Not teaching Darwinism child abuse?

[ikester7579]

I ran across this video while surfing YouTube.

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_fcZFznkcBM&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_fcZFznkcBM&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

It never surprises me what Darwinist fanatics will say to force their view upon others. So if this view makes it to law, we will now go to jail for "not" teaching our Kids that evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical absolute evidence?

So instead of the evidence proving evolution, now the law will eventually force you to? How many would support this if it came up for a vote into law?

 

[laconicstudent]

It never surprises me what Darwinist fanatics will say to force their view upon others. So if this view makes it to law, we will now go to jail for "not" teaching our Kids that evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical absolute evidence?

Yes, because not adhering to an approved curriculum in education is illegal in the United States.

So instead of the evidence proving evolution, now the law will eventually force you to? How many would support this if it came up for a vote into law?

I would. I wasn't aware that there were any silly schools that lied to their students in the classroom, but if there are we should definitely force them to be truthful as to the current state of the scientific field.

 

[Assyrian]

It is certainly a more complex subject than the OP paints it, even the video clip highlights the complexities. I agree with laconicstudent, If schools are going to teach science they must teach real science, they should not teach astrology instead of astronomy because the teacher or some of the parents are astrologers, they should not teach astrology as another alternative to astronomy. If parents want to teach their children astrology at home or in church that is up to them.

Parents should certainly have the right to remove their children from religious education classes they disagree with, or from sex education if they disagree with how it is taught, what is taught or simply don&#8217;t think it is appropriate for their kindergarten child.

The big question is how far the parents right to decide on their child&#8217;s education goes. Some people fervently believe it is wrong for girls to be educated at all. Is this their religious right and duty or is it sex discrimination? Or you have illiterate parents who don&#8217;t see any point in education and don&#8217;t see why they should have to drag their child to school every day. Is this the parent&#8217;s right to choose how their child is raised, or is it child abuse?

 

[Papias]

It never surprises me what Darwinist fanatics will say to force their view upon others.

Yeah, like those darn atomists who insist on teaching that things are made of these atom thingys in chemistry class! The nerve! Or those evil "round earthists", who force their views that the earth is not flat on us, against what a literal reading of most Bibles clearly says!

"not" teaching our Kids that evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical absolute evidence?

You are aware, of course, that evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical absolute evidence?

Papias

 

[ikester7579]

Yes, because not adhering to an approved curriculum in education is illegal in the United States.

Maybe you would like to jail the parents and then send the kids to homosexual homes?

I would. I wasn't aware that there were any silly schools that lied to their students in the classroom, but if there are we should definitely force them to be truthful as to the current state of the scientific field.

Absolute lies only exist where absolute truth does. Care to point out any unscientific unfalsifiable absolutes that currently exist in science? No? I did not think so.

 

[ikester7579]

It is certainly a more complex subject than the OP paints it, even the video clip highlights the complexities. I agree with laconicstudent, If schools are going to teach science they must teach real science, they should not teach astrology instead of astronomy because the teacher or some of the parents are astrologers, they should not teach astrology as another alternative to astronomy. If parents want to teach their children astrology at home or in church that is up to them.

Parents should certainly have the right to remove their children from religious education classes they disagree with, or from sex education if they disagree with how it is taught, what is taught or simply don’t think it is appropriate for their kindergarten child.

The big question is how far the parents right to decide on their child’s education goes. Some people fervently believe it is wrong for girls to be educated at all. Is this their religious right and duty or is it sex discrimination? Or you have illiterate parents who don’t see any point in education and don’t see why they should have to drag their child to school every day. Is this the parent’s right to choose how their child is raised, or is it child abuse?

So I guess it's better to teach kids the religion of evolution instead?
Evolution vs. religion (is evolution a religion?) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

 

[ikester7579]

Yeah, like those darn atomists who insist on teaching that things are made of these atom thingys in chemistry class! The nerve! Or those evil "round earthists", who force their views that the earth is not flat on us, against what a literal reading of most Bibles clearly says!

I find that whole quote funny because that is the only way you can ever win a debate with anyone is to stereotype and demonize people. What I find even funnier is that guys like yourself keep using the lie that flat earth was thought up by Christians. It was actually thought up by Washington Irving who later admitted to lying in his book by blaming it on the Christians.

Research it yourself if you are so inclined to learn truth: washington irving flat earth - Google Search

You are aware, of course, that evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical absolute evidence?

