Should evolution be taught in schools?

[HOBBIT]

What JD meant was would you accept a Native American myth as the be all and end all of what is being taught about Creation? Probably not. He did not mean teaching many different creation myths.

Of course creation relies on God. SOME supreme being - be it a aliens, god, gods, whatever. It is a religious belief.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
What JD meant was would you accept a Native American myth as the be all and end all of what is being taught about Creation? Probably not. He did not mean teaching many different creation myths.

As I said before:

Originally posted by "Guess Who"
as long as it was specified that there were many, many creation beliefs in the world, and this was only one; the same thing applies applies to the six-day-Adam-and-Eve myth.

1) Of course creation relies on God. SOME supreme being - be it a aliens, god, gods, whatever. It is a religious belief.

Nope; it relies on a "superior" being, not supreme. Many myths believe that in creation by a lesser divinity, I believe. But as I said before, it does not rely on "a god". Many have a multideity belief. Seriously, there are other beliefs, such as Raelian.

[HOBBIT]

GW - its the same thing. Raelian's believe that aliens created the earth and created us in their image by cloning us. Also that the word Elohim is mistranslated and it is really the name of the alien race.

Raelians and Creationists more or less beleive the same thing, imo. The the world was created by ok "superior" being/beings.

I also said in my posts "god, gods" including multi-deity beliefs.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Indeed, you did. I was referring to jd's "a god" statement.

I disagree; I don't think it's the same thing, any more than I think that Gnostic Christian (though I think Christian Gnosticism would be more fitting) is the same thing as what mainstream Christianity believes.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
So, because the majority of scientists operate on the premise that evolution is accurate, it automatically is?

It's the most accurate at this time. There is no basis in creationism other than belief.

Whether you like it or not - science merely provides evidence. This evidence can be used to support pretty well any belief.

I guess then you can say "god created gravity because he needed to keep things on earth". Why don't we teach that in science class as an explanation for gravity?

The vast majority of people have to go the public school and have evolution shoved down their throats. If creationism were taught in schools,

I wouldn't call it having it shoved down their thoat anymore than having physics, algebra or Spanish shoved down their throat. If creationism was taught in school - it wouldn't be science.

It's the PARENTS responsibilty to teach their children their beliefs if they want. Schools don't teach beliefs - they teach science and facts. All Catholic Churches have Sunday school before mass. The few years I went to public school - I went to Sunday school sometimes. Just like schools should teach sex education and condom use. If parents want their chidren to not have sex - then it is THEIR responsibilty to teach their children that. Schools should be teaching teenagers how to not get pregnant and how to prevent diseases if they decide to have sex.

No, it does not. There are numerous possibilities for creationism; God is the most commonly believed one, but it does not rely on a god any more than evolution relies on atheism.

Yes it does. Creationism - CREATED. If you have creationism then you are implying that we were CREATED. Then the question comes around - by who? Do you really believe we popped out of no where?

Certainly it wouldn't apply to as many people, and of course I don't know which specific NA creation myth would be used to represent Native American beliefs, but I'd have no problem with it. The actual myth would just be for a bit of background, telling why creation theory is studied. But by no means would I have a problem with it, as long as it was specified that there were many, many creation beliefs in the world, and this was only one; the same thing applies applies to the six-day-Adam-and-Eve myth.

Why should it though? It's not science - it's part of religion. Has nothing to do with science. I don't have a problem with religious history classes - similar to WORLD history classes. I don't have a problem with religious clubs - just as long as they don't restrict it to just CHRISTIAN clubs.

maybe I'm not the intolerant "Christianity-is-the-only-belief-that-should-be-taught" bastard you thought

i didn't actually think YOU were - but I know from experience in Indiana - that they have no problem with prayer in school - as long as it is CHRISTIAN prayer. They don't have a problem with their beliefs being taught in school - but they don't want other religious beliefs taught in school. I'm talking from personal experience in Indiana and the midwest.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Indeed, you did. I was referring to jd's "a god" statement.

I thought you would be able to know from past posts I have made that I mean gods, god, aliens, whatever. I didn't think you would take it so literally and nitpick at it.

[Rían]

And here's comments on the rest of Cirdan's post...

Originally posted by Cirdan
Think of your intelligent design model. The introduction of a new technology (in nature a new capacity such as breathing air). If the inventor of the carborator lived 800 million years ago would we be able to walk out to the paleodump and find the first few designs he made among the billions made since? It is the successful end product that goes into mass production, not the prototypes.

