-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 99-08-13 17:15:07 EDT, you write:
<< Not to pick at nits, but there is no "...monkey theory..." If you're
going to argue, at least argue with what your opponent has proposed, not
with something they have not. The theory is that, in a genetic sense,
homo sapiens descended from apes, not monkeys.>>
Apes - monkeys, same thing. Why is it that the people who support this
theory can necer explain why there are still "apes" as well as humans?
<< The theory doesn't purport to explain that. No one knows the answer to
that question. The theory is not perfect, and has never been presented as
being perfect. Furthermore, there is more and more evidence to suggest
that the "Big Bang" theory is NOT correct. This is science in action. A
"theory" is always being tested. So long as it best explains the observed
evidence, it remains viable. When it fails, it is discarded or reworked.>>
That is my point, evolution is only a theory, not fact, same as
creationism, so why not present both theories and let the student use his/her
mind and decide for themselves rather than be brainwashed by lack of
"scientific" evidence. Calling a theory "scientific evidence" is
disinformation ... it is not viable, it is not "observed evidence." How can
one observe evolution?
<< Evolution is taught because it is a viable theory, which best explains
the currently available evidence. Many people who teach and accept the
THEORY of evolution believe very deeply in a god.
I accept evolution as the best explanation. I personally hate and
despise guns, but fully support the 2nd Amendment (and will, until such
time as a legally constituted Consitutional Convention repeals it). So
much for your theory of social-naziism.>>
Evolution was made up as a theory because the scientists had no
explaination as to how everything came into existence, they just pulled it
out of their ass. Exactly how is my theory of social-nazism worthless?
Cannot you see that Fascism is slowly being forced down our throats under the
socialist guise of helping people {homeless (bums)}, being caring, saving the
environment {wetlands (swamps), rain forests (jungles)}. Should the second
amendment be repealed, it will be the end of the United States, this will
probably happen since the second amendment has been modified severely
already. This amendment was not put in the Constitution to guarantee a
person's right to hunt as Clinton espouses, nor was it put in the
Constitution merely to provide for protecting yourself, your family and
property from criminals. It was provided for in the Constitution to protect
you ... to guarantee your right to protect yourself from the tyranny of
government.
<< No, scientists want everyone to learn and understand the theory as
being the best explanation we currently have. No responsible scientists
teaches evolution as a "fact.">>
Scientists present their theory of evolution as the only theory,
therefore making it a fact until they pull another theory out of their ass.
There are no facts to back up their hypothesis.
<< Creationists, on the otherhand, not only teach their theories as
"fact," they teach them as absolute, immutable "truth," with no evidence
whatever to support them.>>
Evolution and Creationism are the same, neither can be proven. Scientists
and religious people both put their "faith" in ideals that have no backing.
Scientists are much like religious people, they accept their evolution theory
on faith, nothing else.
<< Because public schools are funded with public monies, and we have a
mandated separation of church and state. With as many different religions
as are practiced in this nation, and as many different means of "prayer,"
there is no practicable way to permit prayer in public schools.>>
The "State" has no business to be in the education business in the first
place.
<<> the killing of another human being is allowed (abortion),
What has this to do with it? Many scientists are opposed to abortion,
and many people who believe in god(s) support freedom of choice.>>
Scientists are backed by the State, they espouse that humans are merely
animals, which may be true. Scientists are backed by the State through
grants of billions of dollars, religion does not receive billions of dollars
from the State, maybe we need separation of State and science.
<< last time I looked, homosexuals were human beings, who, according to
our basis of government, are "...endowed with certain inalienable
rights..." just like you.>>
Yes, homosexuals should be allowed to live as they please, to enjoy
their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but they should
not be given special favors from government, and government should not
champion their cause by teaching it in scools, again government should not be
involved in education.
<< Excuse please? Kindly show us any evidence that our government, at ANY
level, protects pedophiles in the practice of their perversions. Like all
other human beings, they are, of course, "...endowed with certain
inalienable rights..." just like you.>>
The government gives creedence to pedofiles. NAMBLA (North American Man
Boy Love Association) has been given a charter by the government. Adults
taking advantage of children in a sexual way is perversion. These children
have rights, the right to not be molested by adults.
