Who was educated?

[Stixx3969]

Mr. Paszkiewicz answered all your son's question except the burn in hell one and thats why you are wrong.  I have read this mornings Observer and the tide is turning against you so I am loving the outcome.  And what does your favorite sexual position have to do with this?  Is that part of your medical malpractice? The Observer is in it for their popularity for their sales and since the tide is turning against you, toward the side that is right, I am afraid it is you that doen't like the outcome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What do you consider "right"?

[Bryan]

For Bryan -- a philosopher talks about epistemology and science:

http://www.evolutionvscreationism.info/Evo...Scientists.html

In video #8, Dr. Barbara Forrest discusses epistemology.

What am I supposed to learn from Dr. Forrest, Leigh?

[Calybos]

Bryan, for someone who wants to fine-tune the definition of "preaching" to excuse Mr. P's actions, you seem awfully hung up on your specialized definition of "faith" meaning "any acceptance of any position or knowledge whatsoever."

The epistomology comments are especially funny, since it's deliberate misinterpretation of the word "theory" that most anti-evolution nuts rely on in the first place!

"Faith," as commonly understood in religion, means belief without physical evidence. Science, of course, relies on knowledge arrived at with supporting physical evidence.

To say that the "knowledge" of religion is equivalent to the knowledge of science--by saying they're both "faith-based"--is, of course, deliberately misleading. Oh, let's keep it simple: it's a lie, and a very stupid one to boot. Faith in the religious sense ignores evidence; scientific knowledge relies on it. These are not equivalent.

Are we done with your distraction tactics now, or are you going to meander about specialized definitions and reinterpreted meanings in another of your (futile) efforts to draw attention away from Mr. Paskiewicz's wrongful acts in violation of the Constitution?

[Guest Paul]

Paul, I apologize since you apparently took the "out of school a week" comment as something other than a statement.  It was not my intent to be "rather cheap."  I was trying to set the stage for my questions in order to understand how often the teacher spoke about religion based on the amount of time the student spent in the class.  I was also trying to understand if the student heard these discussions prior to recording or was recording simply based off the rumors he had heard prior to the school year.  The tapes are, what they are and the issue has been documented.  My questions were/are not relevant to the tapings, but simply for my own curiosity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please understand, my calling the remark that Matthew was out of school a week cheap was not directed at you, but at Mr. Paszkiewicz. He made the comment in an accusing tone, as though the student was to be blamed for being out sick. That's what was cheap.

[Strife767]

That's the stuff of which lies are made.

"Evolution is as faith-based as religion"

"evolution is based on faith"

...let me spell out for you how these statements are functionally identical, since apparently you're just too dense to understand.

Given: Theistic religion (which was the kind of religion Paszkiewicz used in his comparison) is based on faith.

Because of this, "Evolution is as faith-based as religion" is equivalent to saying "evolution is based on faith."

I don't know how I could make it any clearer. Why I'm still bothering to knock some sense into your skull is anyone's guess--maybe it's just too hard to ignore a post which is so confident yet so ridiculous at the same time.

[Guest Guest]

They're in the same place they have been since we brought this to their attention: sitting on their behinds doing nothing except shooting the messenger; and since this became public: running for cover.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you just don't get it. We are happy with our school system.

You keep looking here trying to defend your son's radical position and the bottom line is the rest of the school avoids him. Bottom line is that no body really cares about the LaClairs anymore.

[Bern]

Maybe you just don't get it. We are happy with our school system.

You keep looking here trying to defend your son's radical position and the bottom line is the rest of the school avoids him.  Bottom line is that no body really cares about the LaClairs anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you're happy. Good for you anonymous Guest.

But maybe you just don't know anything better and you're just used to the Kearny school system state of affairs.

It shows that people can get used to anything. Jail is a good example. After a few years the imposed alternative life style doesn't seem to be such a big bother.

[Bryan]

Bryan, for someone who wants to fine-tune the definition of "preaching" to excuse Mr. P's actions,

Quote me.

There's not much use in me replying to you in detail when you're not quoting me and you seem to be making stuff up.

[Strife767]

Maybe you just don't get it. We are happy with our school system.

Just because you're happy with something doesn't mean it's right.

You keep looking here trying to defend your son's radical position

Sad is the day when a stance consistent with the Constitution is called "radical." I truly pity you.

and the bottom line is the rest of the school avoids him.  Bottom line is that no body really cares about the LaClairs anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This isn't about caring about the LaClairs. This is about caring about the principles of our country, as laid out in the Constitution. Why do you oppose the Constitution?

[Bryan]

...let me spell out for you how these statements are functionally identical, since apparently you're just too dense to understand.

Given: Theistic religion (which was the kind of religion Paszkiewicz used in his comparison) is based on faith.

Because of this, "Evolution is as faith-based as religion" is equivalent to saying "evolution is based on faith."

I don't know how I could make it any clearer.

Oh, it's clear. It's just illogical.

Have a look at what you did, above.

You state that it is "Given" that theistic religion is based on faith, and you make no statement at all about evolution by itself.

Then you proceed next to "Evolution is as faith-based as religion" as if it was something Paszkiewicz said, but Calybos, IIRC, is the one who said that.

From that statement, you proceed logically to "evolution is based on faith."

In short, you, not Mr. Paszkiewicz, provided one premise of a would-be syllogism (albeit informally presented).

There are so many logical steps missing from your rudimentary syllogism that it isn't even funny, and unfortunately, Strife, I don't have time to explain it to you in the type of detail you would need to get a clue. If you drop me a PM I can recommend some good logic resources for you, however.

Why I'm still bothering to knock some sense into your skull is anyone's guess

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. You don't have any common sense to spare for anyone else, judging from your performance at KOTW.

[Guest Paul]

Maybe you just don't get it. We are happy with our school system.

You keep looking here trying to defend your son's radical position and the bottom line is the rest of the school avoids him.  Bottom line is that no body really cares about the LaClairs anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps not. However, we care about the Constitution and about the quality of education. If Kearny's residents do not, then we will press on. However, I believe you misread this town. The extremists may be very vocal here, but I do not believe they represent the majority --- and if they did, it would be all the more reason to press this issue. You made our point.

[Guest Paul]

Mr. Paszkiewicz answered all your son's question except the burn in hell one and thats why you are wrong.  I have read this mornings Observer and the tide is turning against you so I am loving the outcome.  And what does your favorite sexual position have to do with this?  Is that part of your medical malpractice? The Observer is in it for their popularity for their sales and since the tide is turning against you, toward the side that is right, I am afraid it is you that doen't like the outcome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My original intention was to ignore your post because it is so loaded with fallacies and non-understanding that I doubt I can help you understand. However, on reflection, I will address your single substantive point as best I can.

