Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > talk.origins > #755322 > unrolled thread

Teaching science and religion

Back to article view | Back to talk.origins

Contents

  Teaching science and religion RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> - 2026-07-27 18:36 -0500
    Re: Teaching science and religion Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 10:05 +0100
      Re: Teaching science and religion RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 09:35 -0500
        Re: Teaching science and religion Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-11 08:43 -0600
        Re: Teaching science and religion Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 13:48 +0100
          Re: Teaching science and religion RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 09:17 -0500
            Re: Teaching science and religion Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-08-13 08:09 +0100
              Re: Teaching science and religion RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> - 2026-08-13 11:05 -0500
      Re: Teaching science and religion sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2026-08-11 13:30 -0500
        Re: Teaching science and religion RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 19:02 -0500
        Re: Teaching science and religion Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 13:59 +0100
          Re: Teaching science and religion sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2026-08-12 10:13 -0500
            Re: Teaching science and religion Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 11:23 +0100
              Re: Teaching science and religion Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-14 12:09 -0600
          Re: Teaching science and religion x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-08-12 11:55 -0700
            Re: Teaching science and religion Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-12 13:47 -0600

#755322 — Teaching science and religion

https://phys.org/news/2026-07-science-religion-stem-engagement.html#google_vignette

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13617672.2026.2679953#summary-abstract


In the UK they have compulsory religious education, and this news 
article is reporting a study done where they incorporated science into 
their Religious Education program.  They mislead the students about 
science being compatible with their religious beliefs.  Like the ID 
perps they lie to the students about how their religious beliefs can be 
compatible with science, and they somehow integrate a biology example 
into the program.  They claim that the students gain a better outlook on 
science.  It seems stupid to prevaricate about how science can't deal 
with their religious beliefs when that has never been the issue.  The 
issue is how religiously motivated creationists have to deny the science 
because nature is not Biblical.  It isn't the fact that science cannot 
make any determination as to whether there is some god or gods, but what 
science can tell us about nature.  Accommodations have always been made 
as science knowledge has gained acceptance.  Religion has always had to 
back down and change their views.  MarkE and Sticks and even Harran are 
examples of Biblical creationists that can't accept the fact that their 
religious text has been known to be wrong about some things that we can 
figure out for ourselves since before Christ was born.  The Hebrew were 
giving up on their flat earth cosmology before Christ was born. 
Eratosthenes had used physical measurements to estimate the 
circumference of the earth a couple of centuries before the birth of 
Christ.  I recently put up an article written by an Orthodox Jew where 
he noted that the Biblical firmament was believed by historical Rabbis 
to be a solid dome above the earth until the failure of geocentrism 
after Copernicus.  The descendants of the authors of the Bible had to 
give up on their geocentric cosmology and the firmament over 1500 years 
after Christ was born.  There are still geocentric flat earth 
creationists both Christian and Jewish that exist today in spite of what 
science has determined to be the case.

Creationists like MarkE, Sticks, and Harran that still want to believe 
that the Bible accurately describes nature have to lie to themselves in 
order to believe that science is compatible with their religious 
beliefs.  If science is ever able to fill the origin of life gap with 
some god, it will just be more science for MarkE to deny.  He is 
currently in denial of all the scientific evidence for biological 
evolution (Behe is a theistic evolutionists and believes that his 
designer is responsible for a lot of the evolution that has created the 
diversity of life on earth) and MarkE will be in denial of any science 
filling the Top Six gaps that the ID perps have claimed as the best 
evidence for the existence of their god.  The god responsible for the 
Top Six gaps is not the god described in the Bible.  The young earth 
creationists at Answers in Genesis understand that to be true, and want 
the ID perps to more clearly lie to everyone about the issue.  They do 
not want the Big Bang, fine tuning and origin of life on earth to be 
taught in an honest fashion that would demonstrate how each is dependent 
on the others.  If the students are not told that very clearly, the 
educators have just lied to them about reality.

What the Religious Education course should do is be direct in telling 
the students that the Bible has never been a good source for telling us 
about nature.  Science is just the study of nature and nature is not 
Biblical.  The students need to be confronted by that reality, and deal 
with it.  Some will never accept the fact that the Bible is not a 
science textbook, and will end up like MarkE and Sticks.  Guys like 
Harran will always have to lie to themselves about "misinterpretation" 
when the authors of the Bible just wrote about what they believed about 
nature, and they were just wrong.  The Top Six should tell anyone that 
if we rewrote the Bible today that we could still be wrong about some 
aspects of nature.  Saint Augustine thought that the 6 day creation was 
wrong, but his alternative would have also been found to be incorrect if 
he had written the first chapter of Genesis.  These are things that the 
UK's Religious Education program should make sure that the students 
fully understand about their Biblical religious beliefs.

Ron Okimoto

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#755367

On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 18:36:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:

>https://phys.org/news/2026-07-science-religion-stem-engagement.html#google_vignette
>
>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13617672.2026.2679953#summary-abstract
>
>
>In the UK they have compulsory religious education, 

It is compulsory in that it is one of a number of subjects that every
school has to offer. It is not compulsory for children to take it as a
subject; parents have a *legal right* to opt their children out of
Religious Education or any form of religious worship without giving
any reason.

>and this news 
>article is reporting a study done where they incorporated science into 
>their Religious Education program.  

No they didn't; please go back and read again the papers you cited.

>They mislead the students about 
>science being compatible with their religious beliefs.  Like the ID 
>perps they lie to the students about how their religious beliefs can be 
>compatible with science, and they somehow integrate a biology example 
>into the program.  They claim that the students gain a better outlook on 
>science.  It seems stupid to prevaricate about how science can't deal 
>with their religious beliefs when that has never been the issue.  
 
So much bullshit in there that it is hard to know where to start.

First of all, you demonstrate yet again your lack of comprehension
skills where you clearly don't understand what "compatible" actually
means.

Secondly, the schools involved in this were *state schools* where
Religious Education does not promote any specific religious beliefs.
Unlike religious run schools which do teach RE in line with their
religious beliefs, state schools have their syllabus set by their
local council/education authority. A typical example is this one for
Derbyshire County Council:

https://www.westhouses.derbyshire.sch.uk/_site/data/files/migrated/religious-education/2025-30-derbyshire-agreed-syllabus-for-re.pdf

It says:

<quote>

We want pupils to develop rich knowledge of 
religions and worldviews and use this to 
increase their levels of religious literacy and 
conceptual understanding.  

We want them to be able to articulate, with 
confidence, their own positions and ideas 
about religion, beliefs and spirituality - and 
then to change their minds, if they choose to 
do so.  

</quote>

>The 
>issue is how religiously motivated creationists have to deny the science 
>because nature is not Biblical.  
>It isn't the fact that science cannot 
>make any determination as to whether there is some god or gods, but what 
>science can tell us about nature.  Accommodations have always been made 
>as science knowledge has gained acceptance.  Religion has always had to 
>back down and change their views.  MarkE and Sticks and even Harran are 
>examples of Biblical creationists that can't accept the fact that their 
>religious text has been known to be wrong about some things that we can 
>figure out for ourselves since before Christ was born.  