But in that example, Cirdan, there is an intelligent designer behind the process!! Acc'd to evolutionism, there ISN'T intelligence behind the process, just chance and time. So why is that example any good in this situation? The intermediates, by def., had to be more SUCCESSFUL to be selected.

But my MAIN objection (that I haven't even covered here yet in any detail) is the HUGE improbability of "beneficial mutations" that ADD genetic info (it's NEVER been observed), which the whole macro-evolution scheme depends on. And even GIVEN some beneficial mutations, your def. of natural selection means that they were more successful, and they had to at least be around enough to breed and make more "new" critters, which then had to have MORE beneficial mutations, etc. It's accumulated beneficial changes. It looks like you're leaning to the punctuated equilibrium idea, which is basically that there is no record of the changes in the fossil record because the changes took place very rapidly. Well, that's an interesting assumption, but it certainly isn't SUPPORTED by the fossil record by existing fossils, except in the sense that yes, there are NOT lots of (if any) intermediates. And support by absense of evidence seems a little unscientific.

Recently a "link" was found, an amphibian with gills. Think of the relatively brief time we have approached fossil analysis with scientific method, the size of the record, and the difficulty in finding sedimentary rocks of extreme age. The finds to date are a infinitesimal sample of the history. Not finding every intermediate is not proof of anything except that they haven't been found yet.

I haven't heard of this one, could you provide any details/names please?

Species don't "just appear" in the fossil record fully formed. They start out rare and populate over time. Why would the creator just start out making a few instead of just populating right up front?

Why? Perhaps because it's FUN to populate? (well, I think that prob. just applies to humans) Really, I don't see any valid objection here - it certainly doesn't contradict anything, it's rather just a point of style. Why NOT just start out with a few, with lots of genetic variation built in, and let 'em go and see where you end up?

(tb continued...)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
1) It's the most accurate at this time. There is no basis in creationism other than belief.

2) I guess then you can say "god created gravity because he needed to keep things on earth". Why don't we teach that in science class as an explanation for gravity?

3) I wouldn't call it having it shoved down their thoat anymore than having physics, algebra or Spanish shoved down their throat. If creationism was taught in school - it wouldn't be science.

4) It's the PARENTS responsibilty to teach their children their beliefs if they want. Schools don't teach beliefs - they teach science and facts. All Catholic Churches have Sunday school before mass. The few years I went to public school - I went to Sunday school sometimes. Just like schools should teach sex education and condom use. If parents want their chidren to not have sex - then it is THEIR responsibilty to teach their children that. Schools should be teaching teenagers how to not get pregnant and how to prevent diseases if they decide to have sex.


5) Yes it does. Creationism - CREATED. If you have creationism then you are implying that we were CREATED. Then the question comes around - by who? Do you really believe we popped out of no where?

6) Why should it though? It's not science - it's part of religion. Has nothing to do with science. I don't have a problem with religious history classes - similar to WORLD history classes. I don't have a problem with religious clubs - just as long as they don't restrict it to just CHRISTIAN clubs.

1) The most accurate of it's time? Does Truth then change and switch back and forth through time?
2) I don't know. Those teachers are majorly screwed up!
3) I seem to have broken off in mid-thought on this one, and have no idea what I meant (didn't even finish the sentence), so I'm going to leave this alone, since I don't even know what I meant.
4) And it is the school's responsibility, from my personal experience, to disparage creation belief, and tell those who believe in it that they are fools.
5) I agree. But creation does not necessitate deity.
6) I would like to respectfully submit that from my experience most atheists believe that only their beliefs should be taught in schools, and any teaching of all others are automatically invalid, simply because they do not have as many followers in respective fields, and should be relegated to nothing more than a part of culture.

This is not an attack of any sort; merely a respectful observation.

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) The most accurate of it's time? Does Truth then change and switch back and forth through time?
2) I don't know. Those teachers are majorly screwed up!
3) I seem to have broken off in mid-thought on this one, and have no idea what I meant (didn't even finish the sentence), so I'm going to leave this alone, since I don't even know what I meant.
4) And it is the school's responsibility, from my personal experience, to disparage creation belief, and tell those who believe in it that they are fools.
5) I agree. But creation does not necessitate deity.
6) I would like to respectfully submit that from my experience most atheists believe that only their beliefs should be taught in schools, and any teaching of all others are automatically invalid, simply because they do not have as many followers in respective fields, and should be relegated to nothing more than a part of culture.