Papias

Then making it that way by your comment, also makes it unscientific by eliminating it's ability to be falsified.

 

[Mr Dave]

I find that whole quote funny because that is the only way you can ever win a debate with anyone is to stereotype and demonize people.

Speaking of stereotyping, check out this post. http://www.christianforums.com/t7492629/#post55516900

 

[ikester7579]

Speaking of stereotyping, check out this post. http://www.christianforums.com/t7492629/#post55516900

If you can deny it I'm all ears.

 

[Mr Dave]

If you can deny it I'm all ears.

It's not up to me to deny. You made the claim that the set of statements concerning political discussion apply to all Christians who hold to evolution, thereby stereotyping all such Christians. It's up to you to actually defend this claim, instead of just saying that it is how it is.
You saying that this is what 'Evolutionary Christians' are like, and generalising all such Christians to be like this without supporting it is stereotyping. Even if you find some examples to support your claim, that doesn't make it valid for all, it just means that some people have done some things on a list that you have copied.

 

[Assyrian]

So I guess it's better to teach kids the religion of evolution instead?
Evolution vs. religion (is evolution a religion?) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

I find that whole quote funny because that is the only way you can ever win a debate with anyone is to stereotype and demonize people.

Indeed.

It is a pity you don't try to engage in an actual discussion.

What I find even funnier is that guys like yourself keep using the lie that flat earth was thought up by Christians. It was actually thought up by Washington Irving who later admitted to lying in his book by blaming it on the Christians.

Research it yourself if you are so inclined to learn truth: washington irving flat earth - Google Search

Don't see what Papias' post has to do with Washington Irving's claims about flat earth views at the time of Columbus. Unless it is simply a case that if someone mentions flat earth you bring up Washington Irving no matter what they actually say. A one answer fits all sort of argument. In fact you had Christian flat earthers long before Washington Irving and long before Columbus. Writers in the early church, like Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes believed the earth was flat. Cosmas bases his argument on scripture too, but the rest of the church rejected the idea because science said the earth was spherical. The church realised back then that if your interpretation of scripture was contradicted by science, then it is your interpretation of scripture that is wrong.

So to get back to Papias' argument, regardless of whether Washington Irving lied about the Medieval church believing the earth was flat, people have believed it in the past and based their arguments on scripture, you still get flat earthers today. Are round earthers wrong to force their science on people who don't believe it and teach their children round earth science in school?

 

[laconicstudent]

Maybe you would like to jail the parents and then send the kids to homosexual homes?

Sure thing. Why, am I supposed to think that a bad outcome?

 

[98cwitr]

the black lady in the blue makes a good point, "so you can have a conversation about it."

 

[rcorlew]

Where oh where to begin with this one?

I have asked this question many many times before and there is still no adequate answer supplied, we even discussed this topic in my college biology class, and there was still no adequate answer, and the reasons for that are simple.

1) Lack of adequate amounts of time to fully explore the concept of evolution, especially in the high school setting

2) Because of problem 1, there is also an inadequate amount of time to discuss possible implications or lack thereof in the high school setting, I do realize that science is not the place for philosophy, but to think that our entire lives revolve around science is to ignore the vast majority of our lives.

Here is the crux of the real debate, the sole point of contention that most people deny or do not see, when kids learn something it is an either/or situation, multiple true possibilities cannot be true. When you teach only evolution without discussing the philosophical implications what you are really teaching the kids is that since "this" is true then "this" is not. In a better explanation, since when can clearly show that no god directly created you because there is a mountain of evidence for evolution, then any belief you had about any god must be false. What you are left with is a bunch of Evolutionary Humanists, believing that people have worth but not knowing why, not knowing that science and religion are not at war with each other, it is the people who are on the side of one or the other that are at war.

Far more is taught by not talking about something than we care to admit, this is true in every aspect of life. It is part of the Humanist agenda to "teach by not teaching" and it is used quite effectively.

I say give them knowledge and let them explore it, because knowledge without application is useless (can any of us old timers still diagram a sentence, LOL)

 

[Papias]

Ikester wrote:

Absolute lies only exist where absolute truth does. Care to point out any unscientific unfalsifiable absolutes that currently exist in science? No? I did not think so.

Let's not play word games. If I advocated teaching in school that said that the Roman empire never existed, I'd be advocating lying in common (not, apparently, Ikester,) useage. Similarly, advocating not teaching about evolution is advocating lying.