A teacher in a public school has certain obligations to the students, and to the public that pays his salary and expects him to teach the curriculum. Included among those responsibilities are laws and rules about what he may and may not discuss. You were focusing on the fact that Mr. Paszkiewicz was asked questions, but that is not governing criterion. In fact, that is irrelevant. The governing criterion has to do with content. That is why the illustration of a student asking a teacher his favorite sexual positions (not mine, his) is germane: it illustrates the fact that the mere asking of a question by a student does mean that the teacher may answer it. The same is true of a question about religion: as the authority figure in the classroom, the teacher may not express his personal opinion. That is the law, and it is also specifically stated in the policy the BoE is set to adopt at its next meeting. The asking of the question by a student is not relevant, and is no defense; it makes no difference who the student is, what was the purpose of his question, or anything else. As a public school teacher, the teacher may not express his religious views in class. Period. No exceptions. And as an adult educator he is expected to know that. Period. No exceptions and no excuses.

A student in a public school has an obligation mainly to himself. He is not obligated to protect the teacher, and if he sees inappropriate conduct, he has a right to make a record of it and report it. He is even within his rights to bait the teacher into engaging in improper conduct, although that is not what happened here. How well-liked the teacher is makes absolutely no difference. In statutory rape cases, for example, it makes no difference that the underaged participant enticed the adult, or how popular the adult is within the community. An adult having sex with an underage person is a violation of law as spelled out in the applicable statutes --- period, no exceptions, it's statutory. There is a clear line of demarcation between the adult's responsibilities and the minor's responsibilities, or in this case the teacher's responsibilities and the student's. So while you side keeps trying to focus on the student's conduct, it makes no legal difference. It is the teacher who violated the US Constitution and the school's educational policies by departing from the curriculum.

So you can try to convince yourself against all the evidence that the tide is turning, but even if it did it wouldn't matter, because the law remains the law, and what this teacher did is not legally defensible. The law does not recognize an excuse that he was set up, even if it was true, which it isn't. The teacher and he alone is responsible for what comes out of his mouth. The questions are no excuse. Period.

[Strife767]

Oh, it's clear.  It's just illogical.

Oh, I can't wait.

Have a look at what you did, above.

You state that it is "Given" that theistic religion is based on faith, and you make no statement at all about evolution by itself.

Why would I need to? It was Paszkiewicz's statement about evolution that is being examined.

Then you proceed next to "Evolution is as faith-based as religion" as if it was something Paszkiewicz said, but Calybos, IIRC, is the one who said that.

From that statement, you proceed logically to "evolution is based on faith."

Actually, I was referring directly to Paszkiewicz's words; that is, "evolution

is based on faith."

Evolution is not based on faith. Paszkiewicz is lying.

In short, you, not Mr. Paszkiewicz, provided one premise of a would-be syllogism (albeit informally presented).

There are so many logical steps missing from your rudimentary syllogism that it isn't even funny, and unfortunately, Strife, I don't have time to explain it to you in the type of detail you would need to get a clue.

You could have fooled me--you go into excruiacting detail about nothing at all on a regular basis.

If you drop me a PM I can recommend some good logic resources for you, however.

No thanks.

I agree.  You don't have any common sense to spare for anyone else, judging from your performance at KOTW.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ad hominem. That seals it.

[Bryan]

The governing criterion has to do with content. That is why the illustration of a student asking a teacher his favorite sexual positions (not mine, his) is germane: it illustrates the fact that the mere asking of a question by a student does mean that the teacher may answer it. The same is true of a question about religion: as the authority figure in the classroom, the teacher may not express his personal opinion. That is the law, and it is also specifically stated in the policy the BoE is set to adopt at its next meeting.

Haven't I asked before about the legal precedent for prohibiting the expression of personal opinion, religious or not?

The forthcoming policy simply isn't relevant unless ex post facto laws have suddenly become okay.

The asking of the question by a student is not relevant, and is no defense; it makes no difference who the student is, what was the purpose of his question, or anything else.

That's presupposing that your argument about it being "the law" is correct. What is the key precedent, IYO, is support of that claim? There is not statute that specifies it, to my knowledge. Though perhaps Paul knows of one?

As a public school teacher, the teacher may not express his religious views in class. Period. No exceptions.

If there are no exceptions, then why are there so many exceptions?

How do I respond if students ask

about my religious beliefs?

Some teachers prefer not to answer the question,

stating that it is inappropriate for a teacher to inject personal

beliefs into the discussion. Other teachers may choose to

answer the question straightforwardly and succinctly in the

interest of an open and honest classroom environment.

Before answering the question, however, teachers

should consider the age of the students. Middle and high

school students may be able to distinguish between a personal

view and the official position of the school; very young children

may not. In any case, the teacher may answer at most with a

brief statement of personal belief—but may not turn the ques-

tion into an opportunity to proselytize for or against religion.

Teachers may neither reward nor punish students because

they agree or disagree with the religious views of the teacher.

From "A Teacher's Guide to Religion in the Public Schools," by the First Amendment Center

http://www.freedomforum.org/publications/f...achersguide.pdf

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about....?item=about_fac

And as an adult educator he is expected to know that. Period. No exceptions and no excuses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not even if you're wrong?

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE(Paul @ Feb 23 2007, 07:25 AM)

It was humorous to say the least listening to Mr. Paszkiewicz's right-wing attorney trying to defend his client's behavior at the Board meeting on Tuesday evening.

It's also humorous to see a presumably busy Paul LaClair spending his time spinning propaganda at KOTW. - Bryan

...Says the guy with more posts than Paul.

***

QUOTE (Paul)

The irony is that Mr. Paszkiewicz was the one who raised every one of the subjects that led to his infamous "you belong in hell" remark. The discussion began with Matthew pointing out (in response to Mr. Paszkiewicz's complaint that he cannot read from the Bible in class) that the purpose of public education is to teach objective truths, not the personal opinions of individual teachers. Matthew is entirely correct.

The spin starts early.

Here's what Matthew actually said (according to the Dranger transcipt):

"Isn't the whole point of public school so that you can

separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from

non-religious teachings during school, like school prayer and all

that?"

Feed that into the Mikidkindoonorongatron and it become "objective truth."