This is not an attack of any sort; merely a respectful observation.

1. Truth does not change, but we do not yet know the absolute truth, thoeries change, ideas change - as is the nature of Science.
2.as would ones that would teach creation as science.
3.
4. sure, so be it then. the school is just provided the students with factual credible information. they do not teach beliefs. around here, schools don't really touch religion with a 20 foot pole (unless in history ... just no preaching, etc, we just learn the facts of the religions; origin, what they believe, etc). Here , schools DO NOT say that student's beliefs are not credible. There are a lot of evolutionists - and there also are many creationists which I have discussed this with in my class (there are well over 500 ppl in my class).
5...... yes, but same difference
6.Ok - but being an atheist is not a religion. Only true things, sceintific facts, etc should be taught in schools. IMO as well, a lot of Christians WOULD NOT be satisfied with many religions taught in school.

First of all, it would invalidate their point and would cause Christians to quesiton. And if there is to be no preaching, what would be the point? Christian students would not get I guess "the full christian experience." They would be better off at Sunday school, do you not agree?

How would it be any different then a religion studies class if everything is taught simply from a historical viewpoint?

Many Christians would not want Islam taught as fact or Judiasm - (IM NOT SAYING ALL) a lot would only want THEIR views as to what is right taught.

I'm Glad that this is not you GW

[Rían]

(Responses to Cirdan's post - con't)

The idea that extinction supports creation in a bit silly too. Extinction fits the evolutionary model of the fossil record excellently. Are we to believe the creator made a bunch of badly adapted species? The failure rate is very high for a non-random, intelligent designer. Would the creator, as a perfect being, just create the perfect world on the first try?

I believe I said it was consistent with. IOW, it fits in w/o contradiction. It also fits in with evolutionism, of course - no disagreement there

That's a good point about a creator making badly-adapted species. Yay! That's what I was hoping for - intelligent discussion on points I brought up instead of just defending evolution. I like to investigate intelligent objections. I think everyone should, no matter what side they're on. That way I think we can all learn. I know I need to look into the layering issue more.

I think that extinction still fits into the model, tho, for several reasons - First, as far as specifically the Biblical model, man's sin clearly has a detrimental effect on nature. I would say that man's greediness is a big factor in many of today's extinctions, wouldn't you? Now back then, I think it could have the same effect in SOME of the extinctions.

Also I think there's a major difference in viewpoints here - the Biblical model does NOT agree with philosiphies like PETA's (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), for example, that say people are on the same level as animals (and even bugs, IIRC) - there was just an ad out recently by them that compared turkey breeding farms to Jewish prisoners in Nazi concentration camps! Well, I would disagree with that comparison - to me, turkeys are not as valuable as people. However, animals SHOULD be treated with respect and care, and abuses SHOULD be looked into and fixed, and there SHOULD be regulations in industries like that. Anyway, this is getting long, but basically, man is given the HUGE responsibility of being caretaker of the earth, and extinctions could come about as a result of many things, and that's OK in the sense of it's not on the level of PEOPLE becoming extinct. It's a loss, and man could see that it's a loss and then work to prevent another one. I'm really not expressing myself too well here - let me know if you want to talk about this more and I'll try again.

It is weak to just say, "Oh, there is a gap here in the fossil record. Let's insert a creation event until someone finds evidence against it". Is every non-conformity in the fossil record considered a creation event? How does that jive with the Noahic Flood theory? Did the Flood pause during the creation event? Was god creating new species during the flood? Why, if they are just going to die.

I don't think that's what creationism is saying. It says (IMO) that it is reasonable to think that there is an intelligent designer behind extremely complex things. Given that, what should we expect to see in the fossil record? (note - prediction - a very important part of a scientific hypothesis, right? The ORIGINAL prediction of evolutionism relating to the fossil record was wrong, so it was changed.) And the model I think is correct is a creative act at the BEGINNING, not at random times throughout history. I don't understand what you mean by the "Is every non-conformity in the fossil record...." sentence. And I don't understand how you put the Flood and creation at the same time. Could you explain?