Yet again, you try to bolster your bullshit arguments by making up
bullshit lies about other people.


>The Hebrew were 
>giving up on their flat earth cosmology before Christ was born. 
>Eratosthenes had used physical measurements to estimate the 
>circumference of the earth a couple of centuries before the birth of 
>Christ.  I recently put up an article written by an Orthodox Jew where 
>he noted that the Biblical firmament was believed by historical Rabbis 
>to be a solid dome above the earth until the failure of geocentrism 
>after Copernicus.  The descendants of the authors of the Bible had to 
>give up on their geocentric cosmology and the firmament over 1500 years 
>after Christ was born.  There are still geocentric flat earth 
>creationists both Christian and Jewish that exist today in spite of what 
>science has determined to be the case.
>
>Creationists like MarkE, Sticks, and Harran that still want to believe 
>that the Bible accurately describes nature have to lie to themselves in 
>order to believe that science is compatible with their religious 
>beliefs.  

More Ron bullshit.

>If science is ever able to fill the origin of life gap with 
>some god, it will just be more science for MarkE to deny.  He is 
>currently in denial of all the scientific evidence for biological 
>evolution (Behe is a theistic evolutionists and believes that his 
>designer is responsible for a lot of the evolution that has created the 
>diversity of life on earth) and MarkE will be in denial of any science 
>filling the Top Six gaps that the ID perps have claimed as the best 
>evidence for the existence of their god.  The god responsible for the 
>Top Six gaps is not the god described in the Bible.  The young earth 
>creationists at Answers in Genesis understand that to be true, and want 
>the ID perps to more clearly lie to everyone about the issue.  They do 
>not want the Big Bang, fine tuning and origin of life on earth to be 
>taught in an honest fashion that would demonstrate how each is dependent 
>on the others.  If the students are not told that very clearly, the 
>educators have just lied to them about reality.
>
>What the Religious Education course should do is be direct in telling 
>the students that the Bible has never been a good source for telling us 
>about nature.  Science is just the study of nature and nature is not 
>Biblical.  The students need to be confronted by that reality, and deal 
>with it.  

That is exactly what does happen this side of the Atlantic -- once
again, you make the mistake of conflating what goes on in the USA with
the rest of the world. The contentious intertwining of religion,
science and politics that goes on in the USA is non-existent in the
UK. That suggests that the UK approach is  a more effective one.
Instead of attacking it, you should be trying to encourage it in the
USA.


>Some will never accept the fact that the Bible is not a 
>science textbook, and will end up like MarkE and Sticks.  Guys like 
>Harran will always have to lie to themselves about "misinterpretation" 
>when the authors of the Bible just wrote about what they believed about 
>nature, and they were just wrong.  

Even more Ron bullshit.

>The Top Six should tell anyone that 
>if we rewrote the Bible today that we could still be wrong about some 
>aspects of nature.  Saint Augustine thought that the 6 day creation was 
>wrong, but his alternative would have also been found to be incorrect if 
>he had written the first chapter of Genesis.  These are things that the 
>UK's Religious Education program should make sure that the students 
>fully understand about their Biblical religious beliefs.

You are calling for them to do what they already do. You really should
focus on sorting your own mess out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755371

On 8/11/2026 4:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 18:36:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> https://phys.org/news/2026-07-science-religion-stem-engagement.html#google_vignette
>>
>> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13617672.2026.2679953#summary-abstract
>>
>>
>> In the UK they have compulsory religious education,
> 
> It is compulsory in that it is one of a number of subjects that every
> school has to offer. It is not compulsory for children to take it as a
> subject; parents have a *legal right* to opt their children out of
> Religious Education or any form of religious worship without giving
> any reason.

They claim that it is compulsory religious education, and do not claim 
that students can opt out.  They just claim to have created a lesson 
plan to integrate science into the religious edcuation, and they claim 
to have tested it out on 1100 students.  This doesn't matter because you 
are wrong in everything else that you have prevaricated about below.

You know that the lesson plan misleads the students about the way in 
which science is compatible with their religious beliefs.  The 
anti-science creastionist have the same issue that you have with the 
Bible.  You lie to yourself about "misinterpretation" of what the Bible 
claims, but the anti-science creationists do not want science to 
demonstrate that their Biblical beliefs are wrong.  They do not want the 
Bible to have been misinterpreted, they want science to be wrong so 
their literal interpretation can go unchallenged.  Anti-evolution 
creationists like Sticks and MarkE exist because they do not want to 
believe that the Bible has been misinterpreted.

Just as you have to lie to yourself about the geocentric Biblical cosmos 
being a misinterpretation when you know that it was just what the 
authors of the Bible believed about the creation is your dishonest way 
to deal with the conflict between science and religion.  You know what 
the cosmology was for the authors of the Bible, and you know that they 
were just describing what they thought existed, but what do you do?  You 
know that early Christian thinkers understood that the Bible was just 
wrong about some things.  Probably none of Church Fathers were flat 
earth creationists because of what the Greeks had come up with a couple 
centuries before Christ was born, but there are still flat earth 
geocentric Biblical creationists (both Christian and Jewish) today.  You 
fall on your face because all the Church Fathers remained Biblical 
geocentrists, likely because it was not inconsistent with how they 
perceived reality.  Origen was not a young earth creationist and Saint 
Augustine did not believe that the authors of the Bible had gotten the 6 
day creation correct.  These Biblical beliefs were already questionable, 
but we still have 6 day young earth creationists existing today.

The Biblical literalists are not anti-science due to science determining 
whether some god exists or not, but they are anti-science because of 
what science can tell them about nature, and nature is not Biblical.

These researchers created a lesson plan to lie to the students about 
this reality.  They can tell them the truth that science can not make 
any determination as to whether some god exists or not, but they did not 
honestly tell them how to accommodate that aspect of science with their 
Biblical beliefs.  They deceived them about how something like 
biological evolution could be accomodated by their religious beliefs by 
telling the students that just because science can demonstrate that 
something like biological evolution has occurred in nature, but that 
science can't rule out that some god exists, nor can it rule out that 
that god had a hand in evolution.  Something like evolution can be 
compatible with the existence of some god, but it obviously is not 
consistent with a lot of literal Biblical beliefs.

Since the lesson plan did not make this distinction very clear it just 
lied to the students about the situation.  Students like MarkE and 
Sticks would likely understand how they were being lied to, but the 
claim is that a lot of students found that it made science more acceptable.

Just ask MarkE and Sticks (they have to deny all the science concerning 
biological evolution) if this lesson plan would have changed their 
minds?  Their beef is how what science has determined conflicts with 
their literal interpretation of the Bible.  Their conflict has nothing 
to do with the fact that science can make no determination about the 
existence of any gods, nor what those gods might be doing to make things 
as they are.