In either case, Matthew was wrong. Some school time is spend on "objective truth" (which is a philosophical position in itself), but a great deal of time is spend teaching values and value systems including (as Paszkiewicz pointed out), tolerance.

Why is Paul LaClair here spinning the facts like this? -Bryan

http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html

Right. Clearly it was Matthew that brought up the line of discussion of who belongs in Hell, just as Bryan noted.

Here is the transcript.

LaClair: Isn't the whole point of public school so that you can separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from non-religious teachings during school, like school prayer and all that?

?Mr. P: No. The purpose of public school is to provide free education to people that couldn't afford education. Period. That's the purpose of public school. What it's become is social engineering.

It's supposed to reflect the values and belief systems of the parents;?that's why we have school boards elected from the population. Now I?gotta believe that most of the people on the school board have faith?maybe similar to mine, but yet the state comes up with some weird?perception of what education oughta be, and there's nothing (...?)?LaClair: What would decide what should be - what religion should be?taught in schools, what would decide that??Teacher: No, it's not about teaching - my point is it's not about?teaching religion - and you know, these issues will come up when we?get to the 1920s, and things begin to get legislated, and we'll talk?about it in class. But the public schools shouldn't teach a religion -?but the scriptures aren't religion. ?LaClair: They're not...??Teacher: The scriptures are at the foundation of the world's?religions. The world's main religions, anyway. Religion is a set way?of doing things. For example if you take Christian faiths, right, you?have many varieties; there's Roman Catholicism, the Methodists, the?(...?), the Baptists, who differ on church government, things like?that but (..LaClair moving about...?) book - the Bible. We should be?able to bring that into the classroom, read it, and shouldn't be?threatened by anybody.?LaClair: What if some students don't believe in the Bible??Students: Yeah... yeah...?Teacher: Well that's their perogative; what if the student doesn't?believe in evolution? What if the student doesn't believe in some?other aspect of the educational curriculum??LaClair: Well evolution is scientific; evolution -?(Student G1, at same time: you can bring a bible in the school and?read it)?Teacher: Is it??LaClair: Yes. I can get you a whole bunch of information on it.?Teacher: Yeah, I'm 38 years old, I've seen the information. Give me?the scientific method. What does the scientific method -?(chaos)?Teacher: Is that how it starts, though, with a hypothesis??LaChace: You have to find out what the problem is, first, I think.?Teacher: I think it begins with observation first, doesn't it??LaClair: No, you have to determine what the problem is.?Student H1: Let me get my Earth Science book...?Teacher: We don't even have to do it in order, let's just list the?steps. Some teachers list 7, some list 5, right, whatever, give me?your list. Hypothesis.... what's next... DAta... what else? Observe??(chaos) We've already said we're not going to be concerned with...?(under the chaos we hear "Really?" "I think it is.")?Teacher: Hey, you guys look back, you're like the two little men on?the Puppet Show - the Muppet Show? Life is going on and you're in the?balcony doing your own thing, okay? Come on, be part of this?discussion. What else? How about experimentation??Students: ....analyzing....?Teacher: I think you guys are coming up with new steps..?Students: ...I think it's an "X".?Teacher: Collecting Data, observation, experiment, involves?repetition? The order's not necessarily important for history, but?from a science standpoint... But the statement was that evolution is?scientific. Now you assume that because you've been indoctrinated for?at least 11 years now, right, at least, because you have the?pre-kinder...if you went to the state babysitting agency, it might be?longer. But, this roughly accepted scientific fact, right? When you?get to up to this old creation/evolution debate, the argument goes?something like this: "You're a believer. Your argument is based on?faith. But I, I believe in evolution. My ideas are based on -"?LaClair: Facts??Teacher: Science, or facts, right. Now, I can see a (...? gracian?based update?) but the idea of faith is much different that what?you're taught faith is in school. Now, I would also say that evolution?is based on faith, too. Because - what's the hypothesis, what's the?assumption of evolution? You look at the world - or let's take?biological life - you look at biological life. There's small life, and?there's big life. Or there's simple life, and intelligent life and?somehow we all evolved from simple life forms into complex life forms,?ok, that's the assumption, that may be your hypothesis. Uh, anyone?ever observe it? No? You can collect some data, right, like a fossil?record? Anybody ever produce it? No? They say that life can?spontaneously generate, but as often as scientists have tried, they've?never done it. Ok, so can the experiment be reported or repeated? So?can it be a scientific fact? No. Cause this is how it works: like, if?I were to say water were to boil at 212 degrees Farenheit - ?Students: 100 degrees Celsius!?Teacher: That we know. Ok, 100 degrees Celsius - that can be tested, I?could say, or LaQuera? could say, that's my hypothesis - and then I'll?let you raise your question; don't let me forget, though - let's say?that's our assumption: water will boil at 100 degrees Celsius. We can?very easily test that. We take a pot of water and put it on a coffee?(....noise noise noise) ...at each second, each minute, what's?occuring with the water, we can record temperatures; at 100 degrees,?what do we see happen? The bubbles. But that's not enough; that's not?scientific fact. I have to repeat it, many times myself. Then I take?those notes and give them to the scientific community. If other?scientists who are unbiased come to the same conclusion, it becomes a?scientific fact, right? How can you say that evolution is a scientific?fact, you just can't; it's a theory - ok, LaClaire first.?LaClaire: OK. How do you prove something like Noah's Ark happened, or?that Adam and Eve existed; was there any observation that Adam and Eve?were people, or...?Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith.?Remember I confessed that at the beginning. My point is it takes more?faith that something came from nothing, than God created something out?of nothing. You understand? ?LaClaire: ...no...?Teacher: Cause this is what we're being told by - well, take the big?bang theory. You would have never gotten me to believe this as a?little boy cause common sense would tell me that this doesn't make?sense. But as we get older, I began listening to people in white?labcoats who have advanced degrees, the impossible all of a sudden?becomes possible. The Big Bang Theory is there was nothing out there,?there was no matter. But yet nothing exploded and created something.?Let me give you a clue, guys, if there's nothing - it can't explode!!?And that created order. It created all of the order in the universe.?How many of you have ever looked at something explode? If you can't?raise a hand, did you ever see a firecracker blow up, did you ever see?a fireworks show? Ever see a gun fire? Did you see the Twin Towers?collapse on TV? Did any of these explosions that you've seen in all of?your young life ever create order? You know what, none has ever?created order in all of human history. That's observation; nobody ever?recorded an explosion making order, but yet we can make this?assumption about an event that occured a billion years ago that?created all the order that you see. That's not scientific. There's?nothing scientific about it. It sounds cool on paper. But it defies?human reason.?LaClaire: Um, but you say that because you have faith, that the Bible,?the things written in the Bible did occur. Does that mean that if I?wanted to, I could say, I have faith, that the being or the force that?created this universe - ?Teacher: It has to be a being.?LaClaire: A being.?Teacher: Cause it would require intelligence; it can't be a force.?LaClaire: So gravity has - gravity is a being.?Teacher: No, it's a force. ?LaClaire: So it can be a force.?Teacher: But that's not the creator, is it? You understand, gravity,?because it doesn't have intelligence, can't be responsible for?everything that you see.?LaClaire: Ok, well let's say that I had faith that um...sigh... a...?Teacher: Let's think about this for a second. This isn't populism,?guys, I think you put that together. Is it bothering anybody that?we're taking this direction??Students: (unenergetic moans of "no")?Teacher: Ok... ?Student J1: I kinda like this direction.?LaClaire: Alright -?Teacher: Do you like it or you don't like it? I don't want to step on?your toes. We aim to please here.?LaClaire: If I have faith, if I truly -?Teacher: Follow his argument, guys.?LaClaire: - truly believe that a man of, let's say, 2776 years old?with a blue face and a pink shirt, and he always wears the same thing.?If I have true faith that that man created the universe, and I say?that this happened in this amount of time and this is what followed,?does that mean that it really happened??Teacher: No. No, it's a good argument. Ok, you guys are following and?understand, right? Because what we've established - and some of you?probably disagree with what I've put on the board; that's okay, you?won't be tested on it, you understand, you'll be tested on populism,?not (inaudible due to a cough). But um, my assertion to you is that?evolution is based faith and creation is based on faith. And here's?the difference, and it may answer your question. What the?evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what?Christians call faith. Christian faith - Judeo-Christian faith is a?reasoned faith. Take the scriptures - I'm not just saying that there?was a God - who willed the universe into existence - actually, spoke?it into existence, right? I'm not just saying that at the (start of?the text??). The text is full of biblical prophecy that comes to pass.?Moses writes about events that take place before his time, he writes?about the (Thelassians?). But think about the order of the events. So?we have God, he speaks. He creates light, and by the 6th day creates?man, all by speaking. And he has the order correct, and this is 1440?BC; he has the order correct, he starts with light and end with higher?lifeforms. Moses wrote in 1440 BC, not that the Earth was created?then. You know where I'm going with this. ?Student K1: Were there dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Sorry, I -?Teacher: One at a time, okay. I will answer that question. Short?answer, yes, and it was a problem; I'll explain that.?Student K1: Okay.?Teacher: But uh, Moses writes in 1440 BC. Most of you have probably?read that first chapter of Genesis: In the beginning God created the?Heavens and the Earth, and (....?) Moses had the best education money?could buy in his day - where was he educated??Student L1: Pharoh's palace.?Teacher: In Pharoh's place, he was raised to be a pharoh. He might not?have been next in line, but he was part of the line of succession. He?was trained in mathematics, he was trained in creation, the literature?of Egypt, languages, as a millitary commander, all of these things.?Public administration, because he'd be running the kingdom one day,?and if he wasn't running the kingdom, he would be a general in the?army. But do you know what he was taught in schools? Do you know what?the Egyptian conception of the universe was? "The Earth was the back?of a giant tortoise shell supported by four elephants." This is?culture that gave us pyramids and a calendar and advanced mathematics,?etc. You take the other big empires of the day, the Mesopotamians, the?Babylonians, who were also extremely advanced in mathematics, etc.,?and architecture, and public administration and law. And what was?their concept? Well, there were these two gods, Tiamat and Margel(?)?Margel got very jealous of the goddess Tiamat, pulled her body into?pieces and flung it apart into the universe. And those are the stars?that you see. This is all in the ancient record. Think this through,?and then you can ask questions. But that's what was out there. Where?did Moses' conception of the universe come from? Cause it was unlike?anything he'd been taught in school. And he had the order?scientifically correct. You start with light, and then you go to -?because you can't live without light generated from the sun. The?energy that we get from the food that we eat, ultimately finds its way?back to the source, the sun. Plants and photosynthesis, the beef that?we enjoy eats the plants, and we get that energy from the beef. It?transfers, and Moses had the order correct. Now, this whole idea of?faith, my faith is reasoned. It's not like, "I really hope it's true,?so I'm just going to believe a lot and hope I go to Heaven when I?die." No, it's not like that. It's not like I could stand on the edge?of a building and say "I believe I can fly, if I really try hard now,"?no. That's foolishness. You can believe all you want. It's all gonna?end the same. With your face splattered on the sidewalk. Why is my?faith rooted and grounded in the scriptures? Because of biblical?prophecy. That has come true within the letter and verifies the text. ?Student M1: What were the prophecies??Teacher: What were they? There were actually hundereds of 'em...?Student M1: ...that came true...?Teacher: New Testament, Old Testament??LaClaire: The ones that came true. ?Student M2: Go with easier.?Teacher: I'll give you a major Old Testament prophecy, I'll give you?two. One, the children of Israel themselves. Moses in Genesis talks?about one day they're going to be in slavery for 400 years. Long?before the event, but God would deliver them. And then in Exodus,?they're in slavery, and He delivers 'em 430 years later. Things like?that. You have many prophecies, like, um, I'll give you an interesting?one, this is the Old Testament, this is in the book of Ezekiel. And?Ezekiel gives us prophecies concerning the nations. He talks about the?city of T- which would be off the coast of Lebanon in the ancient?world. T- still exists