[email protected]

forgot to change the subject line; sorry

I hope someone who replied did change it.

Reading more of that article is very sad. When people say homeschoolers
should stick together, what they must mean is that the right-wing Christians
cannot themselves defend their methods, so they want ALL homeschoolers to
work together to defend their right to keep their children isolated with
false history and made-up science.

It does quite seem that many Christians have lied to create "creation
science," and now they want to cajole, bully and shame all the homeschoolers
in the world to work to cover for them.

-=-
The creationist movement also does not like to talk about the scientists who
leave after being given the opportunity to do real field research. In 1957,
the Geoscience Research Institute was formed in order to search for evidence
of Noah's Flood in the geological record. The project fell apart when both of
the creationists involved with the project, P. Edgar Hare and Richard
Ritland, completed their field research with the conclusion that fossils were
much older than allowed under the creationist assertions, and that no
geological or paleontological evidence of any sort could be found to indicate
the occurrence of a world-wide flood. (Numbers, 1992, pp 291-293) Hare
concluded, "We have been taught for years that almost everything in the
geological record is the result of the Flood. I've seen enough in the field
to realize that quite substantial portions of the geologic record are not the
direct result of the Flood. We have also been led to believe . . . that the
evidence for the extreme age of the earth is extremely tenuous and really not
worthy of any credence at all. I have tried to make a rather careful study of
this evidence over the past several years, and I feel that the evidence is
not ambiguous but that it is just as clear as the evidence that the earth is
round." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 294) Ritland, for his part, pointed out
that Morris's book The Genesis Flood contained "flagrant errors which the
uninitiated person is scarcely able to detect". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p.
294) Ritland concluded that further attempts to justify Flood geology would
"only bring embarrassment and discredit to the cause of God". (cited in
Numbers, 1992, p. 293) -=-

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/whoare.htm

Sandra

Mike Ebbers

I apologize for this long post. I've been thinking about it during
the last couple of days, and I know this topic could come up in just
about every home on this list. But I don't want to flood the list
with a lot of short posts, even though they are easier to digest.

If I can summarize the sense of the following excerpts from two
recent posts, they are wondering if people who believe in a young
earth are obediently following a group of liars and bullies, without
thinking about the evidence at hand.

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>When people say homeschoolers should stick together, what they must
>mean is that the right-wing Christians cannot themselves defend
>their methods, so they want ALL homeschoolers to work together to
>defend their right to keep their children isolated with false
>history and made-up science. It does quite seem that many Christians
>have lied to create "creation science," and now they want to cajole,
>bully and shame all the homeschoolers in the world to work to cover
>for them.

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>And then I wondered whether maybe it's easier to be a really good
>fundamentalist when surrounded by people who are that way. Most
>people are sheep, not leaders. And so if the sheep can't shake a
>crook without hitting another fundamentalist "shepherd," that's a
>pretty tight pen. And I wondered whether the Bible Belt has little
>hills covered over with green. I wonder whether it's harder to be a
>young earth proponent in a place like Utah or Colorado, with BIG
>mountains. Or in Europe, where even the local history is as nearly
>as old as claims of young-earth creationists.

Strong stuff to ponder. I agree that "most people are sheep, not
leaders". Therefore, what we believe comes mostly from what others
tell us. And when people actually dig into the facts, they are
sometimes surprised. This is not only true for fundamentalist
Christians, but for most people of any religion or political
persuasion.

For example, when one senatorial candidate (in 2000) came out for
abortion but against so-called partial birth abortion, three women
(ages 45, 70, and 82) asked my wife what partial birth abortion was.
When she told them, they were shocked, and then they understood why
the candidate was against it. Before that, as sheep they might have
been reading the media reports and thinking that only closed-minded
persons would be against this "rare" procedure.

As far as the young earth old earth debate and creation science,
there are many resources on that, and they all sound convincing in
their own way. No one really knows, since we cannot yet reproduce
the formation of the universe or the earth. So it's all in whom we
choose to believe.

My purpose in this post is not to convince anyone of anything (I
would love to but I know I can't). I just want to state that there
is enough evidence available in favor of a young earth and for
creation science (intelligent design, or whatever you'd like to call
that type of study) so that you don't have to classify people who
believe it as liars, bullies, or unthinking sheep.

For example, even on the highest mountaintops are found evidence of
shellfish (such as oysters). So presumably at some point those
mountains were covered by water. Some scientists believe that at one
time those mountains were much lower. Then they were covered by a
global flood, then pushed up to their current height. There may be
other explanations, but that one certainly can be believed without
being classified as an unthinking sheep.

For me (and I gather for the scientist Aimee Yermish -- but see her
article at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-
dotcom/message/46449 , because for obvious reasons she doesn't like
to be quoted out of context), the more important point is that we see
the creator as we look around us. It doesn't matter whether it took
4.5 billion years or 4,000 years to create the earth, but we can
enjoy the results either way.

Some evolutionists have falsified evidence for their theory, and some
evolutionists insist on evolution as the only scientific way because
they do not want to believe in a creator. The quest for evolutionary
evidence is fine as science, but wrong as a disproof(?) of a religion.

For those on this list who would like to prepare themselves for
questions by their kids, or who wonder about this young-old earth
debate themselves, I did a little googling and came up with four
categories of sites, in support of various views: comparison of
young-old earth in a fairly even-handed fashion, young earth, old
earth, and old universe-young earth. Some of these sites will
probably back up your current beliefs, and others will challenge or
expand them. If you have time, have a glance at the comparisons.

Mike
-----------

COMPARISON OF OLD vs. YOUNG EARTH
http://www.sonlight.com/articles/young_or_old_earth.html
A site that seeks to put the young-old earth debate into perspective
without supporting either side. The article was written to urge
Christians to cooperate despite their differing beliefs on this
issue. Seems to lean toward old-earth but the author states he is
not convinced about it.

http://www.rae.org/oldyoung.html
Another comparison of old-young earth. Leans toward young earth.


