DC> RS>Except we are disussing what is taught in SCIENCE CLASSROOMS,
DC>dolt.

DC> JB> "We" are not having that discussion.  You and Dan
may be.  I've
DC> JB> made no  statement about science classrooms.  I have been
DC> JB> extremely clear that I  am talking about in schools in general.

DC>Get it through that cement block of yours that you stated that "ID" 
DC>is an alternative "theory" to Evolution.  

Please discontinue your lies.  I will be forwarding this to your co-
moderator to deal with.  I searched back over 2,000 messages and here 
are the exact words I have used.  Please do not distort them again:

From 4/24/2009 me to you:

JB>So you are threatened by it.  I get that.  It's an alternative
JB>viewpoint.  It also forces people to acknowledge that science cannot
JB>answer many questions.  That is what you fear.


From 4/25/2009 your response to me:

JB> So you are threatened by it.  I get that.  It's an alternative
JB> viewpoint.  It also forces people to acknowledge that science cannot
JB> answer many questions.  That is what you fear.

DC>LOL!  I see that you haven't bothered to provide the scientific 
DC>theory of ID/creationism.


From 4/25/2009 my response back to you correcting your lies:

JB>It is irrelevant to the discussion.

JB>Our government run schools teach many things other than science so
JB>whether we believe ID is based upon science or not, should not be a
JB>deciding factor on whether our government run schools teach it or 
JB>not.

DC>And you want it taught in schools under the science curriculum?  You
DC>better get a move on.  "God dunnit" is not science, no matter how
DC>much you kick and scream.

JB>I have not broached the subject of whether ID is based upon science 
JB>or not.  it is irrelevant to the discussion.  You are the one hand 
JB>waiving over it.  I have only stated that ID is an alternative option 
JB>to evolution.  I have also stated that it brings up many questions 
JB>that the current theory of evolution does not answer.


From 4/25/2009 your response to me:

JB> It is irrelevant to the discussion.

DC>The only way you could be more wrong about that is to continue to 
DC> believe the horse shit called "Intelligent design" has anything to 
DC>do with science.

DC>That you push that abortion as an "alternate theory to Evolution" is


From 4/26/2009 my response back to you:

DC>do with science.

JB>You continue with your lies.  I've made no such statement about ID.  
JB>I have stated that it is an alternative viewpoint which brings up
JB>questions that current scientific theory cannot answer.


On 4/26 2009 I forwarded much of the above to Ross Cassell and you were 
sent a response to stop with the lies and distortions.


From 4/26/2009 you responded to me again with:


JB> You continue with your lies.  I've made no such statement about ID.  

DC>You have refused, yet again, to provide the scientific theory of ID.

JB> Ihave stated that it is an alternative viewpoint which brings up
JB> questions that current scientific theory cannot answer.

DC>Does that make it scientific, you idiot?  Yet, you want a bunch of
DC>mythology taught as an alternative to sound science.

From 4/26 2009 I responded back to you again:

DC>Does that make it scientific, you idiot?  Yet, you want a bunch of
DC>mythology taught as an alternative to sound science.

JB>It is an alternative viewpoint that you appear to fear.  I have made 
JB>no comments as to whether I believe it is based upon science or not.  
JB>I have only stated, many times for you, that it can provide some 
JB>answers for many things with the current theory of evolution can't.


After this there are a number of other posts where you have attempted to 
lie and distort my comments.  You can see above that I have been 
extremely clear and consistent with my comments.



Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999 
Democrats --  The party responsible for the housing meltdown ....


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10