in Lebanon today. This is the Mediterranean?coast, where Israel would be here, Lebanon would be here, and he had?the city of T- right here. Ezekiel rants in his prophecy against this?king of T- and how evil he is and about how God is going to judge him.?And in the ancient world, the people of this city was really?impregnable, because what would happen was, there was a tiny island a?quarter mile off the coast. Whenever they were going to be invaded,?the people of the city would get on boats and go to what they called?"Little T-", a walled rock (...?) out off the coast, and it had a?water supply, and it had food stores and stuff, there. Ezekiel said?that they would come, that they would be conquered, that T- would be?raized - that every stone would be overturned, and cast into the sea,?and the men of the sea would be slaughtered, and it would be known as?a place were fishermen mend their nets (??). You can look it up in the?older Encyclopedia Brittanica, look up T-, and it will say that it's a?place where fishermen mend their nets. Not the newest one, but the?older one, the ones they had the old (???). Alexander the Great comes?down the scene of history. He's not a military guy, he's a soldier. He?gets to T-, he wants to conquer the city, and he is so frustrated that?the city has escaped. And he's (??) that, he has his men take every?stone of the city and throw it into the sea to build a causeline from?the mainland to Little T- and slaughters the men of the city. (...??)?That's just one, there are many. And - ?Student N1: Did Alexander the Great read the Bible??Teacher: No, this occured before his time. It was predicted as a?prophecy then - but it was that specific. Now the coastline of Lebanon?looks like this. Because there's a causeway there. It's no longer an?island. And you have Little T- out here and T- on the mainland, and?that's how it was formed. And history records that Alexander the Great?came and raized the city and threw it into the sea. Where were we?goin, anyway??LaClaire: A few things that I was really concerned about. One, you?said about the evolution. That, it wasn't observed and that,?therefore, it's not true, or that it's a theory and can't be proven.?In the Bible, for example, one of the first things you said was about?how light was created first by the Lord, and then, after that, the 7th?day - what came into creation? The 6th day was - ?Teacher: man and the land -?LaClaire: Man and the land. Who proved that this God did this in this?amount of time if God was the only one that would know about this? In?other words, if he created light, and it took him until the 6th day to?create man, then between those, between that time period, who knew?besides him that this stuff happened? Only him.?Teacher: Nah, he just told Moses. You get it??LaClaire: And we know - wait, wait, and we know - ?Teacher: Yeah, for 6 days, there was only him and man.?LaClaire: Him and man. Ok - ?Teacher: As far as life on Earth, I mean you do have angelic teams,?and things like that...?LaClaire: Now um, between that period of time, and you're saying that?he told Moses, it was Moses that wrote the Bible -?Teacher: Moses writes the first 5 books.?LaClaire: Ok, he wrote the first 5 books. How do we prove that it is?these people who did these different things? Did the Lord talk to him,?did he come down and say, "Moses, I want you to write this for me." ?Teacher: The Bible explains inspiration, and it occurs in a number of?different ways. Inspiration from the biblical writers, according to?the Bible, not according to what some professor said, it works like?this: God speaks through prophets and inspires their writing. The text?itself could reflect the personality of the writing. Your style of?writing permeates the text. But the accuracy is ensured of what you're?writing. And Moses was a prophet. And he got these revelations from?God. I'm sure the primary sources that he used - for example, if I was?Noah, and I knew the flood was coming, I wouldn't just take those two?animals on the ark of every breed, I would also take every map I could?find, every math book, whatever, whatever he had in his day, the?technology of the day, I would have taken on the Ark. I'm sure Moses?had ancient accounts that were written by men on the Ark, because Noah?was on there with his 3 sons. Well, read the text of Genesis, at least?one of his sons was still alive even when Abraham was around. Now?let's say Noah's son Shem, since he lived a significantly long time?after the flood, and let's say I was a little boy Abraham, and I was?his descendent. I'd be visiting Grandpa, he'd be telling me these?stories on his knee. And I'd probably write them down. Or somebody in?my family would, and they would pass them on. But these guys may have?operated from primary sources, but the biblical convention is that the?accuracy is ensured by God. ?LaClaire: But for example, wouldn't something like Noah's Ark be an?example of a mistake by God? Because, at least from what I know of the?Bible, because he had to destroy, start over. In my understanding of?God in the Bible is that he's all (something falls) - oh that doesn't?sound good - oops! - he uh, he doesn't make any mistakes, right? He?doesn't make any mistakes. God. Doesn't make any mistakes. Why would?he have to start over??Student O1: That was called free will by humans.?LaClaire: Free will.?Teacher: Free will works this way, guys. And uh, we've probably got?the bell ringing sometime. Suppose you were God. A God of your own?choice. Or let's relate it to a marriage. Let's suppose that the?person that marries you one day, was programmed to marry you. Not?programmed to marry you, but programmed to love you. And it?automatically always said yes, and it automatically met your needs,?and it was an automaton.?Student P1: Boring!?Teacher: It would be boring. And the love would not be real. It would?not be real. It has to be a choice, initiated by you. When God created?man, he gave him free will. He could have very easily wound us up like?robots and said "serve me" like the angels. But he's a good God, he's?a holy God, and the choice is up to you. You can reciprocate properly?to the very one that gave you life, or you don't have to, I love you?that much, the choice is yours. ?LaClaire: Let's say that you disagree (with God). Let's say that?maybe, in God's eyes, you have done something wrong. If you go to?Hell, that would mean that you would burn and suffer forever. Now,?hang on, let me think about this for a second. You have an all-loving?God. Why would God give up on a human being after just one lifetime??As a parent, if your child did something wrong, if your child did?something terrible, would you throw them in an oven and leave them?there forever??Teacher: I also didn't die for them. (going to another student) What's?your response??Student 2: Isn't there, like, the whole thing about going to heaven?and hell, isn't there - I forget what the name of the place is...?LaClaire: Purgatory.?Student 2: Where there's a place where you go beforehand to like,?Student 3: ...a second chance...?Student 2: Yeah, like that would be your second chance.?Teacher: See, I don't mean to step on anybody's toes; I know a lot of?you believe in purgatory; I don't.?Student 4: Neither do I.

