some ancient book written and then rewritten, over and over again by generations of people looking to their own self-interest, is why this country has become what it is. It is scientific advancement, technology, and invention that have taken us from a third-world country defending itself from the indigenous peoples it displaced to a world power.

You almost make dixie's case...

The decline of our connection with the natural world in the pursuit of materialism is not a hallmark of greatness, but rather shame.

Your totalitarian tendencies are showing. You state, authoritively, the claim

Quote:
The decline of our connection with the natural world in the pursuit of materialism is not a hallmark of greatness, but rather shame.

which is, of course, throwing derision and scorn at the founders of this country, for what the established, for what they did, said, and set into motion.

You harbor an unsupported, untestable, unverifiable belief against "materialism", and propose it, in a totalitarian fashion, as revealed truth.

But you have nothing, no evidence, nothing but cheap words, out of which you create great, lasting of horrid form in support of your totalitarian anti-materialistic jingoism.

The indigenous people we slaughtered and their cultures we destroyed were more compatible with sustainable civilization than the direction we're heading.

I'm not sure which side of the political spectrum you are on, the insane-commie side or the right-wing-hater side. What they do and how they act, after all, are pretty hard to actually distinguish. It's only the excuses that change, and yours is presently quite ambiguous in that regard.

No matter, you're spouting a religions anti-materialistic belief, and using it to smear science and history.

I won't defend the treatment of indigenous North Americans, there is much shameful history there, but that simply doesn't justify attempting to force their lifestyle on the modern day in the name of the false god "sustainability".

Quote:

Quote:
Their behavior is anti-American, anti-Patriotic, treasonous attempts at destroying the USA and making the life of its residents into Hell on Earth.

Supporting them is an act of ultimate hatred against the USA.

Not only is patriotism the last refuge of the scoundrel, it apparently is useful for outlandish hyperbole.

The supporters of creation science are clearly, obviously, legally and morally, directly opposed to the principles of the founders of the United States of America. They attempt dishonest, illegal corruption of the educational agenda, and try to force government to respect an establishment of religion, in direct opposition to the constitution of this land.

They are, therefore, traitors, scoundrels, and anti-American activists.

There is no question of this. It is settled by the fact that "materialism" is held to fault, it is settled by the decision by a very conservative, religious judge in the Dover Pa trial, it is settled by your own very words, in which you spout nonsense like "sustainability", disregarding the conditions and situation in which your "sustainable" individuals lived.

Your argument appears to suggest that we should all live without medical care, modern housing, conveniences, and the like.

That, sir, is preposterous, and is very nearly, in my opinion, treason against your own species when you try to enforce it on individuals other than yourself, or against your own country (presuming you are a US citizen, which you seem to be implying indirectly) when you use that position to attack people who defend this country, its constitution, and its laws.

You, sir, are the scoundrel, and your hatred for the USA is showing in all of your words.

It might give you cause to know that among most folks, I am regarded as perhaps an unnecessarily "green" individual who complains far, far too much about waste of resources, both human and environmental. As it stands, this is the individual that you have chosen to direct your disgusting attack against. As such, you attack the reasoned individual who is concerned with overall sustainability, which casts into doubt your entire propaganda.

What's your real gripe? Why do you hate?

Quote:
Political hatred has trumped critical thinking.

Very true.

Most areas of study have become politicized: science and history in particular. Truth is often no longer the goal.

Quote:
Being a scientist does not excuse you from offering logical conclusions based on evidence, but rather obviates the need.

I'm not following what you mean by this. (I am probably parsing the sentence poorly.) Can you elucidate or provide an example?

Quote:

Quote:
Political hatred has trumped critical thinking.

Very true.

Most areas of study have become politicized: science and history in particular. Truth is often no longer the goal.

Yep, as shown in examples like "This is a Christian Nation", or "Creation Science", or hiding the role of the enlightenment in the founding of the country.

There's a full-scale attempt at rewriting history going on right now, one that is attempting to lie to an entire generation of children and lead them to believe something that the founders would find abhorrent.

I may be weird and naive, but I actually have no problems whatsoever with believing both theories at the same time! (But please don't ask me to explain in detail)

Quote:
I'm thinking that if you want to shut up a "creation scientist" "intelligent designer," all you need to do is ask them to scientifically explain how their version of things works. Ask 'em for their evidence and physiology of their 'theory' and then sit back and wait.....forever.

Well, as we can see, then you get rants about "sustainability" and "worship of materialism", bow wow woof woof.

