| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"adman" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2008 05:16:45 PM |
| Object: |
Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science' would
assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental biology, etc., on
how effectively their important concepts were learnt by the student. But no,
these 'science teaching' grades are based solely on how favourably each
state deals with biological evolution in the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
.
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 03:15:56 AM |
|
|
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in
news:8h8nj.59425$Mu4.16678@bignews7.bellsouth.net to alt.atheism on 27
Jan 2008:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science'
would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental
biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt
by the student. But no, these 'science teaching' grades are based
solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in
the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
"Adman", loki, or loony? Hmm...
--
David Silverman D.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
The monkeys are loose in the library again. They're gibbbering something
about "Answers In Genesis".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 04:34:05 AM |
|
|
"Sanity's Little Helper" <elvish@noshpam.org> wrote in
news:Xns9A335E4192A4Bmxyzptlk@194.177.96.26 to alt.atheism on 28 Jan
2008:
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in
news:8h8nj.59425$Mu4.16678@bignews7.bellsouth.net to alt.atheism on 27
Jan 2008:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science'
would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental
biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt
by the student. But no, these 'science teaching' grades are based
solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in
the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
"Adman", loki, or loony? Hmm...
PK, Jury's back. His keyboard is fucked and the shift key is disabling
the 'm' key.
--
David Silverman D.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
The monkeys are loose in the library again. They're gibbbering something
about "Answers In Genesis".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
29 Jan 2008 03:42:58 AM |
|
|
"Sanity's Little Helper" <elvish@noshpam.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9A335E4192A4Bmxyzptlk@194.177.96.26...
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in
news:8h8nj.59425$Mu4.16678@bignews7.bellsouth.net to alt.atheism on 27
Jan 2008:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science'
would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental
biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt
by the student. But no, these 'science teaching' grades are based
solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in
the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
"Adman", loki, or loony? Hmm...
Both.
--
David Silverman D.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
The monkeys are loose in the library again. They're gibbbering something
about "Answers In Genesis".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ken" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 11:15:44 AM |
|
|
On Jan 28, 1:15=A0am, "Sanity's Little Helper" <elv...@noshpam.org>
wrote:
=3D1
"Adman", loki, or loony? Hmm...
--
David Silverman D.B.E.
Worse than either of those two options..
He's a Jehova Witless, a religious cult that even worse than the
Morman's
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Agent Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
27 Jan 2008 07:25:22 PM |
|
|
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in news:8h8nj.59425$Mu4.16678
@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
You are, as your name reveals that you will tell any lie to get your way,
Prof. Fraud.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
30 Jan 2008 01:42:15 AM |
|
|
In article <8h8nj.59425$Mu4.16678@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science' would
assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental biology, etc., on
how effectively their important concepts were learnt by the student. But no,
these 'science teaching' grades are based solely on how favourably each
state deals with biological evolution in the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
So do you believe that teachers shouldn't teach science in science class?
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
27 Jan 2008 08:04:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:16:45 -0600, "adman" <C72545@hottmail.net>
wrote:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science' would
assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental biology, etc., on
how effectively their important concepts were learnt by the student. But no,
these 'science teaching' grades are based solely on how favourably each
state deals with biological evolution in the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
I'd say you're the one pushing bad science, fuckwit, if not for the
fact that Answers in Genesis has nothing to do with science of any
kind, good or bad.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 08:05:14 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:16:45 -0600, adman wrote:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science' would
assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental biology, etc., on
how effectively their important concepts were learnt by the student. But no,
these 'science teaching' grades are based solely on how favourably each
state deals with biological evolution in the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
Considering that the only field of science subject to an organized,
well-financed campaign of disinformation is the theory of evolution, it
seems appropriate to grade science cirricula on how well they are
withstanding the attack.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
27 Jan 2008 10:40:14 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> bloodied us
up with this:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science'
would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental
biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt
by the student. But no, these 'science teaching' grades are based
solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in
the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
Answers in Genesis. Uh-huh. Yup.
So there are varying grades of truth? Do you deny reality altogether, or
only that which debunks your questionable beliefs?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 03:22:24 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A32D246E2892vicman@207.115.33.102...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> bloodied us
up with this:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science'
would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental
biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt
by the student. But no, these 'science teaching' grades are based
solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in
the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
Answers in Genesis. Uh-huh. Yup.
So there are varying grades of truth?
As a matter of fact, yes. Science often mixes fact with theory to lend
creditability to the theory part.
Do you deny reality altogether, or
only that which debunks your questionable beliefs?
I deny anything that does not conform to the will of our Almighty God.