Mr. P: I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell, but this is the answer to your question - and I believe that because there's no mention in Genesis through Revalations of a place called

Purgatory - but this is the issue: God is not only all loving in the way he describes himself in the scriptures, he is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept me, believe!" You reject that, you belong in Hell.

Of course, by Bryan's logic, Mr. P may have actually started the topic when he introduced himself at the beginning of the school year, "Hello, my name is Mr. P."

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE (Paul)

Mr. Paszkiewicz dogmatically contradicted public policy statements by most if not all fifty state legislatures, and established law, in declaring definititely that the purpose of public education is to provide an education for people who cannot afford it, and nothing more.

In fact, Paszkiewicz (in context) was contradicting young LaClair's notion of the purpose of public school, with Pasziewicz himself clarifying what he meant:

"No. The purpose of public school is to provide free education to people that couldn't afford education. Period. That's the purpose of public school. " - Mr. P - Bryan

Hmmm... Let's feed that into the Bryan-rationalization Mad Lib machine. (Bryan loves those "Mad Libs.")

"No. The purpose of public libraries is to provide free books to people that couldn't afford books. Period. That's the purpose of public libraries. "

"No. The purpose of public roads is to provide free roads to people that couldn't afford roads. Period. That's the purpose of public roads. "

"No. The purpose of public utilities is to provide electricity to people that couldn't afford their own power plant. Period. That's the purpose of public utilities. "

"No. The purpose of public transportation is to provide transportation to people that couldn't afford cars. Period. That's the purpose of public transportation. "

"No. The purpose of public parks is to provide free parks to people that couldn't afford their own park. Period. That's the purpose of public parks. "

(bold emphasis added)

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE (Paul)

Mr. Paszkiewicz dogmatically contradicted public policy statements by most if not all fifty state legislatures, and established law, in declaring definititely that the purpose of public education is to provide an education for people who cannot afford it, and nothing more.

In fact, Paszkiewicz (in context) was contradicting young LaClair's notion of the purpose of public school, with Pasziewicz himself clarifying what he meant:

"No. The purpose of public school is to provide free education to people that couldn't afford education. Period. That's the purpose of public school. What it's become is social engineering. It's supposed to reflect the values and belief systems of the parents; that's why we have school boards elected from the population."

(bold emphasis added) -Bryan

"It's supposed to reflect the values and belief systems of the parents."

This is why Paul is here, yes? (Hey, it's your logic.)

***

QUOTE (Paul)

That statement is incorrect legally and in terms of public policy.

But Paul LaClair, lawyer that he is, cannot be bothered to explain how. He'd have to charge everyone for his time if he were to do that, I suppose. -Bryan

Nor can you explain how a public teacher can rightfully say to a captive audience of minors, "[God] did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept me, believe!" You reject that, you belong in Hell."

A draw?

***

QUOTE (Paul)

Matthew then challenged Mr. Paszkiewicz, asking "what if some students don't believe in the Bible." It was then that Mr. Paszkiewicz brought up evolution, and then the big bang, both of which he dismissed in favor of biblical creationism

Incorrect (you appear to be deliberately lying, Paul--we've been over this).

Paszkiewicz began teaching about epistemology, using science as an example. He showed (quite properly) that what people call science "fact" is inductive and probabilistic. -Bryan

Bryan is an artist, taking the idea of something and tilting it slightly askew, so that it is, yet isn't what it is. His Worholian technique blows my mind.

Transcript:

LaClair: What if some students don't believe in the Bible?

Students: Yeah... yeah...

Teacher: Well that's their perogative; what if the student doesn't believe in evolution? What if the student doesn't believe in some other aspect of the educational curriculum?

Personally, I don't believe in gravity, which explains how I can fly.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE (Paul)

--- this time not only contrary to established science, of which he obviously knows very little, but in direct violation of law per the US Constitution.

Poppycock. Pasziewicz placed both creationism and evolution in the same category: faith-based beliefs ("But um, my assertion to you is that evolution is based faith and creation is based on faith"). The only respect in which he advocated "creationism" over "evolution" was in positing the necessity of an intelligent cause (which is actually compatible with evolution per se, minus the assumption of metaphysical naturalism). -Bryan

Meaning that Bryan thinks Evolution is an abomination only because it doesn't say "God" anywhere in it.

At least he's upfront about it.

We just need to prepend "Let there be light!" before the Big Bang and E=mc^2, and the entire scientific community of heathens and anti-God conspirators become agents of the Bible. It's a miracle!

(Calculus is the spawn of the Devil!)

***

QUOTE (Paul)

That led to a discussion on the beginning of the world, during which Mr. Paszkiewicz yet again used the opportunity to proselytize his religious views --- yet another violation of the US Constitution and New Jersey law.

And though Mr. Laclair is supposedly a lawyer, he cannot be bothered to present evidence here, either.

Paul LaClair, in fact, seems to simply blindly follow the faulty conclusions of the younger LaClair.

Matthew LaClair builds a straw man:

"That, it wasn't observed and that, therefore, it's not true, or that it's a theory and can't be proven."

Neither position was advocated by Paszkiewicz, but the elder LaClair gives the kid a pass and seems to accuse Paszkiewicz of the same straw man views. -Bryan

Bryan, supposedly literate, cannot be bothered to state why Matthew's quote is a strawman.

Transcript:

Teacher: Now, I would also say that evolution is based on faith, too.... Uh, anyone?ever observe it? No? You can collect some data, right, like a fossil record? Anybody ever produce it? No? They say that life can spontaneously generate, but as often as scientists have tried, they've never done it. Ok, so can the experiment be reported or repeated? So?can it be a scientific fact? No.

<blah blah blah>

LaClaire: A few things that I was really concerned about. One, you said about the evolution. That, it wasn't observed and that, therefore, it's not true, or that it's a theory and can't be proven...

[WilliamK]

Paraphrases do not belong within quotation marks.

Unless, of course, you're directly quoting somebody else's paraphrase. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lame, Bryan. Lame.

Here's what Calybos said:

The statement "Evolution is as faith-based as religion" is not objective; it's opinion. Moreover, it's a breathtakingly stupid opinion, since it's so easily refuted by facts.

In this case, his use of quotation marks is correct regardless of whether the quoted part is a direct quote, a paraphrase, or even his original idea.

The accurate quotation is a true statement, and the so-called "paraphrase" differs substantially in content.

It's obvious from the original context that Paszkiewicz meant to imply, at the very least, that evolution requires "faith" in the same sense as "religious faith". The statement "Now, I would also say that evolution is based on faith, too." would not have made much sense in context with any other meaning of the word "faith". It would not have supported his position.

He may have also intended to imply (and very likely believes*) that it requires a similar or greater degree of faith. That is less clear, but even so, the paraphrase is a better representation of Paszkiewicz' meaning than the direct quote taken out of context. And much more accurate than your attempt to substitute some other usage of of the word faith.

* So why do I think it likely that he believes that? One reason is simply that this is a pervasive idea among creationists, and all else being equal, rules are better bets than exceptions. A better reason is that later in the same transcript he, stunningly, actually argues that the roles are reversed; that Christian faith is of the reasoned sort, and (by very clear implication, having said that this is what makes them different) that evolution is not.

Here's the quote:

But um, my assertion to you is that

evolution is based faith and creation is based on faith. And here's

the difference, and it may answer your question. What the

evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what

Christians call faith. Christian faith - Judeo-Christian faith is a

reasoned faith. Take the scriptures - I'm not just saying that there

was a God - who willed the universe into existence - actually, spoke

it into existence, right? I'm not just saying that at the [start of

the text??]. The text is full of biblical prophecy that comes to pass.