Quote:
I may be weird and naive, but I actually have no problems whatsoever with believing both theories at the same time! (But please don't ask me to explain in detail)

Religion and science will likely always co-exist. It is completely appropriate to accept both if this is your desire. As I mentioned before, the Catholic formerly embraces evolutionary theory without conflict with Catholic theology.

It is equating one with the other that is a problem. The theory of evolution is not a religion. Intelligent design is not science. It is intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.

ID proponents explain their belief by asserting that there are aspects of the physical world we don't understand. To explain the existence of these non-understood aspects they rely on a supernatural cause to explain its existence.

This appeal to supernatural causation is not science.

Unfortunately much of what ID proponents label "mysterious" or "not understood" is, in actual fact, understood. Even more disturbing is that ID proponents know this! Instead of dealing with the truth they very carefully manipulate concepts, fact-pick, and misdirect.

All of these groups are funded by conservative fundamental Christians - not though science.

Amusingly, without any claim to evidence whatsoever, ID proponents assert this supernatural cause is a Christian God. I am certain this is mere coincidence.

(The exception to Christian Fundamentalism I know of is Jonathan Wells, a Moonie, who was instructed to study biology by Reverend Moon for the sole and specific purpose to attack evolution as contrary to the believes of the Unification Church.)

Yes, the evolution of a complex system, such as the eye, is nearly unimaginable to the lay person. However, to the evolutionary biologist this is not much of a challenge - there are many intermediate forms.

For some reason a large segment of the American public believes biology should be easy to understand and nearly intuitive. If it is complicated it must not be true. This is, of course, nonsense.

Quote:
(The exception to Christian Fundamentalism I know of is Jonathan Wells, a Moonie, who was instructed to study biology by Reverend Moon for the sole and specific purpose to attack evolution as contrary to the believes of the Unification Church.)

He is an exception to Christian Fundamentalists, but look up the phrase "teach the controversy", check out the "advice" from the "Discovery Institute", or the Institute for Creation Research, especially in their required oath of membership, etc, if you want to see examples of people who are deliberately trying to pick holes in evolution through dishonest evaluation, presentation, and presentation of total BS as fact. What's more, in the "teach the controversy" you'll find the actual goal more clearly stated than one would expect, and it is, in fact, an attempt to intentionally overthrow the constitution of the USA. Yes. Really.

An example of "controversy logic" is:

Liar: OK, there is a missing link here, there is no fossil record of X becoming Y. EVOLUTION IS A LIE EVOLUTION IS A LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE
Scientist: Well, Actually, there are fossils that show X turning into X1, X1 into X2, X2 into X3, and X3 into Y', and thence to Y.
Creationist Liar: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. NOW THERE ARE FIVE GAPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, BETWEEN EACH OF THOSE STAGES EVILOOOTION IS A LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE

That is the kind of sheer, perverse intellectual dishonesty involved in ID and Creation "Science".

Quote:
Yes, the evolution of a complex system, such as the eye, is nearly unimaginable to the lay person. However, to the evolutionary biologist this is not much of a challenge - there are many intermediate forms.

Yeah, starting with single-celled animals. That one is such a total whopper.

Sound and the ear, too. Cillia in some singlecelled animals can detect sound waves in the medium they live in. And so on.

The lung: Oh, look, anabantoid fish, an intermediate step to both lungs AND ears. Not only that, it explains the where and why of eustachian tubes.

Etc.

Scarily this nails it.

Sadly they are more influential than one would expect.

If only they would harness all of this money and energy and put it into research, building of homes for the disabled, anything productive.

My problem with evoloution is that I just can't get past the whole spontaneous generation thing.

Trey

My problem with evolution is I don't have enough money to nail the 25 year old chicks

Cute!

Quote:
Cute!

So it's clear, "evolution is how Goddidit" is a perfectly reasonable religious belief. I don't hold it, but it's a question of pure faith.

As to abiogenesis, that is NOT part of the theory of evolution, it's a separate question. So please don't cite that as a problem with evolution, it's not.

As an aside, calculating the number of random experiments in a large sea, in the clay at the edges, etc, over a billion years, leads to a LOT of random experiments. All it takes is, literally ONE, to hit on something self-replicating, and we're off and running.

Consider the "Cambrian Explosion" where plants invaded the land at a stunning pace. It seems very 'surprising' until one realizes that this is when plants evolved vascular systems that allowed them to grow upwards.

