Academia, Bizarre, International, Religion, Society

Australian Public Schools Teaching Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Existed

Australia is facing a controversy that is all too familiar to Americans. Fundamentalists in state schools are teaching children that humans and dinosaurs lived together and Noah brought dinosaur eggs on to the Ark.


Children are also taught that Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs “because they were under a protective spell.”

This is consistent with Palintology — the new science advanced by Sarah Palin — which insists that man and dinosaur must have co-existed despite carbon dating and simple logic.
Source: News

452 thoughts on “Australian Public Schools Teaching Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Existed”

  2. Anonymously Yours
    1, August 6, 2010 at 10:20 am
    Blouise,

    I am sorry, if this was directed at moi’ then I am sorry to offend you. if this was directed at another, well ok….

    =============================================================

    Don’t be silly … you could never offend me and if you did I would accept it as the price of love! It was directed at Bob.

  3. Blouise,

    I am sorry, if this was directed at moi’ then I am sorry to offend you. if this was directed at another, well ok….

  4. sigh (I really don’t feel up to this, but . . . )

    Ok, I’ll play Devil’s Advocate so I can summarize my original position on that thread. Since this is proving a zombie topic, as an original participant with the defined role of skeptic, in fairness to those who haven’t read that thread, I feel compelled to say, “Arrrr! Brains!”

    “(in my opinion he establishes that the samples might have come from such a compound, not that they must have)”

    This was the entire gist of my statements concerning standards of proof and conclusory certainty. And might always says “We need more evidence.” Which I believe I also said. More than once.

    The rest of the statements about explosives shows me you still haven’t looked into the special properties of MIC explosives. Generating extra heat with minimized explosive off gassing is something well within their potential.

    “Why would the buildings need to be demolished? (Why wasn’t just flying planes into buildings enough?)”

    Short answer? Psychological.

    A destroyed symbol has more value to those who wish to inspire fear than a symbol than endures despite attempts at destruction. In fact, it has an inverse value to an enduring symbol. Had they not brought the Towers down, we might not have been so easily misled into the twin tragedies of the Patriot Act and attacking a third party not responsible for the attacks.

    Remember, the Towers were a symbolic target, not a tactical target. If tactical maximization for crippling critical defensive/offensive infrastructure was the intent, they’d have targeted all the planes at either the White House or the Pentagon. But the goal in attacking a symbolic target was to enrage and inspire fear. A fearful and enraged opponent makes mistakes. Like attacking Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia. To maximize that strategic goal requires complete tactical destruction of the symbolic target.

    In the end, Bob has enough evidence to question the findings, but just not enough to overcome them.

    The terms are possible/impossible and probable/improbable. While it is probable that gravity and PE are the sole possible culprits in the collapse, it is not impossible that the more improbable CD scenario happened. While the probable answer has a high degree of certainty, it is not so high as to provide conclusory certainty, ergo my original ruling of dismissed without prejudice.

  5. AY,

    Just poking the pompous … when one has been constructively criticized and praised by the truly accomplished: Leonard Bernstein, George Szell, and Pablo Casals … all who achieved their goal of imparting knowledge without the need to insult … one recognizes pretense and responds accordingly. I’ll tire of illustrating soon.

  6. Byron–

    Here’s another take on the “peanut butter” response to evolution:

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNw6zO6OvqY&hl=en_US&fs=1]

  7. “Whatever shall we do when faced with those who refuse to accept our glorious wisdom!”

    Arguing is reason giving.

    1. Reasons are justifications or support for claims.

    2. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving.

    3. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command.

  8. Blouise,

    Can a reptile….

    Does it really matter?

    I usually stay away from most reptiles…..

  9. O tempora! O mores!

    Whatever shall we do when faced with those who refuse to accept our glorious wisdom!

  10. Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance. – Plato

    Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur

  13. Elaine M.,

    Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen says 6,000 years with such assurance … I’m reminded of the Sesame Street skit between Bert and Ernie … me thinks she has a banana in her ear.

  14. Slartibartfast,

    So that is the subject of the great debate I missed … my initial instincts were right on target … lol

  15. Slarti: “Your response to all of this depends on the work of a scientist with dubious ethical standards (personally, having read some of his work, I’m don’t think much of its quality, either)”

    You have problems with Neils Harrit? Yet Harrit’s work has been peer reviewed while your opinions… lack any peer reviewed support. And no one is fronting your obscenely non-directional GPE argument because all the GPE in the world won’t melt steel unless you can explain how said energy is DIRECTED to do so. Witness the fact that Niagra Falls is not on fire.