You accomodate the science by claiming that the Bible has just been 
misinterpreted by past believers, but you have to know that you are just 
lying to yourself.  The authors of the Bible just wrote about what they 
believed.  I recently put up a post where Google claimed that the 
Protestants came to accept the demise of geocentrism by the principle of 
accommodation.  It was a view that the authors of the Bible described 
things as they understood them and could put into every day language, 
but that understanding and description did not have to accurately depict 
what actually existed.  So the authors of the Bible could be wrong about 
the earth being the center of the universe because they were just 
describing things as people could understand them.

I put up a post where an orthodox jew understood that the authors of the 
Bible were just describing what they understood to exist, and he put up 
a reference with the original Biblical cosmology.  There was a 
geocentric cosmos with a flat earth with a solid dome firmament above 
it.  The sun and moon had been created and placed in the firmament.  The 
firmament could be opened by God to let the rain fall through.  The 
orthodox jewish author put up the references claiming that historical 
Rabbis had believed in the solid dome firmament over the earth until the 
failure of geocentrism after Copernicus.  Kepler was likely the last 
Biblical creationist seriously working with the firmament with his 
crystal spheres when he had to accept heliocentrism and came up with his 
eliptical orbits and droping the last vestiges of the firmament ever 
existing.  The Bible was just wrong about the firmament and geocentrism. 
  Creationists were anti-heliocentrism because it conflicted with their 
Biblical beliefs.  Science doesn't care about anyone's religious 
beliefs.  MarkE and Sticks know why they are anti-science, and it isn't 
due to what these education researchers lied to their students about.

Ron Okimoto

> 
>> and this news
>> article is reporting a study done where they incorporated science into
>> their Religious Education program.
> 
> No they didn't; please go back and read again the papers you cited.
> 
>> They mislead the students about
>> science being compatible with their religious beliefs.  Like the ID
>> perps they lie to the students about how their religious beliefs can be
>> compatible with science, and they somehow integrate a biology example
>> into the program.  They claim that the students gain a better outlook on
>> science.  It seems stupid to prevaricate about how science can't deal
>> with their religious beliefs when that has never been the issue.
>   
> So much bullshit in there that it is hard to know where to start.
> 
> First of all, you demonstrate yet again your lack of comprehension
> skills where you clearly don't understand what "compatible" actually
> means.
> 
> Secondly, the schools involved in this were *state schools* where
> Religious Education does not promote any specific religious beliefs.
> Unlike religious run schools which do teach RE in line with their
> religious beliefs, state schools have their syllabus set by their
> local council/education authority. A typical example is this one for
> Derbyshire County Council:
> 
> https://www.westhouses.derbyshire.sch.uk/_site/data/files/migrated/religious-education/2025-30-derbyshire-agreed-syllabus-for-re.pdf
> 
> It says:
> 
> <quote>
> 
> We want pupils to develop rich knowledge of
> religions and worldviews and use this to
> increase their levels of religious literacy and
> conceptual understanding.
> 
> We want them to be able to articulate, with
> confidence, their own positions and ideas
> about religion, beliefs and spirituality - and
> then to change their minds, if they choose to
> do so.
> 
> </quote>
> 
>> The
>> issue is how religiously motivated creationists have to deny the science
>> because nature is not Biblical.
>> It isn't the fact that science cannot
>> make any determination as to whether there is some god or gods, but what
>> science can tell us about nature.  Accommodations have always been made
>> as science knowledge has gained acceptance.  Religion has always had to
>> back down and change their views.  MarkE and Sticks and even Harran are
>> examples of Biblical creationists that can't accept the fact that their
>> religious text has been known to be wrong about some things that we can
>> figure out for ourselves since before Christ was born.
> 
> 
> Yet again, you try to bolster your bullshit arguments by making up
> bullshit lies about other people.
> 
> 
>> The Hebrew were
>> giving up on their flat earth cosmology before Christ was born.
>> Eratosthenes had used physical measurements to estimate the
>> circumference of the earth a couple of centuries before the birth of
>> Christ.  I recently put up an article written by an Orthodox Jew where
>> he noted that the Biblical firmament was believed by historical Rabbis
>> to be a solid dome above the earth until the failure of geocentrism
>> after Copernicus.  The descendants of the authors of the Bible had to
>> give up on their geocentric cosmology and the firmament over 1500 years
>> after Christ was born.  There are still geocentric flat earth
>> creationists both Christian and Jewish that exist today in spite of what
>> science has determined to be the case.
>>
>> Creationists like MarkE, Sticks, and Harran that still want to believe
>> that the Bible accurately describes nature have to lie to themselves in
>> order to believe that science is compatible with their religious
>> beliefs.
> 
> More Ron bullshit.
> 
>> If science is ever able to fill the origin of life gap with
>> some god, it will just be more science for MarkE to deny.  He is
>> currently in denial of all the scientific evidence for biological
>> evolution (Behe is a theistic evolutionists and believes that his
>> designer is responsible for a lot of the evolution that has created the
>> diversity of life on earth) and MarkE will be in denial of any science
>> filling the Top Six gaps that the ID perps have claimed as the best
>> evidence for the existence of their god.  The god responsible for the
>> Top Six gaps is not the god described in the Bible.  The young earth
>> creationists at Answers in Genesis understand that to be true, and want
>> the ID perps to more clearly lie to everyone about the issue.  They do
>> not want the Big Bang, fine tuning and origin of life on earth to be
>> taught in an honest fashion that would demonstrate how each is dependent
>> on the others.  If the students are not told that very clearly, the
>> educators have just lied to them about reality.
>>
>> What the Religious Education course should do is be direct in telling
>> the students that the Bible has never been a good source for telling us
>> about nature.  Science is just the study of nature and nature is not
>> Biblical.  The students need to be confronted by that reality, and deal
>> with it.
> 
> That is exactly what does happen this side of the Atlantic -- once
> again, you make the mistake of conflating what goes on in the USA with
> the rest of the world. The contentious intertwining of religion,
> science and politics that goes on in the USA is non-existent in the
> UK. That suggests that the UK approach is  a more effective one.
> Instead of attacking it, you should be trying to encourage it in the
> USA.
> 
> 
>> Some will never accept the fact that the Bible is not a
>> science textbook, and will end up like MarkE and Sticks.  Guys like
>> Harran will always have to lie to themselves about "misinterpretation"
>> when the authors of the Bible just wrote about what they believed about
>> nature, and they were just wrong.
> 
> Even more Ron bullshit.
> 
>> The Top Six should tell anyone that
>> if we rewrote the Bible today that we could still be wrong about some
>> aspects of nature.  Saint Augustine thought that the 6 day creation was
>> wrong, but his alternative would have also been found to be incorrect if
>> he had written the first chapter of Genesis.  These are things that the
>> UK's Religious Education program should make sure that the students
>> fully understand about their Biblical religious beliefs.
> 
> You are calling for them to do what they already do. You really should
> focus on sorting your own mess out.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755372

