Regarding Pastor Peter CURTIS,

... who speaks so militantly for the evangelising of ONLY christian values,
here is a sample of his deranged thinking as contributed to the Sarah PALIN
vice-presidential campaign in Y2008.
http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/2008/11/02/prophecy-for-sarah-palin/

We can note that our "Cultural Heritage"
DID NOT commence 2000 years ago, for there was before that era a great range of history: e.g.,
Mathematics - Greeks, Indians, Persians
Architecture - Romans, Egyptians and Minoans
Science - Greeks and Britons

... and a great many religions other than christianity, which had yet to be created !!

We owe more to these antecedents than to the anti-scientific christians.

If we are going to properly teach History and Culture, then this precedent should be taught,
not just the scripture from ONE book !

By the way Dan S

Nowhere in the bible does it discuss the diversification of fauna and flora that would've been required after such a catastrophic event, nor any mention of floating branches of olive trees.

Yours is a make it up to fit whatever is being questioned type religion and you would inflict this irrationality on our children?

Religion is but one of many ideologies that children need to learn. Given the many flaws in this world, the vengeance on innocents by your deity s/he it must be a minor deity, a child itself.

Wow you guys, you can read anything you care to into anything at all, can't you. But that's not being clever, it's just being obtuse for the sake of it - or at best displays only a superficial approach to the issues at hand. Either way it earns you no credit.

In my post I offered some perfectly reasonable bases on which some may choose either to reject the idea of a deity, or to choose not to have an opinion either way. I did not accuse atheists or agnostics of anything. So, if you want to contest something I did say, ok, but if you insist on misrepresentation then forget it.

Ammonite, you are the one who is insulting, because of your purposeful misrepresentation or supercilious misreading of my post.
I had posted the following:
"We know that belief in a hereafter is Not a prerequisite for living a good life, and I'm sure there are many non-believers who lead fantastically good lives."

I also posted:
"Irrespective of means, the supreme objective must always be "universal adherence to a set of commonly held moral and ethical values". Achievement of this does Not require a common "faith", or any particular belief system, just a high set of standards."

Anyway, Ammonite, have a nice day.

Apologies Squeers, my post was meant to be a response to Pericles.

Anyhow, I always held a view that atheism or agnosticism did not equate to non-caring or ignorant. Now I have to start to review that "belief", unfortunately.

In closing my post I had offered the following:
"I can only reiterate - when any belief system places itself above, or aside from, universal morality, on pretext of "special place", it can only be to the detriment of the common good."

Are you guys trying to offer atheism and agnosticism such a "special place"? If so, your high-horses suddenly have rubber legs.

Whut?

People still defending Noah's Ark?

Creationism believes the ark size is: 450’ long, 75’ wide, 45’ high.
Assume rectangular in shape, giving 42.2 thousand long tons in total displacement, but real displacement assumes one third is above water, so becoming 28 thousand long tons.

Packing density inside the ark could not be as dense as water, for exercise, safety clearance between the carnivores etc; further, is the weight of the ark, this reduces real carrying capacity to about 20 thousand long tons.

To give a feel for this figure, compare it to the liner Queen Elizabeth I with 84 thousand long tons carrying capacity.

It is alleged that the Bible instructs Noah to take on board 2 pairs of each species of unclean animal, and 7 pairs of each species of clean animal. The largest dinosaur, the Brachiosaurus, weighed in at about 100 tons, did not have a split hoof, and chewed the cud, so 7 pairs of these were required. Tyrannosaurus Rex weighed about 40 tons, ate meat, so 2 pairs of these were required.

Adding up only the top 30 heavyweights out of 500 odd species of dinosaur, with sevens and twos as multipliers, we obtain a total weight of about 13 thousand long tons.

But, we have to include all the gorillas, orangutans, pandas, bears, bison, gnus, giraffes, elephants, camels, kangaroos, hippopotami, rhinoroceri, eagles, ducks, condors, etc.

This makes the total come to 30 thousand long tons, ie 150% of the capacity of the ark.

Now add the food.
Assuming all the herbivores, ate one tenth of their weight per day for 375 days.

This adds a further 1.2 million long tons, the total being 56 times the carrying capacity of the ark.

This is a science, to be taught at all schools, as the visiting creationists demand ?

Summary of calculations
Ark = 450’ X 75’ X 45’ = 1.52E6 cu ft
= 94.6E6 lb !water weighs 62.3 lb/cu ft
= 42.4 E3 long tons = 42.9 metric tonnes !1 ton =2240 lb
= 28.6 E3 tonnes displacement !1 long ton = 1.01605 tonnes

Some of the largest ships ever made and their problems:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_largest_wooden_ships

100.4 m (329.5 ft) X 15.3 m (50 ft 1 in) Wyoming 1909-1924 sunk[19] This American ship had a tendency to flex in heavy seas, causing the long planks to twist and buckle.[20] This allowed sea water into the hold, which had to be pumped out.[21] The over-all-length including jibboom was 450 feet (140 m).

102.1 m (335 ft) x [ 22] 16.2 m (53 ft) Great Republic 1853-1872 abandoned leaking[23] This American ship used iron bolts, and reinforced with steel, including 90 36 foot 4x1 inch cross braces, and metal keelsons.[24] The MIT Museum noted that: "With this behemoth, McKay had pushed wooden ship construction to its practical limits."[25]. The over-all-length including jibboom was 400 ft (120 m).

102.1 m (335 ft) x 18.3 m (60 ft) HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey 1858-1871, 1875 resp. sold as scrap These British warships were pushing the limits of what was possible in wooden ship construction and suffered structural problems.[26][27]

103 m (338 ft) x 13.4 m (44 ft) Pretoria 1900-1905 sunk
An American barge built for use on the Great Lakes. To strengthen its wooden frame and hull, it included steel keelson plates, chords, arches, and also was diagonally strapped with steel. A donkey engine powered a pump to keep its interior dry.[28]

115.0 m (377.3 ft) X 22.2 m (72.8 ft) Rochambeau 1865-1874 scrapped This French ship was an iron-clad ship built in New York. About 50 feet (15 m) of her length was a ram. She was not particularly stable or seaworthy, even with her substantial metal components, and only made one voyage in the open ocean to reach her new owners.

These ships would have used steel none of them would have been 100% wood as the ark was described.

the ark as described in the bible had one window for ventilation. can you imagine the ventilation problems of such a massive animal carrier ?

Dug,
You say, “Look at the evidence.” I do, but from a different angle to you.

“I have looked at both sides and there is no comparison … .” I might say something like this also.

Ammonite,
You say,
“Nowhere in the bible does it discuss the diversification of fauna and flora ...”

Well, the Bible says a few times that animals and plants were made to reproduce after their own kind. And that’s what they do. They reproduce something of their own kind, not a different kind, while not usually an exact replica of either parent.

And where did all that water go? I already said it went into the oceans, but I don’t think you were listening.

I have given answers to several questions showing how the Biblical data is consistent with the empirical evidence. We’ve been accused of not wanting to answer questions, and after giving answers we’re accused of making it up as we go. But you can’t expect to please all the people all the time.

---

Back on the topic of teaching RE, The Age newspaper in Melbourne was running a poll today, Monday May 16, 2011. (Disclaimer: These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.)

Poll: Teaching the Word

Do you support religion in schools programs?
Yes - 59%
No- 41%

I was surprised at the result considering how Left leaning this newspaper is and how negative towards the issue the original associated article was.

"http://www.facebook.com/l/62622/www.theage.com.au/polls/victoria/teaching-the-word-20110513-1el3g.html#poll"