    Slarti: “samples of dubious provenance and his weakly supported assertion that what he found”

    Once again you conveniently failed to address the burdens of production and persuasion.

    One does not attack the authenticity of real evidence with mere opinion and innuendo. The idea is to follow the evidence; not your musings of what you feel should be. The non-fungibility of the nano-thermite makes it more unique than DNA. It’s the trout in the milk. And for you to ignore it and continue on about theories that don’t account for said ‘trout in milk’ is tantamount to basing your theories on the properties of aether in a post Michaelson-Morely world.

    Slarti: “putting forth a complete theory would require explosives that no one saw or heard go off (except for a janitor who said he heard explosions well before the towers collapsed ”

    The foregoing is yet another example of your inappropriate sarcasm betraying your dearth of knowledge of the oral and video histories of that day.

    A few examples just from the firemen category:

    “[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”–Firefighter Richard Banaciski

    “I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”
    –Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

    “[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’.”
    –Paramedic Daniel Rivera

    Regardless, the burdens of production and persuasion remain in your court.

  17. Well hells bells Ann should know, my god she knows more that any of us put together….

  18. Elaine:

    here is my rebuttal to all you skeptics 🙂
    By no less an authority than Kirk Cameron. This is one of the best defenses of cretinism I have ever seen.

  19. Elaine:

    that woman is wrong, Anne Coulter thinks it no more than 12,000 years old.

  20. {W(t) = C : b < t < (now)},

    While determining the best course going forward is the biggest priority now (in the gulf – we already pretty much screwed the pooch on 'going forward' from 9/11), as you pointed out, figuring out where to place the blame or, more accurately, determining the cause is an important part of making sure that it doesn't happen again. Should we be looking for the people who filled the WTC with mythical explosives or should we be focusing on islamic extremists? Bob would like to investigate the Bush administration not just for something they didn't do, but for something that the evidence suggests wasn't done by anyone (instead of, say, the very real war crimes which they are documented as committing).

    Bob,

    Before addressing the 'whos and whys' one needs to know what happened. Since none of the observed features of the collapse require deliberately placed incendiaries or explosives to explain them nor were effects that would have been expected if incendiaries or explosives were involved seen. Also, you have no full theory of events which includes demolition charges which would explain all of the observations – nor, I think, can you come up with such a theory. The controlled demolition hypothesis requires different scenarios to explain different facts, so, for instance, putting forth a complete theory would require explosives that no one saw or heard go off (except for a janitor who said he heard explosions well before the towers collapsed ;-)) or incendiaries requiring unknown technology to sever vertical beams (and leave no mechanism or equipment behind), not to mention the fact that any devices would have to have been installed without anyone noticing… it would also have required enormous amounts of explosives (far beyond what would have been necessary to collapse the buildings) to do things like pulverize concrete (beyond what happened when the floors slammed into each other) or expand the dust cloud (unless gravity did the work) and it would have required still more huge quantities of incendiaries that that weren’t ignited in the collapse and somehow managed to slowly ignite (or ignite sometime in the next six months) to keep the metal molten or melt the metal over at some point in the next six months (unless other chemical reactions added heat to the metal) and yet with all of the energy released by these explosives and incendiaries there are no energy sinks that cannot be accounted for by the gravitational potential energy of the buildings (plus the fires and other exothermic reactions). By focusing on one observation at a time you can avoid the fact that you are using different scenarios to explain different aspects of the collapse and aftermath as well as hiding the fact that you can’t explain why the building was packed with explosives and incendiaries – why would anyone use so much more than was necessary in a covert demolition? (Especially since they would have been trying to make it look ‘natural’.) Why would the buildings need to be demolished? (Why wasn’t just flying planes into buildings enough?) Your response to all of this depends on the work of a scientist with dubious ethical standards (personally, having read some of his work, I’m don’t think much of its quality, either) on samples of dubious provenance and his weakly supported assertion that what he found could only have come from a top-secret, experimental explosive (in my opinion he establishes that the samples might have come from such a compound, not that they must have). To use your analogy of a store burning down and the owner trying to collect the insurance, you’re like a claims adjuster who, upon finding evidence which may have been from an incendiary device or may have been from things known to have been in the shop, wants to indict the shopkeeper for arson. In the end, you have nowhere near enough of a case to warrant questioning the rest of the evidence (which suggests that you are wrong), let alone for anyone else to care about the hypothetical (and likely irrelevant) whos and whys that you’re ranting about.

Comments are closed.