YOUNG EARTH
http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/AGEEARTH.htm
Describes briefly why a young earth and a biblical account of
creation are logical. Lists some fallacies with the dating methods.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/date_of_creation.as
p
Describes an argument for the young earth theory.

http://www.age-of-the-earth.com/
Describes limiting factors that seem to indicate a young earth.


OLD EARTH
http://answers.org/newlook/
Describes a book that seeks to reconcile scientific evidence and the
biblical account of creation. Includes an article giving critiques
of both sides of Behe's mousetrap illustration.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Lists the scientific evidence for an old earth and refutes some young
earth methods.

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/age.htm
Critique of young earth arguments

http://www.windowview.org/science/12old.earth.html
Describes a view that an old earth they say is supported by the Bible.


OLD UNIVERSE, YOUNG EARTH
http://www.kjvbible.org/
Describes the gap theory, a third hypothesis.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/oldyoung.html
Young earth -- old universe article. Seems like the gap theory.

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/5/02 7:04:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mikeebb@... writes:


> For example, when one senatorial candidate (in 2000) came out for
> abortion but against so-called partial birth abortion, three women
> (ages 45, 70, and 82) asked my wife what partial birth abortion was.
> When she told them, they were shocked, and then they understood why
> the candidate was against it. Before that, as sheep they might have
> been reading the media reports and thinking that only closed-minded
> persons would be against this "rare" procedure

Would you mind explaining to me what was explained by your wife?
I have a feeling it may be different from what my medical training and
further research into this subject taught. And pro-choice people are not
"for abortion", they are against you making decisions for me.

)<<<. I just want to state that there
is enough evidence available in favor of a young earth and for
creation science (intelligent design, or whatever you'd like to call
that type of study) so that you don't have to classify people who
believe it as liars, bullies, or unthinking sheep.>>>>

Not in most scientists opinions, and certainly not in non-christian
scientists opinions.

>>>For example, even on the highest mountaintops are found evidence of
shellfish (such as oysters). So presumably at some point those
mountains were covered by water. Some scientists believe that at one
time those mountains were much lower. Then they were covered by a
global flood, then pushed up to their current height. There may be
other explanations, but that one certainly can be believed without
being classified as an unthinking sheep.>>>>
And what is a mountain? Basically a large mass of earthy that has been pushed
upward due to movement of Teutonic plates. Of course they would have them on
top. The mountains were flat at some point in our planets earlier life.

<<. The quest for evolutionary
evidence is fine as science, but wrong as a disproof(?) of a religion>>
Except "Evolutionary scientists" are not TRYING to disprove religion, it's
not even a part of the picture. But "Creation-scientists" ARE trying to
disprove evolution. In order to "prove" religion.

<<Some of these sites will
probably back up your current beliefs, and others will challenge or
expand them. >>
How about some sites by non-christians who did not set out to prove that the
bible is true?
Elissa







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Nicole Nichol

If you want to learn more about the earth & other scientific facts,please visit www.islam-guide.com All this information was given to us before any scientist made any of the discoveries themselves.Pretty interesting info.This is not by any means a coversion tactic but since we are on the topic of earth,I thought I'd share this info.
Renee
Mike Ebbers <mikeebb@...> wrote:I apologize for this long post. I've been thinking about it during
the last couple of days, and I know this topic could come up in just
about every home on this list. But I don't want to flood the list
with a lot of short posts, even though they are easier to digest.

If I can summarize the sense of the following excerpts from two
recent posts, they are wondering if people who believe in a young
earth are obediently following a group of liars and bullies, without
thinking about the evidence at hand.

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>When people say homeschoolers should stick together, what they must
>mean is that the right-wing Christians cannot themselves defend
>their methods, so they want ALL homeschoolers to work together to
>defend their right to keep their children isolated with false
>history and made-up science. It does quite seem that many Christians
>have lied to create "creation science," and now they want to cajole,
>bully and shame all the homeschoolers in the world to work to cover
>for them.

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>And then I wondered whether maybe it's easier to be a really good
>fundamentalist when surrounded by people who are that way. Most
>people are sheep, not leaders. And so if the sheep can't shake a
>crook without hitting another fundamentalist "shepherd," that's a
>pretty tight pen. And I wondered whether the Bible Belt has little
>hills covered over with green. I wonder whether it's harder to be a
>young earth proponent in a place like Utah or Colorado, with BIG
>mountains. Or in Europe, where even the local history is as nearly
>as old as claims of young-earth creationists.

Strong stuff to ponder. I agree that "most people are sheep, not
leaders". Therefore, what we believe comes mostly from what others
tell us. And when people actually dig into the facts, they are
sometimes surprised. This is not only true for fundamentalist
Christians, but for most people of any religion or political
persuasion.

For example, when one senatorial candidate (in 2000) came out for
abortion but against so-called partial birth abortion, three women
(ages 45, 70, and 82) asked my wife what partial birth abortion was.
When she told them, they were shocked, and then they understood why
the candidate was against it. Before that, as sheep they might have
been reading the media reports and thinking that only closed-minded
persons would be against this "rare" procedure.

As far as the young earth old earth debate and creation science,
there are many resources on that, and they all sound convincing in
their own way. No one really knows, since we cannot yet reproduce
the formation of the universe or the earth. So it's all in whom we
choose to believe.

My purpose in this post is not to convince anyone of anything (I
would love to but I know I can't). I just want to state that there
is enough evidence available in favor of a young earth and for
creation science (intelligent design, or whatever you'd like to call
that type of study) so that you don't have to classify people who
believe it as liars, bullies, or unthinking sheep.

For example, even on the highest mountaintops are found evidence of
shellfish (such as oysters). So presumably at some point those
mountains were covered by water. Some scientists believe that at one
time those mountains were much lower. Then they were covered by a
global flood, then pushed up to their current height. There may be
other explanations, but that one certainly can be believed without
being classified as an unthinking sheep.