RonO wrote:
> On 8/11/2026 4:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 18:36:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://phys.org/news/2026-07-science-religion-stem-engagement.html#google_vignette 
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13617672.2026.2679953#summary-abstract 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the UK they have compulsory religious education,
>>
>> It is compulsory in that it is one of a number of subjects that every
>> school has to offer. It is not compulsory for children to take it as a
>> subject; parents have a *legal right* to opt their children out of
>> Religious Education or any form of religious worship without giving
>> any reason.
> 
> They claim that it is compulsory religious education, and do not claim 
> that students can opt out.  They just claim to have created a lesson 
> plan to integrate science into the religious edcuation, and they claim 
> to have tested it out on 1100 students.  This doesn't matter because you 
> are wrong in everything else that you have prevaricated about below.
> 
> You know that the lesson plan misleads the students about the way in 
> which science is compatible with their religious beliefs.  The 
> anti-science creastionist have the same issue that you have with the 
> Bible.  You lie to yourself about "misinterpretation" of what the Bible 
> claims, but the anti-science creationists do not want science to 
> demonstrate that their Biblical beliefs are wrong.  They do not want the 
> Bible to have been misinterpreted, they want science to be wrong so 
> their literal interpretation can go unchallenged.  Anti-evolution 
> creationists like Sticks and MarkE exist because they do not want to 
> believe that the Bible has been misinterpreted.
> 
> Just as you have to lie to yourself about the geocentric Biblical cosmos 
> being a misinterpretation when you know that it was just what the 
> authors of the Bible believed about the creation is your dishonest way 
> to deal with the conflict between science and religion.  You know what 
> the cosmology was for the authors of the Bible, and you know that they 
> were just describing what they thought existed, but what do you do?  You 
> know that early Christian thinkers understood that the Bible was just 
> wrong about some things.  Probably none of Church Fathers were flat 
> earth creationists because of what the Greeks had come up with a couple 
> centuries before Christ was born, but there are still flat earth 
> geocentric Biblical creationists (both Christian and Jewish) today.  You 
> fall on your face because all the Church Fathers remained Biblical 
> geocentrists, likely because it was not inconsistent with how they 
> perceived reality.  Origen was not a young earth creationist and Saint 
> Augustine did not believe that the authors of the Bible had gotten the 6 
> day creation correct.  These Biblical beliefs were already questionable, 
> but we still have 6 day young earth creationists existing today.
> 
> The Biblical literalists are not anti-science due to science determining 
> whether some god exists or not, but they are anti-science because of 
> what science can tell them about nature, and nature is not Biblical.
> 
> These researchers created a lesson plan to lie to the students about 
> this reality.  They can tell them the truth that science can not make 
> any determination as to whether some god exists or not, but they did not 
> honestly tell them how to accommodate that aspect of science with their 
> Biblical beliefs.  They deceived them about how something like 
> biological evolution could be accomodated by their religious beliefs by 
> telling the students that just because science can demonstrate that 
> something like biological evolution has occurred in nature, but that 
> science can't rule out that some god exists, nor can it rule out that 
> that god had a hand in evolution.  Something like evolution can be 
> compatible with the existence of some god, but it obviously is not 
> consistent with a lot of literal Biblical beliefs.
> 
> Since the lesson plan did not make this distinction very clear it just 
> lied to the students about the situation.  Students like MarkE and 
> Sticks would likely understand how they were being lied to, but the 
> claim is that a lot of students found that it made science more acceptable.
> 
> Just ask MarkE and Sticks (they have to deny all the science concerning 
> biological evolution) if this lesson plan would have changed their 
> minds?  Their beef is how what science has determined conflicts with 
> their literal interpretation of the Bible.  Their conflict has nothing 
> to do with the fact that science can make no determination about the 
> existence of any gods, nor what those gods might be doing to make things 
> as they are.
> 
> You accomodate the science by claiming that the Bible has just been 
> misinterpreted by past believers, but you have to know that you are just 
> lying to yourself.  The authors of the Bible just wrote about what they 
> believed.  I recently put up a post where Google claimed that the 
> Protestants came to accept the demise of geocentrism by the principle of 
> accommodation.  It was a view that the authors of the Bible described 
> things as they understood them and could put into every day language, 
> but that understanding and description did not have to accurately depict 
> what actually existed.  So the authors of the Bible could be wrong about 
> the earth being the center of the universe because they were just 
> describing things as people could understand them.
> 
> I put up a post where an orthodox jew understood that the authors of the 
> Bible were just describing what they understood to exist, and he put up 
> a reference with the original Biblical cosmology.  There was a 
> geocentric cosmos with a flat earth with a solid dome firmament above 
> it.  The sun and moon had been created and placed in the firmament.  The 
> firmament could be opened by God to let the rain fall through.  The 
> orthodox jewish author put up the references claiming that historical 
> Rabbis had believed in the solid dome firmament over the earth until the 
> failure of geocentrism after Copernicus.  Kepler was likely the last 
> Biblical creationist seriously working with the firmament with his 
> crystal spheres when he had to accept heliocentrism and came up with his 
> eliptical orbits and droping the last vestiges of the firmament ever 
> existing.  The Bible was just wrong about the firmament and geocentrism. 
>   Creationists were anti-heliocentrism because it conflicted with their 
> Biblical beliefs.  Science doesn't care about anyone's religious 
> beliefs.  MarkE and Sticks know why they are anti-science, and it isn't 
> due to what these education researchers lied to their students about.
> 
> Ron Okimoto
> 
>>
>>> and this news
>>> article is reporting a study done where they incorporated science into
>>> their Religious Education program.
>>
>> No they didn't; please go back and read again the papers you cited.
>>
>>> They mislead the students about
>>> science being compatible with their religious beliefs.  Like the ID
>>> perps they lie to the students about how their religious beliefs can be
>>> compatible with science, and they somehow integrate a biology example
>>> into the program.  They claim that the students gain a better outlook on
>>> science.  It seems stupid to prevaricate about how science can't deal
>>> with their religious beliefs when that has never been the issue.
>> So much bullshit in there that it is hard to know where to start.
>>
>> First of all, you demonstrate yet again your lack of comprehension
>> skills where you clearly don't understand what "compatible" actually
>> means.
>>
>> Secondly, the schools involved in this were *state schools* where
>> Religious Education does not promote any specific religious beliefs.
>> Unlike religious run schools which do teach RE in line with their
>> religious beliefs, state schools have their syllabus set by their
>> local council/education authority. A typical example is this one for
>> Derbyshire County Council:
>>
>> https://www.westhouses.derbyshire.sch.uk/_site/data/files/migrated/religious-education/2025-30-derbyshire-agreed-syllabus-for-re.pdf 
>>
>>
>> It says:
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> We want pupils to develop rich knowledge of
>> religions and worldviews and use this to
>> increase their levels of religious literacy and
>> conceptual understanding.
>>
>> We want them to be able to articulate, with
>> confidence, their own positions and ideas
>> about religion, beliefs and spirituality - and
>> then to change their minds, if they choose to
>> do so.
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>>> The
>>> issue is how religiously motivated creationists have to deny the science
>>> because nature is not Biblical.
>>> It isn't the fact that science cannot
>>> make any determination as to whether there is some god or gods, but what
>>> science can tell us about nature.  Accommodations have always been made
>>> as science knowledge has gained acceptance.  Religion has always had to
>>> back down and change their views.  MarkE and Sticks and even Harran are
>>> examples of Biblical creationists that can't accept the fact that their
>>> religious text has been known to be wrong about some things that we can
>>> figure out for ourselves since before Christ was born.
>>
>>
>> Yet again, you try to bolster your bullshit arguments by making up
>> bullshit lies about other people.
>>
>>
>>> The Hebrew were
>>> giving up on their flat earth cosmology before Christ was born.
>>> Eratosthenes had used physical measurements to estimate the
>>> circumference of the earth a couple of centuries before the birth of
>>> Christ.  I recently put up an article written by an Orthodox Jew where
>>> he noted that the Biblical firmament was believed by historical Rabbis
>>> to be a solid dome above the earth until the failure of geocentrism
>>> after Copernicus.  The descendants of the authors of the Bible had to
>>> give up on their geocentric cosmology and the firmament over 1500 years
>>> after Christ was born.  There are still geocentric flat earth
>>> creationists both Christian and Jewish that exist today in spite of what
>>> science has determined to be the case.
>>>
>>> Creationists like MarkE, Sticks, and Harran that still want to believe
>>> that the Bible accurately describes nature have to lie to themselves in
>>> order to believe that science is compatible with their religious
>>> beliefs.
>>
>> More Ron bullshit.
>>
>>> If science is ever able to fill the origin of life gap with
>>> some god, it will just be more science for MarkE to deny.  He is
>>> currently in denial of all the scientific evidence for biological
>>> evolution (Behe is a theistic evolutionists and believes that his
>>> designer is responsible for a lot of the evolution that has created the
>>> diversity of life on earth) and MarkE will be in denial of any science
>>> filling the Top Six gaps that the ID perps have claimed as the best
>>> evidence for the existence of their god.  The god responsible for the
>>> Top Six gaps is not the god described in the Bible.  The young earth
>>> creationists at Answers in Genesis understand that to be true, and want
>>> the ID perps to more clearly lie to everyone about the issue.  They do
>>> not want the Big Bang, fine tuning and origin of life on earth to be
>>> taught in an honest fashion that would demonstrate how each is dependent
>>> on the others.  If the students are not told that very clearly, the
>>> educators have just lied to them about reality.
>>>
>>> What the Religious Education course should do is be direct in telling
>>> the students that the Bible has never been a good source for telling us
>>> about nature.  Science is just the study of nature and nature is not
>>> Biblical.  The students need to be confronted by that reality, and deal
>>> with it.
>>
>> That is exactly what does happen this side of the Atlantic -- once
>> again, you make the mistake of conflating what goes on in the USA with
>> the rest of the world. The contentious intertwining of religion,
>> science and politics that goes on in the USA is non-existent in the
>> UK. That suggests that the UK approach is  a more effective one.
>> Instead of attacking it, you should be trying to encourage it in the
>> USA.
>>
>>
>>> Some will never accept the fact that the Bible is not a
>>> science textbook, and will end up like MarkE and Sticks.  Guys like
>>> Harran will always have to lie to themselves about "misinterpretation"
>>> when the authors of the Bible just wrote about what they believed about
>>> nature, and they were just wrong.
>>
>> Even more Ron bullshit.
>>
>>> The Top Six should tell anyone that
>>> if we rewrote the Bible today that we could still be wrong about some
>>> aspects of nature.  Saint Augustine thought that the 6 day creation was
>>> wrong, but his alternative would have also been found to be incorrect if
>>> he had written the first chapter of Genesis.  These are things that the
>>> UK's Religious Education program should make sure that the students
>>> fully understand about their Biblical religious beliefs.
>>
>> You are calling for them to do what they already do. You really should
>> focus on sorting your own mess out.
>>
> 
But it has been misinterpreted. Jesus said, "I am the Light the Way and 
you only come to God through me." He was playing a word game. He could 
have just as well said, "I am the goat the cow and you can milk me." 
This kind of word game shows up in literature and children's games 
everywhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755377