(tb continued)

[Rían]

(responses to Cirdan's post - con't)

Why go part way in adopting the science? Why couldn't god just plant the seed of life knowing all the other forms would evolve. Or that god is the mechanism behind all causation (outside the activities of sentient beings with free will, of course), therefore god creates through the process? It's more adaptable to new discoveries.

If I thought that evolution was really strongly supported by the evidence, I would be more open to this God-driven evolution idea. But I just don't - I honestly don't. And I haven't even brought up many of my objections yet! And why WOULD God choose to create thru evolution, anyway? I think the creation story as described in Genesis is more elegant and consistent with the nature of God, and I think it is supported by scientific evidence. I've only made ONE - that's ONE - post on evidence for creationism - as I noted before, I had to spend many pages to even GET to the point where I could make that post. I hope you won't make up your mind on the basis of one post

The literal reading of the creation story fails because the language of it's authors, regardless of divine intructions, were completely lacking the words, ideas, concepts, knowledge, or experience to ever be able to translate the way nature really works. If god told them about DNA, or an earth billions of years old, or trilobites and dinosaurs, how could they have possibly explained it? So why put the burden on them to explain it all?

Why in the world would God tell them about DNA? That idea doesn't make sense. It's on the same plane as what some other people have asked, roughly - Why didn't God put scientific info in the Bible? Well, why SHOULD He? The Bible is about God's incredibly powerful and holy character, and and the incredible beauty and importance of people's souls - that's what's really important - and that's why it's timeless and always applicable. Also, if you think it through, it's pretty rough on a large majority of the population. We all know how scientific knowledge increases over time - well, that of course means that, if God put some TRUE scientific info in the Bible, that people that lived before these ideas could be validated would think the Bible is wrong!

Let people discover DNA, and all the wonderful and amazing scientific FACTS, and then they can see how well it fits in with creationism. And if it doesn't fit in, then it needs to be examined further.

Creation science will never be useful until it stops being a tool to attack the teaching of evolution and starts actually producing ideas that are useful in science. The beauty of Darwin's ideas is that the theory continues to work and grow with subsequent discoveries and ideas. An idea relies on missing information and that must retreat from new discoveries is not a useful tool.

I don't creationism is a tool (well, some branches are, but so are some branches of evolutionism people). And I think evolution sometimes "continues to work and grow with subsequent discoveries...." in an unscientific way. And I think your last sentence applies more to evolutionism than creationism - punctuated equilibrium, IMO, relies on "missing information", and about the Paluxy(sp) footprints - one of the most incredibly telling bits of info I found on a internet search I did on the subject was an evolutionist saying something like "Since we KNOW that humans didn't co-exist with dinosaurs, THEREFORE these CANNOT be human footprints". If THAT isn't "retreating from new discoveries", I don't know what is. Would you agree? It is entirely irrelevant whether or not they were found to be valid! The point is that he was unwilling to consider their validity ONLY because the current theory said it wasn't possible!!

I'm sorry to be so negative but there isn't any new information here.

Don't worry about being negative! I appreciate intelligent objections! And please let me present some more info - as I said above, I've only given ONE post on evidence for creationism.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But my MAIN objection (that I haven't even covered here yet in any detail) is the HUGE improbability of "beneficial mutations" that ADD genetic info (it's NEVER been observed),

And let's get this straight? Your problem with evolution is that "beneficial mutations have NEVER been observed. When was the last time it was observed where an animal appeared out of nowhere?

As for it being obvserved - it takes millions of years for changes to come about. I don't see why it is so IMPROBIBLE. I find a designer and superior being more improbable.

which the whole macro-evolution scheme depends on. And even GIVEN some beneficial mutations, your def. of natural selection means that they were more successful, and they had to at least be around enough to breed and make more "new" critters, which then had to have MORE beneficial mutations, etc. It's accumulated beneficial changes.

What is so difficult to believe about that - unless you believe in the young earth theory. Over the course of a million and billion years - things slowly change, mutations take place. The time that man has been on earth is a very tiny fraction of that time. I think on the geologic clock they describe it as the last seconds before midnight on a 24 hour time scale.

It looks like you're leaning to the punctuated equilibrium idea, which is basically that there is no record of the changes in the fossil record because the changes took place very rapidly. Well, that's an interesting assumption, but it certainly isn't SUPPORTED by the fossil record by existing fossils, except in the sense that yes, there are NOT lots of (if any) intermediates. And support by absense of evidence seems a little unscientific.