So far you have offered nothing but personal insults, so i can only assume
that you believe in "bad science"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 08:25:34 AM |
|
|
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in message
news:79hnj.61531$vt2.31461@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A32D246E2892vicman@207.115.33.102...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> bloodied us
up with this:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science'
would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental
biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt
by the student. But no, these 'science teaching' grades are based
solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in
the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
Answers in Genesis. Uh-huh. Yup.
So there are varying grades of truth?
As a matter of fact, yes. Science often mixes fact with theory to lend
creditability to the theory part.
Do you deny reality altogether, or
only that which debunks your questionable beliefs?
I deny anything that does not conform to the will of our Almighty God.
So far you have offered nothing but personal insults, so i can only assume
that you believe in "bad science"
Jabbers, it is impossible to sufficiently insult a fool such as you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
29 Jan 2008 08:35:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:25:34 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in message
news:79hnj.61531$vt2.31461@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A32D246E2892vicman@207.115.33.102...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> bloodied us
up with this:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science'
would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental
biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt
by the student. But no, these 'science teaching' grades are based
solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in
the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
Answers in Genesis. Uh-huh. Yup.
So there are varying grades of truth?
As a matter of fact, yes. Science often mixes fact with theory to lend
creditability to the theory part.
Do you deny reality altogether, or
only that which debunks your questionable beliefs?
I deny anything that does not conform to the will of our Almighty God.
So far you have offered nothing but personal insults, so i can only assume
that you believe in "bad science"
Jabbers, it is impossible to sufficiently insult a fool such as you.
This isn't Jabbers unless he's switched ISPs and stopped hiding behind
Google.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 11:21:24 AM |
|
|
Ralph wrote:
So far you have offered nothing but personal insults, so i can only
assume that you believe in "bad science"
Jabbers, it is impossible to sufficiently insult a fool such as you.
Oh, that's jibjab? Had I known, I wouldn't have wasted my time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Killiam" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 04:17:41 PM |
|
|
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in message
news:79hnj.61531$vt2.31461@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
I deny anything that does not conform to the will of our Almighty God.
Which almighty god? You do realize there are at least 10,000 known almighty
Gods worldwide don't you? Your almighty god is no different than their
almighty gods and goddesses. There are almighty gods to suit every
taste.........
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
30 Jan 2008 01:44:24 AM |
|
|
In article <79hnj.61531$vt2.31461@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote:
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A32D246E2892vicman@207.115.33.102...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> bloodied us
up with this:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science'
would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental
biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt
by the student. But no, these 'science teaching' grades are based
solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in
the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
Answers in Genesis. Uh-huh. Yup.
So there are varying grades of truth?
As a matter of fact, yes. Science often mixes fact with theory to lend
creditability to the theory part.
Do you know what a scientific theory is? I doubt it.
Do you deny reality altogether, or
only that which debunks your questionable beliefs?
I deny anything that does not conform to the will of our Almighty God.
LOL!
So far you have offered nothing but personal insults, so i can only assume
that you believe in "bad science"
And you believe in fairy tales.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 02:22:38 PM |
|
|
On Jan 28, 1:22 am, "adman" <C72...@hottmail.net> wrote:
"Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A32D246E2892vicman@207.115.33.102...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <C72...@hottmail.net> bloodied us
up with this:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science'
would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental
biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt
by the student. But no, these 'science teaching' grades are based
solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in
the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
Answers in Genesis. Uh-huh. Yup.
So there are varying grades of truth?
As a matter of fact, yes. Science often mixes fact with theory to lend
creditability to the theory part.
Do you deny reality altogether, or
only that which debunks your questionable beliefs?
I deny anything that does not conform to the will of our Almighty God.
So far you have offered nothing but personal insults, so i can only assume
that you believe in "bad science"
Then it's curtain # 2, eh?
OK, let's see what was behind curtain #1...
Mounds of testable evidence. Damn, jabby, that's reality for you.
Now let's see what is behind #2...
ZONK! No evidence, just hearsay and blind faith. Looks like you
lose! And you don't even get a copy of our home game!
--
Uncle Vic
2011
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "curtjester1" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
30 Jan 2008 07:24:10 AM |
|
|
On Jan 28, 4:22=A0am, "adman" <C72...@hottmail.net> wrote:
"Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A32D246E2892vicman@207.115.33.102...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <C72...@hottmail.net> bloodied us
up with this:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science'
would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental
biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt
by the student. But no, these 'science teaching' grades are based
solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in
the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=3D1
Answers in Genesis. =A0Uh-huh. =A0Yup.
So there are varying grades of truth?