On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:35:59 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/11/2026 4:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 18:36:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> https://phys.org/news/2026-07-science-religion-stem-engagement.html#google_vignette
>>>
>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13617672.2026.2679953#summary-abstract
>>>
>>>
>>> In the UK they have compulsory religious education,
>> 
>> It is compulsory in that it is one of a number of subjects that every
>> school has to offer. It is not compulsory for children to take it as a
>> subject; parents have a *legal right* to opt their children out of
>> Religious Education or any form of religious worship without giving
>> any reason.
>
>They claim that it is compulsory religious education, and do not claim 
>that students can opt out.  

Here is the legislation from the UK Government:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/31/section/71

The authors of the papers do not explain what they mean by
"compulsory" but, instead of having the wit to checking it out, you
jumped to an interpretation that matches your own obsessive prejudices
- a good example of confirmation bias.

The rest of your drivelling rant is equally nonsensical, driven again
solely by your obsessive prejudices; I will give it the attention it
warrants:

<dump garbage />

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755385

On 8/12/2026 7:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:35:59 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/11/2026 4:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 18:36:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://phys.org/news/2026-07-science-religion-stem-engagement.html#google_vignette
>>>>
>>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13617672.2026.2679953#summary-abstract
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the UK they have compulsory religious education,
>>>
>>> It is compulsory in that it is one of a number of subjects that every
>>> school has to offer. It is not compulsory for children to take it as a
>>> subject; parents have a *legal right* to opt their children out of
>>> Religious Education or any form of religious worship without giving
>>> any reason.
>>
>> They claim that it is compulsory religious education, and do not claim
>> that students can opt out.
> 
> Here is the legislation from the UK Government:
> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/31/section/71
> 
> The authors of the papers do not explain what they mean by
> "compulsory" but, instead of having the wit to checking it out, you
> jumped to an interpretation that matches your own obsessive prejudices
> - a good example of confirmation bias.
> 
> The rest of your drivelling rant is equally nonsensical, driven again
> solely by your obsessive prejudices; I will give it the attention it
> warrants:
> 
> <dump garbage />
> 
> 
You snipped out the part where I said that it doesn't matter because 
they ran their study on 1100 students that were taking the course.  Why 
do you think that snipping out the material allows you to continue to 
prevaricate about it?

Snipping and running doesn't change reality.  You have had ample 
opportunity to understand how stupid your behavior has been for years. 
You are still as wrong as you have ever been for your geocentric denial. 
  Look how many times you had to demonstrate for yourself that reality 
never changes.

Ron Okimoto

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755394

> <repeat garbage dump />

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755401

On 8/13/2026 2:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> 
> 
>> <repeat garbage dump />
> 
Snipping and running never changes reality.

The garbage that you snipped out and are running from was written by you.