I took most of Cirdan's post that he was saying that this seems to be what Intelligent Designers believe - not evolutionists.

Why? Perhaps because it's FUN to populate? (well, I think that prob. just applies to humans)

The enjoyment of sex is not just restricted to humans. If animals didn't feel enjoyment from sex - they wouldn't have it and they wouldn't populate. Sex is part of the very basic of brain functions and during the process release a lot of chemicals which make the brain feel enjoyment. Most "unintellient" beings - sex occurs as a result from some outside influence.

Really, I don't see any valid objection here - it certainly doesn't contradict anything, it's rather just a point of style. Why NOT just start out with a few, with lots of genetic variation built in, and let 'em go and see where you end up?

Why? If god is perfect - then wouldn't you think that he would get it right the first time? It seems as if he/she didn't know what they were doing and had to keep going back to the drawing board then. Doesn't seem to be the perfect and all knowing god as it appears in the bible.

[Rían]

NOTE - I'm going to be out of town for a week!

I'm going to have to stop at this point. I finished responding to Cirdan's post of a few days ago, and that's a good stopping point. I need to finish packing so we can enjoy the beauty of God's creation in the Arizona high desert (the stars should be INCREDIBLE!! I'll be thinking of Varda & co. )

I'd like to pick up with presenting more evidence for creationism when I get back, since I've only done one post so far on that topic. I hope those that said that they would consider the evidence will be patient with this week's delay and ready to start again when I get back.

Have a good week, everyone! Thanks for making this an enjoyable and stimulating discussion I really am so glad I found Entmoot and all the nice people on it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an

If I thought that evolution was really strongly supported by the evidence, I would be more open to this God-driven evolution idea.

I see you still need god in there - even though there is NO evidence to support god. But you won't believe in evolution because it's - in your opinion - not strongly supported by evidence.

But I just don't - I honestly don't. And I haven't even brought up many of my objections yet! And why WOULD God choose to create thru evolution, anyway? I think the creation story as described in Genesis is more elegant and consistent with the nature of God, and I think it is supported by scientific evidence.

So your argument is that you find creationsim more elegant and consistent with the "nature of god"?

I've only made ONE - that's
ONE - post on evidence for creationism - as I noted before, I had to spend many pages to even GET to the point where I could make that post. I hope you won't make up your mind on the basis of one post

Can you please stop pussy footing around and just state your evidence on this - WITHOUT using the bible - which is complete UNscientific. Your just going on and on and on and saying that you haven't presented all your evidence. Get on with it already. I personally don't think you have any evidence- I think it's just your belief - as you stated you feel creationism is more elegant. How is that scientific?

Why in the world would God tell them about DNA? That idea doesn't make sense. It's on the same plane as what some other people have asked, roughly - Why didn't God put scientific info in the Bible? Well, why SHOULD He? The Bible is about God's incredibly powerful and holy character, and and the incredible beauty and importance of people's souls - that's what's really important - and that's why it's timeless and always applicable. Also, if you think it through, it's pretty rough on a large majority of the population. We all know how scientific knowledge increases over time - well, that of course means that, if God put some TRUE scientific info in the Bible, that people that lived before these ideas could be validated would think the Bible is wrong!

Oh and the bible has never been wrong about anything?

Let people discover DNA, and all the wonderful and amazing scientific FACTS, and then they can see how well it fits in with creationism. And if it doesn't fit in, then it needs to be examined further.

So I see - it's creationims or nothing then. if it doesn't fit then there is something wrong with the science - not something is wrong with your belief in the bible.

I don't creationism is a tool (well, some branches are, but so are some branches of evolutionism people).

How is evolution a tool. It never says whether there is or isn't a god. Creationism whole premise is that someone of intelligence HAD to creat earth and all it's inhabitants.

And I think evolution sometimes "continues to work and grow with subsequent discoveries...." in an unscientific way.

How does it continue to "continues to work and grow with subsequent discoveries...." in an unscientific way? Seems like your describing the Intelligent Design theory to me.