For me (and I gather for the scientist Aimee Yermish -- but see her
article at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-
dotcom/message/46449 , because for obvious reasons she doesn't like
to be quoted out of context), the more important point is that we see
the creator as we look around us. It doesn't matter whether it took
4.5 billion years or 4,000 years to create the earth, but we can
enjoy the results either way.

Some evolutionists have falsified evidence for their theory, and some
evolutionists insist on evolution as the only scientific way because
they do not want to believe in a creator. The quest for evolutionary
evidence is fine as science, but wrong as a disproof(?) of a religion.

For those on this list who would like to prepare themselves for
questions by their kids, or who wonder about this young-old earth
debate themselves, I did a little googling and came up with four
categories of sites, in support of various views: comparison of
young-old earth in a fairly even-handed fashion, young earth, old
earth, and old universe-young earth. Some of these sites will
probably back up your current beliefs, and others will challenge or
expand them. If you have time, have a glance at the comparisons.

Mike
-----------

COMPARISON OF OLD vs. YOUNG EARTH
http://www.sonlight.com/articles/young_or_old_earth.html
A site that seeks to put the young-old earth debate into perspective
without supporting either side. The article was written to urge
Christians to cooperate despite their differing beliefs on this
issue. Seems to lean toward old-earth but the author states he is
not convinced about it.

http://www.rae.org/oldyoung.html
Another comparison of old-young earth. Leans toward young earth.


YOUNG EARTH
http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/AGEEARTH.htm
Describes briefly why a young earth and a biblical account of
creation are logical. Lists some fallacies with the dating methods.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/date_of_creation.as
p
Describes an argument for the young earth theory.

http://www.age-of-the-earth.com/
Describes limiting factors that seem to indicate a young earth.


OLD EARTH
http://answers.org/newlook/
Describes a book that seeks to reconcile scientific evidence and the
biblical account of creation. Includes an article giving critiques
of both sides of Behe's mousetrap illustration.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Lists the scientific evidence for an old earth and refutes some young
earth methods.

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/age.htm
Critique of young earth arguments

http://www.windowview.org/science/12old.earth.html
Describes a view that an old earth they say is supported by the Bible.


OLD UNIVERSE, YOUNG EARTH
http://www.kjvbible.org/
Describes the gap theory, a third hypothesis.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/oldyoung.html
Young earth -- old universe article. Seems like the gap theory.


~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~

If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).

To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]

Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mike Ebbers

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Earthmomma67@a... wrote:
<< For example, when one senatorial candidate (in 2000) came out for
<< abortion but against so-called partial birth abortion... >>

> Would you mind explaining to me what was explained by your wife?
> I have a feeling it may be different from what my medical training
>and further research into this subject taught.

My wife explained the procedure as this site shows it:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
If she and the site are wrong, let me know and I will pass it on.
(My wife doesn't get on the 'net.) Since she has never seen one, I
am sure she would be glad to find it was different from this
description.

>And pro-choice people are not "for abortion", they are against you
>making decisions for me.

Thanks for clarifying that. You are correct; this candidate was pro-
choice but would vote in favor of a law against partial birth
abortion. Your clarification helps explain how some statistics say
that 80% of Americans are generally against abortion but do not show
that percentage of pro-life voters.

<< I just want to state that there is enough evidence available in
<<favor of a young earth and for creation science (intelligent
<<design, or whatever you'd like to call that type of study) so that
<<you don't have to classify people who believe it as liars, bullies,
<<or unthinking sheep. >>

> Not in most scientists opinions, and certainly not in non-christian
> scientists opinions.

So, in your opinion, most credentialed, qualified scientists would
classify those who "invented" or currently support a young earth
theory or creation science as liars who bully people into believing
them? And you think those credentialed scientists (particularly all
non-Christian scientists) would classify people who believe either of
those theories as unthinking sheep?

If you are speaking on behalf of them, and not only your own beliefs,
then you got that from somewhere other than your own knowledge,
right? Would you share where? Most newspapers and TV news and NPR
seem to share your belief. But those media intentionally do not
publicize qualified credentialed scientists who either disagree with
evolution or support a young earth or creation theory. It all gets
down to whom you believe.

I am willing to change my belief if you show me where you get yours
from, and the source is more credible than mine. In the meantime, at
the bottom of this note I have included some web sites that say that
many qualified credentialled scientists do exist who do not buy the
evolutionary theory. Some are non-Christians. The sites seem honest
and credible to me, and there are quite a few others.

My point was not to prove or disprove either view, but to state my
opinion that classifying a believer in young earth as an unthinking
sheep does not necessarily make sense. I am a believer in young
earth and so are many of my acquaintances, but if you met them you
would not easily classify them as unthinking.

<< For example, even on the highest mountaintops are found evidence
<<of shellfish (such as oysters). So presumably at some point those
<< mountains were covered by water. Some scientists believe that at
<<one time those mountains were much lower. Then they were covered
<<by a global flood, then pushed up to their current height. There
<<may be other explanations, but that one certainly can be believed
<<without being classified as an unthinking sheep. >>

>And what is a mountain? Basically a large mass of earthy that has
>been pushed upward due to movement of Teutonic plates. Of course
>they would have them on top. The mountains were flat at some point
>in our planets earlier life.

Exactly. And I included this paragraph as evidence that a thinking
person can support a young earth and global flood. The post that I
was responding to said this: "And I wondered whether the Bible Be(lt
has l)ittle hills covered over with green. I wonder whether it's
harder to be a young earth proponent in a place like Utah or
Colorado, with BIG mountains." It's a good point, and I think your
explanation of tectonic plates covers it:

<< The quest for evolutionary evidence is fine as science, but wrong
as a disproof(?) of a religion >>

> Except "Evolutionary scientists" are not TRYING to disprove
>religion, it's not even a part of the picture. But "Creation-
>scientists" ARE trying to disprove evolution. In order to "prove"
>religion.