REPOST:
On 8/12/2026 7:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
 > On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:35:59 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
 > wrote:
 >
 >> On 8/11/2026 4:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
 >>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 18:36:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
 >>> wrote:
 >>>
 >>>> 
https://phys.org/news/2026-07-science-religion-stem-engagement.html#google_vignette
 >>>>
 >>>> 
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13617672.2026.2679953#summary-abstract
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> In the UK they have compulsory religious education,
 >>>
 >>> It is compulsory in that it is one of a number of subjects that every
 >>> school has to offer. It is not compulsory for children to take it as a
 >>> subject; parents have a *legal right* to opt their children out of
 >>> Religious Education or any form of religious worship without giving
 >>> any reason.
 >>
 >> They claim that it is compulsory religious education, and do not claim
 >> that students can opt out.
 >
 > Here is the legislation from the UK Government:
 > https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/31/section/71
 >
 > The authors of the papers do not explain what they mean by
 > "compulsory" but, instead of having the wit to checking it out, you
 > jumped to an interpretation that matches your own obsessive prejudices
 > - a good example of confirmation bias.
 >
 > The rest of your drivelling rant is equally nonsensical, driven again
 > solely by your obsessive prejudices; I will give it the attention it
 > warrants:
 >
 > <dump garbage />
 >
 >
You snipped out the part where I said that it doesn't matter because 
they ran their study on 1100 students that were taking the course.  Why 
do you think that snipping out the material allows you to continue to 
prevaricate about it?

Snipping and running doesn't change reality.  You have had ample 
opportunity to understand how stupid your behavior has been for years. 
You are still as wrong as you have ever been for your geocentric denial. 
  Look how many times you had to demonstrate for yourself that reality 
never changes.

Ron Okimoto
End REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755374

On 8/11/2026 4:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

> So much bullshit in there that it is hard to know where to start.

> Yet again, you try to bolster your bullshit arguments by making up
> bullshit lies about other people.

> More Ron bullshit.

> Even more Ron bullshit.

It's been a long time since I read any of the Emperor's mess, and 
fortunately not many reply to any of it.  Why feed it?

> You really should focus on sorting your own mess out.

You got this part right.


-- 
Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755376

On 8/11/2026 1:30 PM, sticks wrote:
> On 8/11/2026 4:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> 
>> So much bullshit in there that it is hard to know where to start.
> 
>> Yet again, you try to bolster your bullshit arguments by making up
>> bullshit lies about other people.
> 
>> More Ron bullshit.
> 
>> Even more Ron bullshit.
> 
> It's been a long time since I read any of the Emperor's mess, and 
> fortunately not many reply to any of it.  Why feed it?
> 
>> You really should focus on sorting your own mess out.
> 
> You got this part right.
> 
> 

Both of you need to stop lying to yourselves about reality.  It isn't 
just my reality.  When the NCSE (an organizaton against teaching 
creationism in the US public schools) started a campaign claiming that 
theistic evolution was compatible with science (just like the idiots 
that ran the study that you have to lie to yourself about) the ID perps 
were quick to refute that claim.  Most of the ID perps are 
anti-evolution old earth creationists.  Pretty much only Behe and Denton 
are theistic evolutionists among the ID perps.  Evolution News (the ID 
perp's propaganda site routinely runs anti-theistic evolution articles 
claiming that it is not good theology).  Some of the ID perps are even 
YEC anti-evolution.  They pointed out that theistic evolution was not 
compatible with Biblical literalism, and that it may be consistent with 
science, but that it was not consistent with the Biblical literalist 
beliefs like yours.

The study that you are lying to yourself about, tried to fool the 
students into believing the NCSE claims.  Theistic evolution is an 
accommodation.  Biological evolution is never mentioned in the Bible. 
Theistic evolution exists (just like heliocentric Biblical creationists 
exist) due to the fact that Biblical creationists have had to 
acknowledge that biological evolution and our heliocentric solar system 
are facts of nature, so no matter what the Bible claims they must be 
part of the creation.

https://ncse.ngo/creationevolution-continuum

Unlike the current study the NCSE does not recommend trying to change 
the student's religious views.  Do you agree with the NCSE?  Do you want 
your kids taught that the science of biological evolution is consistent 
with your Biblical beliefs because science makes no claim as to whether 
some god exists or not?

Wouldn't it be better to just tell the kids what the reality actually is 
and the reason for your science denial?  Do you support the UK studies 
attempt to persuade the kids that science is compatible with their 
religious beliefs when what you object to is what science has figured 
out about nature.  You don't care that science can't demonstrate whether 
some god exists or not.  You care about what science tells us about the 
creation because nature is not Biblical.  Science is just our best means 
of understanding nature, and that is what you object to because of your 
Biblical beliefs.

Ron Okimoto

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755378

On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 13:30:42 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:

>On 8/11/2026 4:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> So much bullshit in there that it is hard to know where to start.
>
>> Yet again, you try to bolster your bullshit arguments by making up
>> bullshit lies about other people.
>
>> More Ron bullshit.
>
>> Even more Ron bullshit.
>
>It's been a long time since I read any of the Emperor's mess, and 
>fortunately not many reply to any of it.  Why feed it?

Two reasons.

First of all, we all have our personal touchpapers and one of mine is
someone calling me a liar and then making up their own lies about me
to justify their claim.

The second, perhaps more important one, is that whilst like just about
everybody here, I generally just ignore Ron's ranting about stuff like
his "Top Six", when he misrepresents a paper or article as he has done
here, I believe it needs to be rebuffed. If it is not rebuffed, there
is a risk that his misrepresentation may be viewed as correct. Not
overly important, perhaps, in the context of a dying Usenet but part
of the problem with AI is that nobody really knows what sources it
uses and, whilst it is unlikely that they include Usenet, there is
every possibility of that in the future. Leaving Ron's
misrepresentations unrebuffed creates a risk, however small, that they
may become part of the increasing problem of GIGO with AI.

>
>> You really should focus on sorting your own mess out.
>
>You got this part right.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755387

On 8/12/2026 7:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 13:30:42 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/11/2026 4:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> So much bullshit in there that it is hard to know where to start.
>>
>>> Yet again, you try to bolster your bullshit arguments by making up
>>> bullshit lies about other people.
>>
>>> More Ron bullshit.
>>
>>> Even more Ron bullshit.
>>
>> It's been a long time since I read any of the Emperor's mess, and
>> fortunately not many reply to any of it.  Why feed it?
> 
> Two reasons.
> 
> First of all, we all have our personal touchpapers and one of mine is
> someone calling me a liar and then making up their own lies about me
> to justify their claim.

Well that's what he does.  Everybody can see it.  Not everybody feeds it.

> The second, perhaps more important one, is that whilst like just about
> everybody here, I generally just ignore Ron's ranting about stuff like
> his "Top Six", when he misrepresents a paper or article as he has done
> here, I believe it needs to be rebuffed. If it is not rebuffed, there
> is a risk that his misrepresentation may be viewed as correct. Not
> overly important, perhaps, in the context of a dying Usenet but part
> of the problem with AI is that nobody really knows what sources it
> uses and, whilst it is unlikely that they include Usenet, there is
> every possibility of that in the future. Leaving Ron's
> misrepresentations unrebuffed creates a risk, however small, that they
> may become part of the increasing problem of GIGO with AI.