<< > and the
> "rights" of convicted criminals
Again, as human beings, they are "...endowed with certain inalieanable
rights..." just like you. >>
Along with rights go responsibilities, something not taught very much in
schools nowadays. Should they steal someone's property, they should have to
make restitution before they should get their rights back. Someone who lacks
respect for others and is not responsible should be incarcerated, removed
from society.
<<> rather than the lack of rights of
> their victims?
What rights of "victims" has the government violated? What *ARE*
"victim's rights?" Does a dead person have a "right" to have the
goverment commit murder in their name by executing their alleged killer?
Are these alleged killers not human beings? Why are you so concerned
about abortions, but not about the murder of alleged perpetrators?>>
The government routinely lets out criminals from jail early, then many
of these criminals commit more crimes while on parole. When someone takes
away another person's right to life by killing them, then why should they be
allowed to live, and if they are to be imprisoned for the rest of their
lives, why should I have to pay for their imprisonment? An aborted
child/fetus has no say in the matter and has done nothing wrong. A murderer
has deprived someone of their life. Should not a muderer be stopped before
they murder again?
<<> Seems to me the "Scientists" gain ground on a regular
> basis through the use of force and massive disinformation, for they are
> in control.
"Scientists?" None of the items you listed above have anything to do
with science, one way or another.>>
Perhaps it is my world view. Science has been used by government to
justify certain things. Science says a fetus is not human, it must be born
to be a child, but even science cannot come to a conclusion on this ... is a
fetus human at conception, three weeks, eight weeks, six months? Science
(psychology) says a woman has a right to abort her child for it is only a
parasite ... she has no responsibility to use contraceptives to prevent
conception. Psychology says a murderer is a poor misunderstood person in
need of help rather than a killer. Psychologists recently released a report
stating that childen who are molested by adults are not always traumatized by
such illegal acts.
<<> > since their 'success' in controlling a region's school system
> > will translate into the marginalization of graduates of those
> > schools when they emerge into the real world of higher education
> > and meaningful employment.
> Cretinists? You, who espouses the "implant theory?"
Odd that someone who apparently thinks of themselves as "intelligent"
doesn't recognize humour when s/he sees it.>>
I guess I am a somewhat humorless person. I also have many
shortcomings, intelligence is not my forte, unfortunately I am just a common
person.
<< No, it is marginalization when a school system fails to teach the
commonly accepted scientific principals upon which much of societal
interaction is based. >>
I don't understand the concept of societal interaction being based on
evolution. I may be reading more into this than what you wrote.
<< It is marginalization when school systems fail to
teach students to think, to question, to analyze, and to decide for
themselves. (oh, and there you go talking about monkies again! NO
scientist has *EVER* claimed humanity descended from monkies)>>
Students must be given more than one choice (evolution). If only one
hypothesis is presented then there is no thinking involved, no analysis, no
deciding. I still say monkeys, apes, same thing ... monkey implies small,
ape implies larger. Scientists have proclaimed that our ancestors were
"apes," but fail to explain (to my satisfaction) why there are still apes,
monkeys that have not evolved into humans. I don't think natural selection
explains it either, although I believe natural selection (survival of the
fittest) is a viable theory, but much different than evolution, in my view.
<< No, not in the least. If, on the other hand, as a religionist, you
refuse to learn the skills and subjects needed to engage in most
professions in our society, then you are marginalizing yourself. If your
parents or your schoolboard has failed to teach you those subjects and
skills, then they have marginalized you.>>
Seems to me that "Science" is a religion, or has been used that way. I
do not see the way in which evolution connects to marginalization of
electronics, mechanics, etc.
<< I am not wise enough to say whether god(s) created existence or not. I
simply do not know. I am wise enough to admit and accept that I don't
know. >>
Anyone who admits this may be much more wise than they think they are.
Those who say they have all the answers probably have an overrated opinion of
themselves. I don't know either, maybe we will find out when we die, but I
think when we die, we are just fertilizer. I cannot believe that there is an
ultimate good God that watches over us ... if there were such a God, it is
doing a poor job, one need only look around them at this world to see that.
<<What the teachers in Kansas have done is make a laughing stock of
their state, seriously eroded the educational opportunities of their
students, and put the cause of rational education in jeopardy. >>
I still don't think that the act of not repeating the dogma of evolution
will seriously erode educational opportunities of students in such a State.
Regards,
Bob Stokes
PS - Sorry for typos, spelling ... left my glasses at work and am having a
hard time reading.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