Your latter statement is correct. See site #2 at the bottom of this
post for a brief definition of creation scientists (not all literally
Bible-based). On the former, I have seen statements in the past by
evolutionists who refuse to face the alternative if evolution is
wrong; if you are interested, I will look for them.

<< Some of these sites will probably back up your current beliefs,
<<and others will challenge or expand them. >>

> How about some sites by non-christians who did not set out to prove
>that the bible is true?

I thought I had done this, but this is a good question. Of the four
categories of sites I found, the old earth category sites were all by
non-Christians who were not trying to prove or disprove the Bible, as
far I could tell. The other three (young earth, gap, and comparison)
were coming from some form of belief in God and the Bible. So
although I did include the sites you asked about in one category, are
you asking if I can find sites in the other three categories that are
not trying to prove the Bible, but came to these theories in other
ways? If so, let me know and I will take a look.

In summary, the purpose of my post is to show that thinking people
can believe in creation or in a young earth, and there are scientists
who support these theories (and have throughout history).

Mike
---------------
Sites showing credentialed scientists who believe in creation follow,
along with excerpts from the text of each site:

1. http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

Do real scientists believe in Creation? Answer...

How is it possible for reasonable, intelligent, well-educated people
to hold such diametrically opposite views as Evolutionism and
Creationism? Answer...

2. http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/creatdef.htm

A major goal of creation science is to point out the weakness of
evolutionary theory, because basically there are only two
alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are
incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct
answer. On the positive side, creation scientists are developing
alternative models and theories in many areas to help our
understanding of how the universe works. It should be noted that much
of day to day scientific activity is not heavily influenced by either
evolutionary or creation assumptions, but much scientific energy has
been wasted over the last century in the search for evolutionary
evidences and experimental proofs, which have been unsuccessful so
far and will continue to be. How much further might we be in some
areas of scientific understanding if a model of special creation had
been the working hypothesis?

3. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and
experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as
highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer
David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today,
disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the
accepted scientific consensus...

As Science Digest reported:"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution
may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of
the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials
in science." 3

One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored
scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many
distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith
debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the
world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with
the established facts of science as did the Creation model of
intelligent design.

4. http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html
http://www.icr.org/faqs/sgp15.html

Read lists of real scientists in many different fields who believe in
a literal creation.

Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who
repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis
and use of scientific data. Creation scientists can now be found in
literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are
increasing rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly
difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and
creation science is "religion". When news media personnel and others
make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal
social philosophies—-not their awareness of scientific facts.

...this is a small sampling of real scientists from around the world
who believe in a literal creation. Nobody has ever taken a
comprehensive survey of the world's universities, research
organizations, etc. to find out who is an evolutionist or
creationist. Whether evolutionist or creationist, most scientists do
not get involved in the creation versus evolution controversy. Also,
many creationists keep their beliefs secret depending on the
situation for fear of discrimination, etc.

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/5/02 12:41:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mikeebb@... writes:

> http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
>

This is an obviously biased site.
The term is DOCTOR not abortionist. The medical term is fetus, not baby.
Mike, do you understand why this procedure would be performed in the first
palce? It is to lower the risks to a mother when a fetus is not viable and
surgical removal is too risky for the patient.. This is not an elective
procedure done on a woman who just doesn't want a child.

I'm not going to argue about the creation vs evolution theory with you for a
number of reasons, one being that I am far less eloquent than you, and not a
particularly good debater and I don't particularly care to spend tons of time
researching this in order to bring you websites and other resources.
Creationism / creation science is based upon one simple thing, a belief that
God created the earth as it is written in the bible.

Evolution does not deny the existance of an original creator, it doesn't
address it.
Show me a scientist who is trying to prove creation science who doesn't
believe in the Bible.
Elissa


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mike Ebbers

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Earthmomma67@a... wrote:
>This is not an elective procedure done on a woman who just doesn't
>want a child.

In my other post, I used partial birth abortion only as an example of
how non-fundies and non-Christians can also believe what they hear
until they find out the facts. People's views are based on whom they
believe. For those interested in a view counter to the one you
state, I am including two sites at the bottom of this post. These
say it is not necessary yet is done many times per year.

> I'm not going to argue about the creation vs evolution theory with
>you...I don't particularly care to spend tons of time researching
>this.

True and I agree with you. This debate has gone on for decades and
not been solved, and it takes tons of time to research. It's my
fault that I mixed evolution in with what I originally intended to
say on this unschooling list. That was, that if you meet someone who
believes in a young earth, please don't automatically be prejudiced
that they are an unthinking person. Maybe some are, but many are not.

> Creationism / creation science is based upon one simple thing, a
>belief that God created the earth as it is written in the bible.

I mostly agree. Yes, they represent belief in a creator God and that
the Bible describes creation. But no, not necessarily as a literal
interpretation (but often so). And no, their research is not based
on the Bible. It is archaeology, geology, microbiology, etc.
However their interpretation of the evidence and their conclusions
are checked against the Bible for consistency.

> Evolution does not deny the existance of an original creator, it
>doesn't address it. Show me a scientist who is trying to prove
>creation science who doesn't believe in the Bible.

I will do it if I can find time between work and family. My original
point was that people who believe in a young earth, and scientists
who do, should not necessarily carry the label of unthinking sheep.

Mike
-----------------
Two sites on partial birth abortion follow. They are coming from a
certain viewpoint, but their statements can be checked on:

1. http://www.abortiontv.com/PartiaBirthAbortionPerspective.htm

This description was written by seven doctors. They say:
"Partial-birth abortion is unsafe at any time, in any place. The
procedure uses techniques that are outdated and do not represent the
appropriate standard of care. Women have much safer options."

2. http://www.lutheransforlife.org/lifedate/1996/pba_myths.htm

MYTH #2 - Partial-Birth abortions are extremely rare, "probably only
500 to 1,000 year" (New York Times March 28,1996).