Moses writes about events that take place before his time, he writes

about the [Thelassians?]. But think about the order of the events. So

we have God, he speaks. He creates light, and by the 6th day creates

man, all by speaking. And he has the order correct, and this is 1440

BC; he has the order correct, he starts with light and end with higher

lifeforms. Moses wrote in 1440 BC, not that the Earth was created

then. You know where I'm going with this.

Context, Bryan. Context. You know, that thing you accuse others of ignoring then ignore it yourself?

That's the stuff of which lies are made.

Back at ya.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE (Paul)

This eventually led to Matthew challenging Mr. Paszkiewicz with the question: why would a loving god ever allow anyone, under any circumstances, to be tormented forever.

(even though young LaClair might risk mental anguish if such a discussion were to take place in a public school?) -Bryan

"Typical Fever Swamp tactic is to keep changing the subject." - Bryan

***

Quote (Paul)

Perhaps Mr. Paszkiewicz is not accustomed to that question.

Psychologizing an opponent is one of the lowest forms of argument, IMHO. Perhaps the elder LaClair's professional experience has inured him to the technique. -Bryan

"Typical Fever Swamp tactic is to keep changing the subject." -Bryan

***

Quote (Paul)

Many of the students seem taken aback by it, too. I think it's an excellent question, one the student has every right to ask.

Does he have a right to an answer? Even if it might cause him mental anguish? -Bryan

"Typical Fever Swamp tactic is to keep changing the subject." -Bryan

***

QUOTE (Paul)

The problem isn't whether Matthew liked or agreed with the answer; the problem is that the teacher had no right legally or ethically to be expressing his opinions in the first place --- not in a public school classroom in which he is the teacher. Like it or don't like it, but that is the law, and it is well settled.

Why do so many teachers ignore that supposedly well-settled point of law by expressing personal opinions about everything from the weather right on through the president of the United States as well as religion?

I had an instructor once who informed the class that in his opinion Jesus spent most of his life in India. Maybe we should can that guy! How dare he express his opinion in class!

In fact, I think I'm feeling some mental anguish right now! Take my case, Mr. LaClair? -Bryan

Right on! There are other banned topics far more damaging to a classroom for a teacher to discuss than religion:

- Gay penguins

- HPV

- Boobies

***

QUOTE (Paul)

Ironically, Mr. Paszkiewicz complained in class after Matthew complained about his conduct that a good education "takes you out of your comfort zone."

Yet another conversational snippet offered without the surrounding context ... -Bryan

Mr. P does say his kids are home schooled. Must be mighty uncomfortable.

***

QUOTE (Paul)

He is correct. However, I suggest that it was Mr. Paszkiewicz who was taken out of his comfort zone by Matthew's questions. Whether he learned anything is another matter. To learn, one must have an open mind. So far, we see no evidence of that from Mr. Paszkiewicz or his supporters.

A question for Mr. Paszkiewicz and his supporters: Why is it that the only people who are supposed to have an open mind are the ones you don't agree with?

Why keep asking these questions when you apparently have no intention of following up? You're little more than a troll, Paul. -Bryan

"I'm delighted to see that you did not forget to include an insult." -Bryan

I'll answer another question. Let's see if you follow up this time or run away (like a troll) to start another thread tomorrow. -Bryan

Like you did?

Runaway: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46604

New thread: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47078

***

Quote (Paul)

"Why is it that the only people who are supposed to have an open mind are the ones you don't agree with?"

It's pretty much against my policy to answer a question that contains a controversial premise, actually.

I'm not afraid to engage the other side in argument. I'll take most arguments seriously (open-minded; "arguments" that degenerate into repeated assertion + insults are properly ignored). -Bryan

Damn. Bryan the Troll will ignore me. *sniffle*

It is the secularists who are closed-minded on this topic. They have been trying to game the system for about a hundred years through the courts. The publics schools were long seen by secularists as a means of marginalizing religion. The movement lost its way somewhat when Logical Positivism was found to be philosophically bankrupt, but carry on it has, often assisted by Christians who do not understand how they are being played for suckers. -Bryan

You should love the incompetence of public schools to undermine religion. America is the most religious country in the industrialized world! Woo hoo, sucka!

Values will be taught in public school, either explicitly or implicitly. There's no way around it, despite the apparent delusions of the LaClairs.

There is no neutrality. -Bryan

Any way to avoid these?

Gay values

Islamic values

Environmental values

No fair if you are gay, Muslim or live in the environment!

The secularist is against opinions with which he disagrees, and he is for opinions with which he agrees. -Bryan

The religionist is against opinions with which he disagrees, and he is for opinions with which he agrees. -Bizarro Bryan

[Guest Patriot]

My original intention was to ignore your post because it is so loaded with fallacies and non-understanding that I doubt I can help you understand. However, on reflection, I will address your single substantive point as best I can.

A teacher in a public school has certain obligations to the students, and to the public that pays his salary and expects him to teach the curriculum. Included among those responsibilities are laws and rules about what he may and may not discuss. You were focusing on the fact that Mr. Paszkiewicz was asked questions, but that is not governing criterion. In fact, that is irrelevant. The governing criterion has to do with content. That is why the illustration of a student asking a teacher his favorite sexual positions (not mine, his) is germane: it illustrates the fact that the mere asking of a question by a student does mean that the teacher may answer it. The same is true of a question about religion: as the authority figure in the classroom, the teacher may not express his personal opinion. That is the law, and it is also specifically stated in the policy the BoE is set to adopt at its next meeting. The asking of the question by a student is not relevant, and is no defense; it makes no difference who the student is, what was the purpose of his question, or anything else. As a public school teacher, the teacher may not express his religious views in class. Period. No exceptions. And as an adult educator he is expected to know that. Period. No exceptions and no excuses.

A student in a public school has an obligation mainly to himself. He is not obligated to protect the teacher, and if he sees inappropriate conduct, he has a right to make a record of it and report it. He is even within his rights to bait the teacher into engaging in improper conduct, although that is not what happened here. How well-liked the teacher is makes absolutely no difference. In statutory rape cases, for example, it makes no difference that the underaged participant enticed the adult, or how popular the adult is within the community. An adult having sex with an underage person is a violation of law as spelled out in the applicable statutes --- period, no exceptions, it's statutory. There is a clear line of demarcation between the adult's responsibilities and the minor's responsibilities, or in this case the teacher's responsibilities and the student's. So while you side keeps trying to focus on the student's conduct, it makes no legal difference. It is the teacher who violated the US Constitution and the school's educational policies by departing from the curriculum.