What does that mean? It means that instead of moss, you can have palm trees. The taller plants get to shade the lower plants. A 1' height advantage in a 3' plant is overwhelming the instant it succeeds in reproducing.

Quote:
I'm quite content to allow my children to thrive in a Christain environment. I like the ethics of the school, fellow parents, and students; I like the way they present their religion (other than Genesis and the Old testament fables, almost excusively positive New testament values; and I appreciate the communication that excellence is expected from every kid (with an emphasis on personal excellence, as well.)
...

Did I mention they teach evolution in science class? Without feeling like it's a threat to anybody's fragile faith!

This is the irony of Christianity. People who follow the "rules" put forth in the NT most often are among the more ethical, moral, and frankly easy to deal with individuals around.

It's when we deal with people who take "myth as fact" that we get into difficulties.

Quote:

Quote:
Political hatred has trumped critical thinking.

Very true.

Most areas of study have become politicized: science and history in particular. Truth is often no longer the goal.

Quote:
Being a scientist does not excuse you from offering logical conclusions based on evidence, but rather obviates the need.

I'm not following what you mean by this. (I am probably parsing the sentence poorly.) Can you elucidate or provide an example?

I don't believe that jj's statements of opinion that religionists are anti-American destroyers of freedom holds as scientific proof. It is merely an opinion based on his belief system, not empirical fact. But he states it as truth incarnate.

I realize we live in a material world that worships money, power and youthful sexuality. I can live in it, be aware of its excesses and still love life and all the people in it.

But conquering the indigenous peoples' threat to our manifest destiny and riding out the industrial revolution to its present state may not have been the ultimate fulfillment of human accomplishment that jj thinks it is. At least there should be room for different, valid thoughts on the subject without bombastic ridicule.

One of these thoughts is that we are indeed spiritual beings who live in the denial of our worldly mortality. Several scientific schools of psychology and philosophy explore this possibility by studying our fragmented psyches. The conflict within ourselves is what drives materialism, gratuitous physical gratification (cheap, tawdry sex!LOL) and desire for power- to sublimate our fear of dying. The body wants to live. We can see this in our worship of youth in this culture and how we exploit them, abuse them and make them objects of desire. Then we market those tendencies to sell products. Is this the American Dream? Is this our highest calling?

The Yurok, Tolowa, Karuk and other tribes extant in my region lived in paradise on earth. Their family connections are profound and strong. Their culture is beautiful and valid and sustainable, despite how incredible we may think their creation theories sound. We did a good job of almost stamping that out, to our own deficit, too.

I think there is good to learn from all beliefs if we admit we have not already found all the answers in our own. Not trying to convince anyone of mine- just reprazent, y'all.

BTW, I'm very proud of my son, who has a Ph.D. in Biology, specializing in insect flight mechanics. He is also a fairly devout Christian who believes there may be room for various creation theories, but only evolution belongs in the classroom. He is the quintessential American and his religious beliefs do not make him the enemy of the state that jj suggests.

Quote:
But conquering the indigenous peoples' threat to our manifest destiny and riding out the industrial revolution to its present state may not have been the ultimate fulfillment of human accomplishment that jj thinks it is.

Is there some reason you're making stuff up now? Where did you get 'triumph'? Look at the mess we're in. Your summary is excruciatingly insulting and dishonest, I have nowhere refered to how the indigenous population was treated as a "triump" for instance, but that's what follows from your lie as quoted above.

Quote:

At least there should be room for different, valid thoughts on the subject without bombastic ridicule.

Truth is not a question of votes. Someone asking, innocently, if there is any meaning to creation science is one thing, someone dismissing science in favor of creationism is quite something else, and is an active endorsement of an anti-American movement.

Quote:

One of these thoughts is that we are indeed spiritual beings who live in the denial of our worldly mortality. Several scientific schools of psychology and philosophy explore this possibility by studying our fragmented psyches. The conflict within ourselves is what drives materialism, gratuitous physical gratification (cheap, tawdry sex!LOL) and desire for power- to sublimate our fear of dying. The body wants to live. We can see this in our worship of youth in this culture and how we exploit them, abuse them and make them objects of desire. Then we market those tendencies to sell products. Is this the American Dream? Is this our highest calling?

Since nobody's argued it is, why are you ranting on about this imbicilic straw man?

All I see from you is a pile of demigogry deep enough for waterproof chest waders.

Quote:

BTW, I'm very proud of my son, who has a Ph.D. in Biology, specializing in insect flight mechanics. He is also a fairly devout Christian who believes there may be room for various creation theories, but only evolution belongs in the classroom. He is the quintessential American and his religious beliefs do not make him the enemy of the state that jj suggests.