The Truth: Written materials and recorded interviews with Dr. Martin
Haskell, who developed the procedure, indicate that he, along with
the late Dr. James McMahon of Los Angeles, were responsible for over
3,000 such abortions. A New York City doctor in a letter to Congress
stated that he has performed them routinely since 1979. Remember,
these are only those who have chosen to write or give interviews on
the subject.

MYTH #4 - This procedure is done "only in cases when the mother's
life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality" (News
release from Planned Parenthood, Nov.1,1995).

The Truth: Abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell in his recorded statement
to American Medical News says that he "routinely performs this
procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks" and that 80% of these
are "purely elective."

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/5/02 10:42:02 AM, mikeebb@... writes:

<< So, in your opinion, most credentialed, qualified scientists would

classify those who "invented" or currently support a young earth

theory or creation science as liars who bully people into believing

them? And you think those credentialed scientists (particularly all

non-Christian scientists) would classify people who believe either of

those theories as unthinking sheep? >>

I wish you would actually read the sites which are critical of their stuff.
It's very ugly. And some who used to work with and for them have said it's
bunk.

<< But those media intentionally do not

publicize qualified credentialed scientists who either disagree with

evolution or support a young earth or creation theory. It all gets

down to whom you believe. >>

No, it gets down to WHY you want to believe it. Simply that.

I don't care where the earth came from. I live where things look really,
really old. If someone comes to the Rio Grande Valley and says "all this
happened within 6,000 years" I don't need an expert to look at him askance.

<<I am willing to change my belief if you show me where you get yours

from, and the source is more credible than mine. >>

Nothing is more credible than the Bible to fundamentalists.

<<In the meantime, at

the bottom of this note I have included some web sites that say that

many qualified credentialled scientists do exist who do not buy the

evolutionary theory. Some are non-Christians. >>

It doesn't matter whether evolution is right in every detail or not.
It doesn't matter how the world really got here or was really formed. We'll
live 50 years, give or take. Whether Christian or not. But ing and making
much noise about it all.

MOST Christians don't care if the world is 6,000 years old or not. They are
still happy to love Jesus and serve God. They are NOT desperate.

Fundamentalists will also say they are not going to heaven.

<<My point was not to prove or disprove either view, but to state my

opinion that classifying a believer in young earth as an unthinking

sheep does not necessarily make sense. I am a believer in young

earth and so are many of my acquaintances, but if you met them you

would not easily classify them as unthinking. >>

If they refused to read the information which refutes those "experts" they
keep citing, I would easily classify them as cowardly sheep, desperate to get
to heaven.

<<On the former, I have seen statements in the past by

evolutionists who refuse to face the alternative if evolution is

wrong; >>

DO YOU REALLY believe that if evolution is wrong, that that makes the Bible
true?

Do you think that all questions have only two answers, God's and the Devil's?

There are thousands of possibilities.

<<In summary, the purpose of my post is to show that thinking people

can believe in creation or in a young earth, and there are scientists

who support these theories (and have throughout history).>>

There haven't been scientists throughout history, in one way of thinking.
In the Middle Ages when people thought the stars were on the inside of a
sphere, outside of which was heaven, it was easy for them to believe that the
square flat earth had flooded.

<<A major goal of creation science is to point out the weakness of

evolutionary theory, because basically there are only two

alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are

incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct

answer.>>

OH! So you DO like to believe there are only two alternatives! That is tiny
little sheep-thinking. Sorry.

Sandra

Sandra

Rachel Ann

Here is a question I have, and it is one that stems from ignorance.

I do feel that there are reasons, in the last trimester, to terminate a pregnancy. If the mother's health is in endangered by the pregnancy,, something that I believe should be determined by mom and doctor, than termination of the pregnancy seems correct.

However, what I don't understand is why termination of the pregnancy has to result in termination of the fetus. Wouldn't it be healthier to try and dialate the womb, just enough to get the fetus out? After that, the baby could be given standard care for a premie...

I am not looking for a political debate, I am looking for an explanation. I fear I am missing some detail...

thank you,
Rachel Ann


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/5/02 6:04:13 AM Central Standard Time,
mikeebb@... writes:

> For example, when one senatorial candidate (in 2000) came out for
> abortion but against so-called partial birth abortion, three women
> (ages 45, 70, and 82) asked my wife what partial birth abortion was.
> When she told them, they were shocked, and then they understood why
> the candidate was against it. Before that, as sheep they might have
> been reading the media reports and thinking that only closed-minded
> persons would be against this "rare" procedure.
>

First pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. It means I make decisions for me
and you don't, and that doesn't always mean abortion. Secondly, I wonder what
it is that your wife "knows" about this "rare" procedure? I noticed you put
quotation marks around the word rare, as if to imply that partial birth isn't
really rare at all. It really is. It is rarely used in women who couldn't get
an abortion in the first trimester, about 1%. It is used in women who have,
by amniocentesis, found that their baby isn't viable, for whatever reason, be
it severe abnormalities or a death. If you or your wife would like to know
how the procedure is done, I am sure either I or a few others here can tell
you. It certainly isn't done the way pro-life horror pamphlets will tell it.
And it really would help to educate people instead of spreading scary hacker
stories.

~Nancy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Fetteroll

on 11/5/02 12:39 PM, Mike Ebbers at mikeebb@... wrote:

> are
> you asking if I can find sites in the other three categories that are
> not trying to prove the Bible, but came to these theories in other
> ways?

Yes. The only people coming to the young earth conclusion are Bible
literalists. If the evidence were obvious for a young earth/young universe,
it would be well distributed throught the world, regardless of religion. But
creationists are seeing the data filtered through their belief in the young
earth and seeing it fit.

Scientists (and some of them are Christian, though probably not Bible
literalists) see data and look for patterns. They build theories to explain
the patterns they see.