As a matter of fact, yes. Science often mixes fact with theory to lend
creditability to the theory part.
Do you deny reality altogether, or
only that which debunks your questionable beliefs?
I deny anything that does not conform to the will of our Almighty God.
So far you have offered nothing but personal insults, so i can only assume=
that you believe in "bad science"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's a 'way of arguing'. I belong to another site, where we often
times claim the arguments are 'self-motivated'. I sometimes think of
them as in the case of these argument, satanically motivated: But I
expect some of the strategies have been the same, even from Satan
himself over the centuries:
http://bl115w.blu115.mail.live.com/mail/ReadMessageLight.aspx?Aux=3D14%7c0%7=
c8CA2E61E4348A90%7c&FolderID=3D00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&InboxSor=
tAscending=3DFalse&InboxSortBy=3DDate&ReadMessageId=3Db114284e-4e83-4cd8-add=
d-46db71ad085b&n=3D1515470147
CJ
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 07:56:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:22:24 -0600 in
79hnj.61531$vt2.31461@bignews8.bellsouth.net, "adman"
<C72545@hottmail.net> wrote:
As a matter of fact, yes. Science often mixes fact with theory to lend
creditability to the theory part.
You obviously haven't a single clue about what theory is.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Just because it's inexplicted doesn't mean it's inexplicable."
- Dr. House
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 08:26:37 AM |
|
|
adman wrote:
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A32D246E2892vicman@207.115.33.102...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> bloodied
us up with this:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad
science' would assess real science like physics, chemistry,
experimental biology, etc., on how effectively their important
concepts were learnt by the student. But no, these 'science
teaching' grades are based solely on how favourably each state
deals with biological evolution in the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
Answers in Genesis. Uh-huh. Yup.
So there are varying grades of truth?
As a matter of fact, yes. Science often mixes fact with theory to lend
creditability to the theory part.
Um...either you don't know what you are talking about or you're lying.
Do you deny reality altogether, or
only that which debunks your questionable beliefs?
I deny anything that does not conform to the will of our Almighty God.
Hmmm...and what objective source do you have for this "will"?
So far you have offered nothing but personal insults, so i can only
assume that you believe in "bad science"
If biology is "bad science", then guilty.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
27 Jan 2008 06:48:22 PM |
|
|
Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
You are you insane lying *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 09:51:48 AM |
|
|
adman <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science' would
assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental biology, etc., on
how effectively their important concepts were learnt by the student.
No, "one" would not think that at all. Assessing science has nothing to
do with how well it is learnt by students. Where would you get such a
stupid fuckin' idea? At your creationist kindergarten?
.
|
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 04:34:18 PM |
|
|
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ibf1hm.1mgbwmk1s3wgccN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
adman <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science'
would
assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental biology, etc.,
on
how effectively their important concepts were learnt by the student.
No, "one" would not think that at all. Assessing science has nothing to
do with how well it is learnt by students. Where would you get such a
stupid fuckin' idea? At your creationist kindergarten?
You obviously did NOT RTFA. Perhaps some remedial reading classes are in
order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
28 Jan 2008 07:22:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:34:18 -0600, in alt.talk.creationism
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in
<kLsnj.60129$Mu4.41111@bignews7.bellsouth.net>:
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ibf1hm.1mgbwmk1s3wgccN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
adman <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science'
would
assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental biology, etc.,
on
how effectively their important concepts were learnt by the student.
No, "one" would not think that at all. Assessing science has nothing to
do with how well it is learnt by students. Where would you get such a
stupid fuckin' idea? At your creationist kindergarten?
You obviously did NOT RTFA. Perhaps some remedial reading classes are in
order.
You have already shown us that you have no use for science. You've
already shown us that you should be ignored.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
29 Jan 2008 10:35:11 AM |
|
|
adman <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science'
would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental
biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt
by the student.
No, "one" would not think that at all. Assessing science has nothing to
do with how well it is learnt by students. Where would you get such a
stupid fuckin' idea? At your creationist kindergarten?
You obviously did NOT RTFA.
Of course not, why would anyone waste their time on that douchebag's web
site?
Perhaps some remedial reading classes are in order.
That's hilarious, coming from an idiot like you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BuddyThunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Who's really pushing 'bad science'? |
29 Jan 2008 09:33:44 PM |
|
|
adman wrote:
One would think that an assessment of 'good science' and 'bad science' would
assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental biology, etc., on
how effectively their important concepts were learnt by the student. But no,
these 'science teaching' grades are based solely on how favourably each
state deals with biological evolution in the curriculum guide.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp?vPrint=1
Ah AIG, that bastion of honesty and good science. <smirk>
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