And again, you lie outright about my position.

As you describe your son, he is inquiring into things in his own way, and accepts what is science and what is not science, which sets him completely apart from the 'teach the wedge' people.

As such, your false accusation that I am talking about your son is simply propagandistic posing, and in and of itself an assault on truth and decency.

In the future it would be good of you not to lie about others' positions.

Given the performance of others who have acted out in the fashion shown above, however, I doubt that you will ever accept responsibility for your unreasonable, false, and ill behavior.

Dear "rvance", I require that you retract your false, dishonest, and hurtful summaries of the positions that you unethically attempt to put at my doorstep.

Quote:

I may quibble with J_J about things only needing to happen once.

It is only NECESSARY "once", at least once successfully, which I should in fact state as a necessary condition.

That is all that is necessary.

Quote:

I would venture to say that abiogenesis occurred bilions or trillions of times back in the primordial soup days.

I agree, especially given the difference between archeobacteria, cyanobacteria, and eukaroyotes, that this is not noly possible, but in fact likely.

Quote:

Quote:

It is only NECESSARY "once", at least once successfully, which I should in fact state as a necessary condition.

That is all that is necessary.

It is also possible to win the lotto with only one ticket, but the odds are against it.

Maybe peruse a genetics/evolution text, amigo.

Think of a female mammal who has a daughter with an advantageous genetic mutation.

If it happened only once, the odds of the mutation surving the trials and travails of existence make the odds of this mutation becoming a dominant genotype are almost nil.

Most successful genetic changes occur multiple times. As does the unsuccessful, eg white lions... It's just nature's way of trial and error.

DNA has rates of mutation that may surprise some people, with alleles rising and falling in multitudes rather than being one time occurrences.

There are well known sets of equations used to see what occurrance rates are present for various reproductive rates, mutaion occurrance rates, etc. A one time event would likely not be sufficient.

Anyway, genetics can appear narrow, as though a one time event occurred, due to the presence of genetic bottlenecks in populations or small groups exhibiting genetic drift, but the 'one time event' theory of evolution is likely vastly overplayed amongst laypeople.

A good place to start:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/genetics.html

You can review the math of evolution.

A one time mutation would be the oddball if it managed to persist.

I'd bet that somewhere around a "bunch" of 9's after the 99.999...% of mutations that take part in evolution are 'multiple occurring.'

I totally agree!

Quote:
BTW, I'm very proud of my son, who has a Ph.D. in Biology, specializing in insect flight mechanics.

I bet he has some cool examples of what these critters actually do to fly.

Quote:

I bet he has some cool examples of what these critters actually do to fly.

Well, he said Bee Movie got it all wrong.

He did a lot of research for NASA. They were (are?) looking at the mechanics of bee flight for nanotechnology programs. He says the little critters are really efficient. He did post-doc research at Univ. of Maryland for their Bio-Engineering dep't. and has just accepted a research position at the College of Charleston, where he plans to settle down with his family. He also builds his own hot rod engines, brews great beer, and cooks and bakes better than most women. He was a competitive cyclist in grad school. We knew he had some mad skills when he started building insane 4 wheel drive radio control cars with miniature F1 suspensions (horizontal shocks) when he was 11. If he didn't look like the Italian side of his family (his mother is Norwegian) and have my dry, raspy voice, I'd wonder whose kid he was. I look forward to retirement in a few years so we can spend more time together. He is always busy.

Quote:

In the future it would be good of you not to lie about others' positions.

Given the performance of others who have acted out in the fashion shown above, however, I doubt that you will ever accept responsibility for your unreasonable, false, and ill behavior.

Dear "rvance", I require that you retract your false, dishonest, and hurtful summaries of the positions that you unethically attempt to put at my doorstep.

I'm sorry, jj. My point was that your reaction to dixieland was egregiously rantish and over the top, as is your offense to my talking points.

This isn't a formal debate- we're on an internet forum. So what's this "require" business? I haven't required you to pull that big slide rule out of your ass, have I? The histrionics of your indignation are actually very entertaining.

Quote:
Well, he said Bee Movie got it all wrong.

I remember seeing slow motion/still photos of bee flight, perhaps 5-10 years ago. They rotate their wings!

If I recall correctly, they keep the beat pace constant and change the angle to change speed, sort of like a good cyclist keeps the same count and changes gears.