Creationists *say* that scientists are fiercely fighting to protect
evolutonary and old earth theories. But if scientists are protecting
evolutionary and old earth theories over better evidence, why are they? What
advantage do those theories give them? And how is this conspiracy being
managed? It's not just "evolutionary" scientists holding their data in
secret, spitting out a theory they want everyone to believe to protect their
jobs. Evolution and old earth cut across many disciplines. What do
astronomers and geologists care whether man evolved from apes or not? It
really makes no difference to astronomers whether the universe is 4000 or 15
billion years old. The theories cut across many religions, many countries,
many political boundaries. If there's some conspiracy to protect the
theories, it's got incredible cooperation among a huge number of scientists
that have no reason to support each other.

But creationists, on the other hand, have a huge stake in proving
creationism: the foundation of their religion. Everything a creationist does
is filtered through the absolute certainty that his theory is right. If a
creationist turns up something that points to the Bible as being in error,
he's certain the data is wrong because the Bible can't be wrong.

There's no such pressure for scientists involved in biology, astronomy,
geology, nuclear physics. If one theory falls all it means is another theory
that will help them understand the universe a little better has come along.

Joyce

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/5/02 11:42:52 AM Central Standard Time,
mikeebb@... writes:

> My wife explained the procedure as this site shows it:
> http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
> If she and the site are wrong, let me know and I will pass it on.
> (My wife doesn't get on the 'net.) Since she has never seen one, I
> am sure she would be glad to find it was different from this
> description.

That is the sickest crap I have seen in a long time. Who told your wife this?
You say she doesn't get online, so someone must have told her. Was it you? It
isn't like I didn't know scare tactics like this were being passed as truth,
I just really hope no one else has visited this site. But if you have and
would like to know the truth of the matter, please let me know. It never
ceases to amaze me what pro-lifers will come up with to scare and bully on
their way to dominate.

Really, abortion isn't pretty, but making it uglier than it is for glorifying
sensationalism isn't necessary. And I don't want to turn a young earth debate
into an abortion one. But since you used it as an example in your post, I
must wonder if you used it as an inflammatory tactic? I guess I could do the
same.

~Nancy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/5/02 12:38:34 PM, fetteroll@... writes:

<< What do
astronomers and geologists care whether man evolved from apes or not? It
really makes no difference to astronomers whether the universe is 4000 or 15
billion years old. The theories cut across many religions, many countries,
many political boundaries. If there's some conspiracy to protect the
theories, it's got incredible cooperation among a huge number of scientists
that have no reason to support each other.
>>

That would be Satan.
Satan causes them to tempt Christians not to believe the Bible.


My kids are living SUCH happy lives. I'm so glad to know them. They are
kind, honest, helpful, funny... They don't have any of the things to cry
about that I had to cry about when I was little. They're whole, and healthy.

And by the definitions of Baptists, they are sinners, being permitted to
dance into Hell for eternity.

So I don't give them those definitions. Because it's something to cry about,
to feel small about, to be afraid of. And it's based on very, very little.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/5/02 11:41:49 AM Central Standard Time,
mikeebb@... writes:

> My point was not to prove or disprove either view, but to state my
> opinion that classifying a believer in young earth as an unthinking
> sheep does not necessarily make sense.

From my vantage point, this is not honest. We had gone days with no
evangelizing and you felt the need to bring it up again. You have an agenda.
Be honest about it so those of us with a "profound disinterest in religion"
(can't remember who posted that, but it was great!) can skip the threads.

Elizabeth

Mike Ebbers

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
<<A major goal of creation science is to point out the weakness of
evolutionary theory, because basically there are only two
alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are
incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct
answer.>>
>
> OH! So you DO like to believe there are only two alternatives! That
is tiny little sheep-thinking. Sorry.
>Sandra

Sandra,
The quote above that you cite was not from me, it was from this web
site: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/creatdef.htm
I included it in my post (below the dotted line) so that anyone who
wanted to take a look would have an idea of what they would find
there.

Now that you mention it though, it seems logical that either the
earth (and life) were formed by unthinking natural processes, or a
thinking being created it. What other possibilities are there?

Mike

Mike Ebbers

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Dnowens@a... wrote:
>But if you ... would like to know the truth of the matter, please
>let me know.
>Really, abortion isn't pretty, but making it uglier than it is for
>glorifying sensationalism isn't necessary. And I don't want to turn
>a young earth debate into an abortion one. But since you used it as
>an example in your post, I must wonder if you used it as an
>inflammatory tactic? I guess I could do the same.
> ~Nancy

Nancy, I would like to know the truth about the procedure for partial
birth abortion (on or off this list, my e-mail is below). It would
be interesting for me not only for clarification of the procedure
itself, but also to see how far astray I can be led by information on
false sites. For me, it would prove Sandra's assumption that people
can be led like sheep without realizing it.

This is not an abortion debate; the site refers only to the partial
birth abortion procedure, which is described as taking a live viable
baby out of the mother's body. To me, that procedure is an example
of how supporters of abortion can be led to support extreme
procedures like sheep. But if you say this site describes it
wrongly, then not only will I learn something valuable but it will
invalidate the example I used.

As far as how often it is used (1%, you said), I have seen a number
of articles that say it is used far more often than that. I put two
in a recent post. Some of the statistics for frequency were cited by
doctors who have/had performed the procedure for years. I am
interested in where you are getting your information that it is only
used occasionally.

Mike
mikeebb@...

[email protected]

Rachel Ann,
This procedure is performed when the fetus is not viable. In particular when
Hydrocephalus is present. This is when the brain cavity fills with
cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The head may bcome as large as 20 in in diameter.
A normal adult head is 7-8 inches in diameter. Attempted delivery can kill a
mother and a hysterotomy (basically a c-section but with differences) has
many many risks of its own.
Elissa


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

heather woodward

Ok - I know I am going to offend someone out there -
and I have avoided this discussion - but I have to
throw in my opinion:

The word Satan actaully means adversary - The SATAN is
a personification - if you look throughtout historical
literature you will see reference to him in things
such as Dante's Inferno - ideas that come about and
were melded together from all different religions,
ages and cultures. And here we are left with a red guy
with horns and a forked tale that tempts people to do
bad. I don't find I need any help in being tempted to
be "bad". My own human make-up is enough to do that.