That's kinda weak, IMO.  I tried reading the available posts here when I 
first subscribed and immediately noticed the Emperor behaved the way he 
does, but decided to engage anyway.  That was a mistake and I should 
have trusted my first instincts.  Now, I delete his posts, leaving open 
the option to block all replies.  That works fairly well as most people 
don't jump into his pile of shit.  If you continue to feed him I suppose 
I might have to adjust what I do.

I take a laptop with when I RV and it didn't have the filters I do on my 
desktops and last week I saw some pretty stupid shit between you two 
that appeared to go on for some time.  I had ignored that thread here 
and didn't know how crazy it was.  I think most here would agree this 
ridiculous back and forth between you two is a waste of time.  We'll see 
I guess.

>>> You really should focus on sorting your own mess out.
>>
>> You got this part right.
> 

-- 
Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755411

On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:13:47 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:

>On 8/12/2026 7:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 13:30:42 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8/11/2026 4:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>
>>>> So much bullshit in there that it is hard to know where to start.
>>>
>>>> Yet again, you try to bolster your bullshit arguments by making up
>>>> bullshit lies about other people.
>>>
>>>> More Ron bullshit.
>>>
>>>> Even more Ron bullshit.
>>>
>>> It's been a long time since I read any of the Emperor's mess, and
>>> fortunately not many reply to any of it.  Why feed it?
>> 
>> Two reasons.
>> 
>> First of all, we all have our personal touchpapers and one of mine is
>> someone calling me a liar and then making up their own lies about me
>> to justify their claim.
>
>Well that's what he does.  Everybody can see it.  Not everybody feeds it.
>
>> The second, perhaps more important one, is that whilst like just about
>> everybody here, I generally just ignore Ron's ranting about stuff like
>> his "Top Six", when he misrepresents a paper or article as he has done
>> here, I believe it needs to be rebuffed. If it is not rebuffed, there
>> is a risk that his misrepresentation may be viewed as correct. Not
>> overly important, perhaps, in the context of a dying Usenet but part
>> of the problem with AI is that nobody really knows what sources it
>> uses and, whilst it is unlikely that they include Usenet, there is
>> every possibility of that in the future. Leaving Ron's
>> misrepresentations unrebuffed creates a risk, however small, that they
>> may become part of the increasing problem of GIGO with AI.
>
>That's kinda weak, IMO.  I tried reading the available posts here when I 
>first subscribed and immediately noticed the Emperor behaved the way he 
>does, but decided to engage anyway.  That was a mistake and I should 
>have trusted my first instincts.  Now, I delete his posts, leaving open 
>the option to block all replies.  That works fairly well as most people 
>don't jump into his pile of shit.  If you continue to feed him I suppose 
>I might have to adjust what I do.

The problem is that as well as ranting and posting absolute rubbish,
Ron also posts some intelligent and useful/interesting stuff and
responses to some of those posts suggest that at least some regulars
here probably have a quick look at his posts to see if they are worth
looking at more closely and just skip over the rants and nonsense.
Regarding this particular post, I thought that if left unrebuffed,
there was a real possibility of such posters taking at face value his
total misrepresentation of how religious education in the UK is
handled in general and the specific nature of this experiment.

>
>I take a laptop with when I RV and it didn't have the filters I do on my 
>desktops and last week I saw some pretty stupid shit between you two 
>that appeared to go on for some time.  I had ignored that thread here 
>and didn't know how crazy it was.  I think most here would agree this 
>ridiculous back and forth between you two is a waste of time.  We'll see 
>I guess.

I admit I let that one go on too long but I just couldn't accept that
an intelligent guy like Ron would persevere with the stuff that he was
clearly wrong about. Sadly, either his existing worldview is too
deeply ingrained or else he just can't handle having got something so
badly wrong.

>
>>>> You really should focus on sorting your own mess out.
>>>
>>> You got this part right.
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755418

Martin Harran wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:13:47 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/12/2026 7:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 13:30:42 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/11/2026 4:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So much bullshit in there that it is hard to know where to start.
>>>>
>>>>> Yet again, you try to bolster your bullshit arguments by making up
>>>>> bullshit lies about other people.
>>>>
>>>>> More Ron bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>> Even more Ron bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> It's been a long time since I read any of the Emperor's mess, and
>>>> fortunately not many reply to any of it.  Why feed it?
>>>
>>> Two reasons.
>>>
>>> First of all, we all have our personal touchpapers and one of mine is
>>> someone calling me a liar and then making up their own lies about me
>>> to justify their claim.
>>
>> Well that's what he does.  Everybody can see it.  Not everybody feeds it.
>>
>>> The second, perhaps more important one, is that whilst like just about
>>> everybody here, I generally just ignore Ron's ranting about stuff like
>>> his "Top Six", when he misrepresents a paper or article as he has done
>>> here, I believe it needs to be rebuffed. If it is not rebuffed, there
>>> is a risk that his misrepresentation may be viewed as correct. Not
>>> overly important, perhaps, in the context of a dying Usenet but part
>>> of the problem with AI is that nobody really knows what sources it
>>> uses and, whilst it is unlikely that they include Usenet, there is
>>> every possibility of that in the future. Leaving Ron's
>>> misrepresentations unrebuffed creates a risk, however small, that they
>>> may become part of the increasing problem of GIGO with AI.
>>
>> That's kinda weak, IMO.  I tried reading the available posts here when I
>> first subscribed and immediately noticed the Emperor behaved the way he
>> does, but decided to engage anyway.  That was a mistake and I should
>> have trusted my first instincts.  Now, I delete his posts, leaving open
>> the option to block all replies.  That works fairly well as most people
>> don't jump into his pile of shit.  If you continue to feed him I suppose
>> I might have to adjust what I do.
> 
> The problem is that as well as ranting and posting absolute rubbish,
> Ron also posts some intelligent and useful/interesting stuff and
> responses to some of those posts suggest that at least some regulars
> here probably have a quick look at his posts to see if they are worth
> looking at more closely and just skip over the rants and nonsense.
> Regarding this particular post, I thought that if left unrebuffed,
> there was a real possibility of such posters taking at face value his
> total misrepresentation of how religious education in the UK is
> handled in general and the specific nature of this experiment.