And I think your last sentence applies more to evolutionism than creationism - punctuated equilibrium, IMO, relies on "missing information", and about the Paluxy(sp) footprints - one of the most incredibly telling bits of info I found on a internet search I did on the subject was an evolutionist saying something like "Since we KNOW that humans didn't co-exist with dinosaurs, THEREFORE these CANNOT be human footprints". If THAT isn't "retreating from new discoveries", I don't know what is. Would you agree? It is entirely irrelevant whether or not they were found to be valid! The point is that he was unwilling to consider their validity ONLY because the current theory said it wasn't possible!!

Can you pleae provide the link so we can determine the legistmacy of this site?

[HOBBIT]

Rian, you just aren't making any sense.

[Lizra]

This thread is whacky. Should I start a new thread..."How'd they get all those animals, plants, and everything else under the sun in the ark?" That might be "interesting"!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra This thread is whacky.

Then why in the world are you on it??

Should I start a new thread..."How'd they get all those animals, plants, and everything else under the sun in the ark?" That might be "interesting"!

Sure, if you want to. I would guess that there's lots of things you're unaware of that relate to that question.

Cirdan, GrayMouser, Earniel, Cass and Sheeana (just to name a few off the top of my head - there are others) have offered polite, intelligent criticism and discussion on this subject. If posters like these want to stop, then I think we should wrap up. What's the consensus of the posters like these?

And JD - I'll post the link if (1) you share your criteria of how you evaluate a site's legitimacy, and (2) I agree that your criteria is fair and unbiased.

Hobbit - what part doesn't make sense? And in what way? (if you feel like getting into details - maybe you're ready to drop off the thread, I don't know...)

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But my MAIN objection (that I haven't even covered here yet in any detail) is the HUGE improbability of "beneficial mutations" that ADD genetic info (it's NEVER been observed), which the whole macro-evolution scheme depends on.

The chance on a beneficial mutations is relatively small but there's of course the time factor to be reckoned with. I don't think anywhere in the records of human history an new animal just popped into existance. And then I'm not talking about discovering it.

Also I think beneficial mutations do occur. I may be going down the wrong track here but I saw a documentary a while ago about AIDS and its simularities to the Black Plague. Some people actually became or were immune to these diseases, as were some of the their offspring. Can't that be considered as beneficial mutations? Of course that kind of mutation doesn't involve physical changes.

Have fun on your trip RÃ*an!

Originally posted by Lizra
This thread is whacky. Should I start a new thread..."How'd they get all those animals, plants, and everything else under the sun in the ark?" That might be "interesting"!

Heehee.

And suppose the couple of animals they put on the Ark can't stand eachother! I wonder if that happened to the unicorns.....

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Then why in the world are you on it??

Sure, if you want to. I would guess that there's lots of things you're unaware of that relate to that question.

Cirdan, GrayMouser, Earniel, Cass and Sheeana (just to name a few off the top of my head - there are others) have offered polite, intelligent criticism and discussion on this subject. If posters like these want to stop, then I think we should wrap up. What's the consensus of the posters like these?

And JD - I'll post the link if (1) you share your criteria of how you evaluate a site's legitimacy, and (2) I agree that your criteria is fair and unbiased.

Hobbit - what part doesn't make sense? And in what way? (if you feel like getting into details - maybe you're ready to drop off the thread, I don't know...)

I'm on it (occasionally) because it's on Entmoot, and it started out being quite interesting. I think it has become "whacky" now because after MANY excellent explanatory posts (by many different mooters) about "why evolution should be taught in school", you and Gwaimir have dug your heels in, (IMO) and are very politely talking in circles, and not making much sense.


I have a feeling a Noah's ark thread might go the same way! ("Just because you believe modern science doesn't make it right")

I'm sorry if I've offended you Rian, (really! I like you! ) but I only have so much tolerance for sugar coated (once again, IMO) malarky. Why should I pussy foot around! I may as well say what I think here too! Though I think you and Gwaimir are lovely people, and I would like to continue to be internet friends, I also think you have both plunged your heads deeply into the sand on this thread. I'm not trying to be a smart a**, but how long can a thread go on like this! Sorry, I was raised to be direct. Nothing personal intended. Enjoy your vacation.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And JD - I'll post the link if (1) you share your criteria of how you evaluate a site's legitimacy, and (2) I agree that your criteria is fair and unbiased.

Why not just share it? Then we can all look at it. If I don't agree with the site - I will say and i will give reasons. No reason to state something and then refuse to provide the source - especilly if you want me to take you seriously.