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.
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.
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.-a 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.-a 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.-a The
anti-science creastionist have the same issue that you have with the Bible.-a 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.-a They do not want the Bible to have been misinterpreted, they want science to be wrong so
their literal interpretation can go unchallenged.-a 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.-a 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?-a You know that early Christian thinkers understood that the Bible was just
wrong about some things.-a 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.-a You fall on your face because all the Church Fathers remained Biblical geocentrists, likely because it was not inconsistent with how they
perceived reality.-a 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.-a 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.-a 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.-a 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.-a 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.-a 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?-a Their beef is how what science has determined conflicts with
their literal interpretation of the Bible.-a 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.-a The authors of the Bible just wrote about what they believed.-a I recently put up a post where Google claimed that the Protestants came to accept the demise of geocentrism by the principle of accommodation.-a 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.-a 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.-a There was a
geocentric cosmos with a flat earth with a solid dome firmament above
it.-a The sun and moon had been created and placed in the firmament.-a The firmament could be opened by God to let the rain fall through.-a 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.-a 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.-a The Bible was just wrong about the firmament and geocentrism.
-aCreationists were anti-heliocentrism because it conflicted with their Biblical beliefs.-a Science doesn't care about anyone's religious
beliefs.-a 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 aboutSo much bullshit in there that it is hard to know where to start.
science being compatible with their religious beliefs.-a 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.-a They claim that the students gain a better outlook on >>> science.-a It seems stupid to prevaricate about how science can't deal
with their religious beliefs when that has never been the issue.
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.-a Accommodations have always been made >>> as science knowledge has gained acceptance.-a Religion has always had to >>> back down and change their views.-a 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.-a 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.-a 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.-a 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.-a 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.-a The god responsible for the
Top Six gaps is not the god described in the Bible.-a 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.-a 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.-a 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.-a Science is just the study of nature and nature is not
Biblical.-a 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 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.-a 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.-a 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.-a 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.
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.
You really should focus on sorting your own mess out.
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.-a Why feed it?
You really should focus on sorting your own mess out.
You got this part right.
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.
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.
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 />
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.
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.
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.-a 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.-a Betsy Ross sewed pentacles into the US flag.
Pentacles were symbols of Satan long before the existence of
the United States.-a 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.-a 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.-a 'AI' is an oracle
that should be worshiped as a god.-a 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.-a 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.-a 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.-a 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'.-a 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.-a Anyway that was a long time ago, but I
remember that.-a 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.-a Who knows.
<repeat garbage dump />
<repeat garbage dump />
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 />
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.
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.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 53:54:17 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,282 |