Myself, I took exception to his portrayal of Denisovans as cannibals. 
This was because in my lessons (from AI - I hope you can respect that to 
a minor degree at least) the sources ruled out cannibalism in Denisovans 
because this was not deemed the case in excavations, while on the other 
hand, there is evidence in pockets of cannibalism in the Neanderthal 
populations unearthed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755389

On 8/12/26 05:59, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 13:30:42 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/11/2026 4:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> So much bullshit in there that it is hard to know where to start.
>>
>>> Yet again, you try to bolster your bullshit arguments by making up
>>> bullshit lies about other people.
>>
>>> More Ron bullshit.
>>
>>> Even more Ron bullshit.
>>
>> It's been a long time since I read any of the Emperor's mess, and
>> fortunately not many reply to any of it.  Why feed it?
> 
> Two reasons.
> 
> First of all, we all have our personal touchpapers and one of mine is
> someone calling me a liar and then making up their own lies about me
> to justify their claim.
> 
> The second, perhaps more important one, is that whilst like just about
> everybody here, I generally just ignore Ron's ranting about stuff like
> his "Top Six", when he misrepresents a paper or article as he has done
> here, I believe it needs to be rebuffed. If it is not rebuffed, there
> is a risk that his misrepresentation may be viewed as correct. Not
> overly important, perhaps, in the context of a dying Usenet but part
> of the problem with AI is that nobody really knows what sources it
> uses and, whilst it is unlikely that they include Usenet, there is
> every possibility of that in the future. Leaving Ron's
> misrepresentations unrebuffed creates a risk, however small, that they
> may become part of the increasing problem of GIGO with AI.
> 
>>
>>> You really should focus on sorting your own mess out.
>>
>> You got this part right.

Well you know.  Betsy Ross sewed pentacles into the US flag.

Pentacles were symbols of Satan long before the existence of
the United States.  But of course, St George was or is the
patron saint of England and there was of course a 'George
Washington' versus a 'George III' at the time, and I am
thinking that George Washington may have wanted something like
a shield or star of David at the time perhaps at least initially.

As for 'AI', I think that a lot of it is computer programs that
systematically falsify and modify medical records to increase
the profits of insurance companies.  But some if it also seems
to be systematic and repetitive propaganda and advertisement
programs to say, 'no, no', 'AI' stands for 'Aleph Lamed' (maybe
the 'I' is an 'l' or something like that.  'AI' is an oracle
that should be worshiped as a god.  And what can one say?
'Yahoo' is a name similar but not identical to 'Yahovah' and
'Google' is similar to 'God' but not identical also.  Just
different enough to produce plausible deniability when it
comes to using the names of deities to advertise their products.
(Like Baidu in the far east is similar but not identical to
Buddha.)

Anyway, when it comes to 'religion' and 'science' I once
remember when I was a kid a long time ago.  I was still in
elementary school, but I had two older sisters who were
attending early years in college and I was visiting there.
We went to a place where there was a college student showing
stars and planets through a telescope.  While there I started
quoting to him things I had seen on TV in a television program,
Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' such as 'my country is the world, my
religion, science'.

Then afterward, however the college student showing stars
through the telescope said something I did not expect -
'Eh, there is no dichotomy between religion and science
at all'.  I should remind you that this was an actual
student in college perhaps commissioned to show stars
through a telescope on various occasions and not some
TV program.  Anyway that was a long time ago, but I
remember that.  When it comes to Ron Okimoto, I tend
to get the idea that he says word like 'ID perps' by
habit, and when you start doing things like that by
habit, that can some times be a trap.  Who knows.



> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#755390

x3 wrote:
> On 8/12/26 05:59, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 13:30:42 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/11/2026 4:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>
>>>> So much bullshit in there that it is hard to know where to start.
>>>
>>>> Yet again, you try to bolster your bullshit arguments by making up
>>>> bullshit lies about other people.
>>>
>>>> More Ron bullshit.
>>>
>>>> Even more Ron bullshit.
>>>
>>> It's been a long time since I read any of the Emperor's mess, and
>>> fortunately not many reply to any of it.  Why feed it?
>>
>> Two reasons.
>>
>> First of all, we all have our personal touchpapers and one of mine is
>> someone calling me a liar and then making up their own lies about me
>> to justify their claim.
>>
>> The second, perhaps more important one, is that whilst like just about
>> everybody here, I generally just ignore Ron's ranting about stuff like
>> his "Top Six", when he misrepresents a paper or article as he has done
>> here, I believe it needs to be rebuffed. If it is not rebuffed, there
>> is a risk that his misrepresentation may be viewed as correct. Not
>> overly important, perhaps, in the context of a dying Usenet but part
>> of the problem with AI is that nobody really knows what sources it
>> uses and, whilst it is unlikely that they include Usenet, there is
>> every possibility of that in the future. Leaving Ron's
>> misrepresentations unrebuffed creates a risk, however small, that they
>> may become part of the increasing problem of GIGO with AI.
>>
>>>
>>>> You really should focus on sorting your own mess out.
>>>
>>> You got this part right.
> 
> Well you know.  Betsy Ross sewed pentacles into the US flag.
> 
> Pentacles were symbols of Satan long before the existence of
> the United States.  But of course, St George was or is the
> patron saint of England and there was of course a 'George
> Washington' versus a 'George III' at the time, and I am
> thinking that George Washington may have wanted something like
> a shield or star of David at the time perhaps at least initially.
> 
> As for 'AI', I think that a lot of it is computer programs that
> systematically falsify and modify medical records to increase
> the profits of insurance companies.  But some if it also seems
> to be systematic and repetitive propaganda and advertisement
> programs to say, 'no, no', 'AI' stands for 'Aleph Lamed' (maybe
> the 'I' is an 'l' or something like that.  'AI' is an oracle
> that should be worshiped as a god.  And what can one say?
> 'Yahoo' is a name similar but not identical to 'Yahovah' and
> 'Google' is similar to 'God' but not identical also.  Just
> different enough to produce plausible deniability when it
> comes to using the names of deities to advertise their products.
> (Like Baidu in the far east is similar but not identical to
> Buddha.)
> 
> Anyway, when it comes to 'religion' and 'science' I once
> remember when I was a kid a long time ago.  I was still in
> elementary school, but I had two older sisters who were
> attending early years in college and I was visiting there.
> We went to a place where there was a college student showing
> stars and planets through a telescope.  While there I started
> quoting to him things I had seen on TV in a television program,
> Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' such as 'my country is the world, my
> religion, science'.
> 
> Then afterward, however the college student showing stars
> through the telescope said something I did not expect -
> 'Eh, there is no dichotomy between religion and science
> at all'.  I should remind you that this was an actual
> student in college perhaps commissioned to show stars
> through a telescope on various occasions and not some
> TV program.  Anyway that was a long time ago, but I
> remember that.  When it comes to Ron Okimoto, I tend
> to get the idea that he says word like 'ID perps' by
> habit, and when you start doing things like that by
> habit, that can some times be a trap.  Who knows.
> 
For me, the real problem is I get drilled with Christianity every night. 
It's a feature of this current summer. But what's boggling about it is 
how it is gentrified and neologized. Like, how many times am I going to 
hear the story of David betraying a soldier's life repackaged? It's so 
intuitive yet why the false shine they put on it? The same concepts over 
and over, as if they were still interesting. By drilling it into my 
head, they are creating a perfect atheist beast.

I hate to use the word retarded but I'm having trouble grasping at the 
correct vocabulary. This retarded explanation of religion over & over.

YES, I'VE HEARD ABOUT JESUS!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | talk.origins

csiph-web