So you can try to convince yourself against all the evidence that the tide is turning, but even if it did it wouldn't matter, because the law remains the law, and what this teacher did is not legally defensible. The law does not recognize an excuse that he was set up, even if it was true, which it isn't. The teacher and he alone is responsible for what comes out of his mouth. The questions are no excuse. Period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All the readers of this forum wish you had followed your "original intention".

[Bryan]

Here's what Calybos said:

In this case, his use of quotation marks is correct regardless of whether the quoted part is a direct quote, a paraphrase, or even his original idea.

We're not talking about grammar, we're talking about misrepresentation.

It's obvious from the original context that Paszkiewicz meant to imply, at the very least, that evolution requires "faith" in the same sense as "religious faith".

What sense of faith is "religious faith" IYO?

The statement "Now, I would also say that evolution is based on faith, too." would not have made much sense in context with any other meaning of the word "faith". It would not have supported his position.

What do you mean "any other meaning of the word "faith"?

Have I been under the misapprehension that more than one sense of the word is in play?

He may have also intended to imply (and very likely believes*) that it requires a similar or greater degree of faith.

And if he believes it, therefore he said it? Or do you simply enjoy adding irrelevancies to your arguments?

That is less clear, but even so, the paraphrase is a better representation of Paszkiewicz' meaning than the direct quote taken out of context.

Regardless of whether it is relatively better than simply taking the quotation out of context, it is an inaccurate paraphrase.

And much more accurate than your attempt to substitute some other usage of of the word faith.

I'm not substituting anything. Paszkiewicz described what he meant by "faith" in the context. If either of us changes that meaning for purposes of handling Paszkiewicz's argument, then we're headed for a fallacy of equivocation.

I'm using the term as Paszkiewicz used it.

In what sense are you using it?

* So why do I think it likely that he believes that? One reason is simply that this is a pervasive idea among creationists, and all else being equal, rules are better bets than exceptions. A better reason is that later in the same transcript he, stunningly, actually argues that the roles are reversed; that Christian faith is of the reasoned sort, and (by very clear implication, having said that this is what makes them different) that evolution is not.

Here's the quote:

"But um, my assertion to you is that

evolution is based faith and creation is based on faith. And here's

the difference, and it may answer your question. What the

evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what

Christians call faith. Christian faith - Judeo-Christian faith is a

reasoned faith. Take the scriptures - I'm not just saying that there

was a God - who willed the universe into existence - actually, spoke

it into existence, right? I'm not just saying that at the [start of

the text??]. The text is full of biblical prophecy that comes to pass.

Moses writes about events that take place before his time, he writes

about the [Thelassians?]. But think about the order of the events. So

we have God, he speaks. He creates light, and by the 6th day creates

man, all by speaking. And he has the order correct, and this is 1440

BC; he has the order correct, he starts with light and end with higher

lifeforms. Moses wrote in 1440 BC, not that the Earth was created

then. You know where I'm going with this.

You've misconstrued what Paszkiewicz was saying.

It isn't that the type of faith applied in each case is a different type of faith, it is that evolutionists (those weak in philosophy of science) tend to deny any role at all for faith in evolutionary belief. "Faith" as used by philosophical naturalists tends to be "blind" faith, not the reasoned faith to which Paszkiewicz refers, here.

Context, Bryan. Context. You know, that thing you accuse others of ignoring then ignore it yourself?

Fallacy of the complex question.

I don't ignore context; at least not in this instance.

Back at ya.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) You excused an inaccurate paraphrase, apparently on the basis of the fact that it could have been worse.

2) You quoted Paszkiewicz at length and still succeeded in taking his comments out of context (via poor interpretation).

3) You falsely accused me of taking something out of context.

Way to go, William.

[Bryan]

Oh, I can't wait.

Why would I need to?

For the sake of constructing a logical progression, of course.

It was Paszkiewicz's statement about evolution that is being examined.

You call "examination" taking the claim that Given: Theistic religion (which was the kind of religion Paszkiewicz used in his comparison) is based on faith.

Because of this, "Evolution is as faith-based as religion" is equivalent to saying "evolution is based on faith."

(emphasis added)

Frankly, the only way your logic could even start to make sense is if you had taken "faith" to mean "belief without evidence" in direct contradiction of the sense established by Paszkiewicz in the original context.

Actually, I was referring directly to Paszkiewicz's words; that is, "evolution

is based on faith."

Obviously; but also supposedly making the former quotation equivalent simply by claiming that theistic religion is based on faith.

Using the definition established by Paszkiewicz, your logic is fallacious.

Evolution is not based on faith. Paszkiewicz is lying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would say, then, that there is absolute epistemic certainty regarding evolution?

[Bryan]

QUOTE (Paul)

That statement is incorrect legally and in terms of public policy.

But Paul LaClair, lawyer that he is, cannot be bothered to explain how. He'd have to charge everyone for his time if he were to do that, I suppose. -Bryan

Nor can you explain how a public teacher can rightfully say to a captive audience of minors, "[God] did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept me, believe!" You reject that, you belong in Hell."

A draw?

A change of subject, at least.

I can explain how, but first you have to figure out how to keep statements in context.

***

QUOTE (Paul)

Matthew then challenged Mr. Paszkiewicz, asking "what if some students don't believe in the Bible." It was then that Mr. Paszkiewicz brought up evolution, and then the big bang, both of which he dismissed in favor of biblical creationism

Incorrect (you appear to be deliberately lying, Paul--we've been over this).

Paszkiewicz began teaching about epistemology, using science as an example. He showed (quite properly) that what people call science "fact" is inductive and probabilistic. -Bryan

Bryan is an artist, taking the idea of something and tilting it slightly askew, so that it is, yet isn't what it is.  His Worholian technique blows my mind.

How is it not what it is?

[Bryan]

QUOTE(Paul @ Feb 23 2007, 07:25 AM)

It was humorous to say the least listening to Mr. Paszkiewicz's right-wing attorney trying to defend his client's behavior at the Board meeting on Tuesday evening.

It's also humorous to see a presumably busy Paul LaClair spending his time spinning propaganda at KOTW. - Bryan

...Says the guy with more posts than Paul.

Total Cumulative Posts 440

( 4.7 posts per day / 1.05% of total forum posts )

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showuser=343

Total Cumulative Posts 364

( 5.1 posts per day / 0.87% of total forum posts )

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showuser=434

You're truly amazing. Maybe Paul posted like 80 times since you posted?

See here (look near the end of the post):

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...002entry47002