I think using a "Satan made me do it" is a co-opt for
accepting the logical consquences of our own behavior.
We don't have to examine ourselves and see if we are
living up tp our true potential (as human beings) we
can blame it on Satan and in order to scare my
children from doing "bad" I can threaten them with
hell and tell them to "watch out for Satan". If people
could just see that within all of us - there is the
ability to do both good and evil -

And Hell is in the Bible - but if anyone ever bothered
to examine the linguistics of the words it is clear
that the original words have taken on meanings of
their own from culture and people trying to make sense
of life and spirituality.

I am a believer in Christ. I read the Bible every day
- I know we all have differences of opinion on what
the Bible says - and some of us aren't beleivers in
the Bible. I am finding it hard to listen to the other
Christian voices on this list - each of us has
his/her own "truth" - so to debate this all is not
fruitful.

And on the Creation issue - When the Bible says the
"world was without form and void" who knows how long
it was like that. Geologists may very well be right.
Look at all the planets sitting there now - if God so
chose to create another "earth" out of one of them he
certainly could have done it.

And who knows that God hadn't created a "race" before.
Where did the angels come from? They were there at the
beginning of creation. "Let us make man in OUR image"
It says God created the earth. the Hebrew word for God
is 'Elohim" meaning mighty ones - plural. So some
plurality created the earth. AND I know some feel this
was Christ and God. But I think Mighty Ones is what it
says - and I think they were the angels. And then you
can only speculate where they came from. This is a
whole different topic.

Ok - so my ideas may seem radical from the mainstream
Christianity - but I wanted to make it clear that
there is not even one Christian view - from those of
us that are believers in Christ.

And I apologize to those that don't want to discuss
religion. It's one of those things that spark us to
speak though - isn't it ;-)

Heather
--- SandraDodd@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/5/02 12:38:34 PM,
> fetteroll@... writes:
>
> << What do
> astronomers and geologists care whether man evolved
> from apes or not? It
> really makes no difference to astronomers whether
> the universe is 4000 or 15
> billion years old. The theories cut across many
> religions, many countries,
> many political boundaries. If there's some
> conspiracy to protect the
> theories, it's got incredible cooperation among a
> huge number of scientists
> that have no reason to support each other.
> >>
>
> That would be Satan.
> Satan causes them to tempt Christians not to believe
> the Bible.
>
>
> My kids are living SUCH happy lives. I'm so glad to
> know them. They are
> kind, honest, helpful, funny... They don't have
> any of the things to cry
> about that I had to cry about when I was little.
> They're whole, and healthy.
>
> And by the definitions of Baptists, they are
> sinners, being permitted to
> dance into Hell for eternity.
>
> So I don't give them those definitions. Because
> it's something to cry about,
> to feel small about, to be afraid of. And it's
> based on very, very little.
>
> Sandra
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the
> subject line! ~~~~
>
> If you have questions, concerns or problems with
> this list, please email the moderator, Joyce
> Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list
> owner, Helen Hegener
> (HEM-Editor@...).
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, click on the
> following link or address an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website:
> http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/

Mike Ebbers

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., ejcrewe@a... wrote:
> > My point was not to prove or disprove either view, but to state
> > my opinion that classifying a believer in young earth as an
> > unthinking sheep does not necessarily make sense.

> From my vantage point, this is not honest. We had gone days with
>no evangelizing and you felt the need to bring it up again. You
>have an agenda. Be honest about it so those of us with a "profound
>disinterest in religion" (can't remember who posted that, but it was
>great!) can skip the threads.
> Elizabeth

Elizabeth, I have been totally honest and followed poster's
etiquette. This thread began with these two posts by Sandra:

1. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom/message/49118
Re: Focus on the Family, Jesus' style

2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom/post?
act=reply&messageNum=49119
Re: SORRY!! i forgot to change the subject line of the last one

In them she wondered why fundies are so easily led like sheep, in
believing in a young earth. I disagreed with her that believing in a
young earth was being led like a sheep, and cited some evidence. I
also changed the subject line, as she requested, so that others would
know what the thread contained and could avoid it.

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
> forgot to change the subject line; sorry
>
> I hope someone who replied did change it.

I watched for a couple of days and no one replied. My reply was not
to evangelize, but just to say that thinking people could believe in
a young earth. I would want my kids to be able to play with her kids
without thinking that they (my kids) had unthinking parents. I would
want the same tolerance and courtesy for your neighbors and their
kids.

Mike

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/5/02 4:16:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mikeebb@... writes:

> This is not an abortion debate; the site refers only to the partial
> birth abortion procedure, which is described as taking a live viable
> baby out of the mother's body

Mike, I don't really think you are interested because I answered this
question already. The site you are referring to is a pro-life/anti-abortion
site.
This is NOT performed on viable living babies.
It is performed on nonviable babies when to use another procedure would
result in a severe risk to the patient (the pregnant woman)
<A HREF="http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm">D&X procedure (a.k.a.Partial Birth Abortion) - All sides</A>
Try a non-biased site like this one above, if your not on AOL cut and paste
this:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Shyrley

On 5 Nov 02, at 21:10, Mike Ebbers wrote:


>
> As far as how often it is used (1%, you said), I have seen a number of
> articles that say it is used far more often than that. I put two in a
> recent post. Some of the statistics for frequency were cited by
> doctors who have/had performed the procedure for years. I am
> interested in where you are getting your information that it is only
> used occasionally.
>
> Mike
> mikeebb@...
>
>
Just to jump in here with my lack of tact.
Mike is a man's name. You're a man I guess. Men don't get
pregnant. Men's bodies don't do the hard bit. Therefore it's for a
woman to choose, not a man.

Shyrley


"You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you are all the same."

Tia Leschke

>
> >From my vantage point, this is not honest. We had gone days with no
> evangelizing and you felt the need to bring it up again. You have an
agenda.
> Be honest about it so those of us with a "profound disinterest in
religion"
> (can't remember who posted that, but it was great!) can skip the threads.

I don't agree with Mike on many issues, but his post was clearly in response
to having been called a sheep for believing in the young earth theory. He
wasn't the one who brought it up again.
Tia

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/5/02 3:17:25 PM Central Standard Time,
mikeebb@... writes:

> As far as how often it is used (1%, you said), I have seen a number
> of articles that say it is used far more often than that. I put two
> in a recent post. Some of the statistics for frequency were cited by
> doctors who have/had performed the procedure for years. I am
> interested in where you are getting your information that it is only
> used occasionally.
>
> Mike
> mikeebb@...

The 1% I stated refereed to women who have a partial birth abortion because
they didn't have it done earlier in their pregnancy. Partial birth abortions
for women who have complications causing their eminent death, or because a
fetus is not viable is common. Here is what I said.

I noticed you put
quotation marks around the word rare, as if to imply that partial birth isn't

really rare at all. It really is. It is rarely used in women who couldn't get

an abortion in the first trimester, about 1%. It is used in women who have,
by amniocentesis, found that their baby isn't viable, for whatever reason, be

it severe abnormalities or a death.

Please refer to this site for information on partial birth abortions without
the gory pictures.
<A HREF="http://www.korrnet.org/choicetn/LateTermSmith3.html">Pro-Choice Thoughts on the "Partial-Birth Abortion" Issue</A>
www.korrnet.org/choicetn/LateTermSmith3.html

Personally, I don't like abortion, I don't know anyone who does. But I
support the right to make informed decisions based on correct and
knowledgeable facts rather than scare tactics. I don't think there is ever a
reason I would have an abortion, although the pro-life movement would surely
have me believe that I have had one. I support the right of a woman to make
her own decisions. And if you are pro-life, that is fine. Just please, please
stop using false and misleading (and gross) statements to prove a point.

~Nancy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/5/02 2:34:45 PM, mikeebb@... writes:

<< I would want my kids to be able to play with her kids
without thinking that they (my kids) had unthinking parents. I would
want the same tolerance and courtesy for your neighbors and their
kids.

Mike
>>

Mike, are you homeschooling?

How old are your kids?

[email protected]

-=-his post was clearly in response
to having been called a sheep for believing in the young earth theory. He
wasn't the one who brought it up again.-=-

I was really angry when I realized that a really good discussion on parenting
young children, on breastfeeding and attachment parenting was kind of
torpedoed by people saying not all homeschoolers believe in evolution.

I think that we shouldn't let that happen anymore. If an international
unschooling list wants to discuss the breastfeeding as being thousands or
hundreds of thousands of years old, I don't think we should apologize or take
it back.

This isn't a religious list. This isn't Arkansas or Tennessee, and if anyone
DOES really object to the idea that we say "mammals have nursed their babies
in dens at night since prehistoric times," I think we should refer them to
other lists where people don't want to be considered "mammals," and we should
continue giving warm, comforting advice to troubled mothers.

When I thought back about how that had gone I felt that a really BIG list had
been twisted away by two or three members.

Sandra

joanna514

> >
> Just to jump in here with my lack of tact.
> Mike is a man's name. You're a man I guess. Men don't get
> pregnant. Men's bodies don't do the hard bit. Therefore it's for a
> woman to choose, not a man.
>
> Shyrley
>

Hey! My moms name is Mike!
But I agree with everything else you said. ;-)

Joanna

Mike Ebbers

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
> Mike, are you homeschooling?
> How old are your kids?

Hi Sandra,
Yes, we have been homeschooling each child since school-age, about
six years. Our kids are 11, 9, and 7. We also have a 20yo daughter,
married with two boys (2.5 and 1.5) in Texas. I am 51 and my wife is
47.

Mike

P.S. You asked me similar questions in a recent post and I answered
in more detail: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unschooling-
dotcom/message/49184

> Are you unschooling?
> How old are your children?

My wife is currently not unschooling, but she is getting fed up with
the army method of raising kids, so I am encouraging her to consider
a number of the methods and hints I've read on this list. Her mother
became alcoholic in her 40s and her father was gone a lot (two-time
Air Force sergeant), so she didn't have a great role model.

We have a 29yo daughter in Texas, happily married with two boys: 34
months and 18 months. They are all coming to visit us soon. We also
have a girl 9 and two boys 11 and 7. They are lively, active, and
happy. They play well with other kids or among themselves.

Tia Leschke

> -=-his post was clearly in response
> to having been called a sheep for believing in the young earth theory. He
> wasn't the one who brought it up again.-=-
>
> I was really angry when I realized that a really good discussion on
parenting
> young children, on breastfeeding and attachment parenting was kind of
> torpedoed by people saying not all homeschoolers believe in evolution.

I must be losing it. I thought that happened ages ago. Now I can't
remember what came right before the first sheep remark. Darned brain fog.
Tia

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/5/02 5:49:51 PM Central Standard Time,
mikeebb@... writes:

> I would want my kids to be able to play with her kids
> without thinking that they (my kids) had unthinking parents. I would
> want the same tolerance and courtesy for your neighbors and their
> kids.

I have friends on our block, our kids are friends too. They play together
all the time. The difference is that they don't try to convert us and we
don't try to convert them. And we don't use every little thing that comes
our way to shove our beliefs in each other's faces.

Elizabeth

Myranda

I thought I was losing it too! I don't remember much of anything about breastfeeding for the last week or so.
Myranda
From: Tia Leschke
I must be losing it. I thought that happened ages ago. Now I can't
remember what came right before the first sheep remark. Darned brain fog.
Tia





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]