I find that whole quote funny because that is the only way you can ever win a debate with anyone is to stereotype and demonize people.

wow, talk about the pot and the kettle! Have you read your opening post?

What I find even funnier is that guys like yourself keep using the lie that flat earth was thought up by Christians. It was actually thought up by Washington Irving who later admitted to lying in his book by blaming it on the Christians.

So that's the truth in ikester's world, huh? That Washington Irving was the FIRST PERSON IN HISTORY to postulate a flat earth? Have you read Genesis? Have you read other ANE ancient texts? I guess I'm blown away by the extent of your scholarship.

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

Don't see what Papias' post has to do with Washington Irving's claims about flat earth views at the time of Columbus. Unless it is simply a case that if someone mentions flat earth you bring up Washington Irving no matter what they actually say. A one answer fits all sort of argument. In fact you had Christian flat earthers long before Washington Irving and long before Columbus. Writers in the early church, like Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes believed the earth was flat. Cosmas bases his argument on scripture too, but the rest of the church rejected the idea because science said the earth was spherical. The church realised back then that if your interpretation of scripture was contradicted by science, then it is your interpretation of scripture that is wrong.

The bible depicts a spherical earth. As with Isaiah 40:22. Cosmas based his idea of a rectangular, flat earth, on Hebrews 9:1-5. This has been interpreted, and is about as far fetched as interpreting Genesis to mean that man came from bacteria. THe flat earth myth and the reasons why Darwinists need it to prove Darwinism, can be found here.

The flat-earth myth and creationism

 

[Mallon]

The bible depicts a spherical earth. As with Isaiah 40:22.

A circle is not a sphere, just as a square is not a cube. A circle is a two-dimensional object. Isaiah 40:22 is a perfect example of why the Bible does, in fact, assume a flat earth. The flat earth model also explains why the entirety of the earth can be seen from a tall tree or mountain, as described by Daniel and Matthew. These passages do not make sense if a spherical-earth model is assumed.

 

[Greg1234]

A circle is not a sphere, just as a square is not a cube. A circle is a two-dimensional object. Isaiah 40:22 is a perfect example of why the Bible does, in fact, assume a flat earth. The flat earth model also explains why the entirety of the earth can be seen from a tall tree or mountain, as described by Daniel and Matthew. These passages do not make sense if a spherical-earth model is assumed.

On a side note, the motivation for an atheist to pretend to be a Christian and promote atheist/Darwinist doctrine

1)Grants one the opportunity to infiltrate a Christian-only section.
2) It grants mental infiltration through the illusion of fellowship.

I actually have to defend the bible against an attack from a another Christian. But thats Darwinism. Your transformation is nearly complete. The above query was already addressed.

 

[Assyrian]

The bible depicts a spherical earth. As with Isaiah 40:22.

What mallon said. A circle is not a sphere. We need to look at the text and see what it actually says, not look for excuses to make the text fit what we know from science. Hebrew had a variety of words to describe a ball or sphere, Isaiah used a word that meant a circle, the sort you draw with a compass.

Cosmas based his idea of a rectangular, flat earth, on Hebrews 9:1-5.

Actually Cosmas based his cosmology on a wide range of different passages. The description of the tabernacle was one of the reasons he saw the earth as rectangular, but not because he took a wild leap and thought God must have made the earth and heavens the same shape as the tabernacle. It was because the very passage you quote says God stretched out the heavens as a tabernacle.

This has been interpreted,

Of course, every understanding we have of the meaning of scripture is an interpretation. Cosmas's interpretation was actually a literal interpretation. But the real issue with Cosmas was he though his interpretation meant science must be wrong. Instead his mistake is still bringing the gospel into disrepute. We really should learn from him.

and is about as far fetched as interpreting Genesis to mean that man came from bacteria.

Good job we don't then.

THe flat earth myth and the reasons why Darwinists need it to prove Darwinism, can be found here.

The flat-earth myth and creationism

Scientists need the flat earth myth to prove evolution And just because there is an exaggerated myth about flat earth teaching in the church doesn't mean there weren't people who took their scriptures and claimed the earth was flat and round earth science was pagan Greek and wrong. Just as there were those who said heliocentrism was wrong because of their interpretation of scripture. Hiding behind the flat earth myth to avoid the questions raised by flat earth interpretations in the church is a bigger mistake than the flat earth myth itself.

 

[Greg1234]

What mallon said. A circle is not a sphere. We need to look at the text and see what it actually says, not look for excuses to make the text fit what we know from science. Hebrew had a variety of words to describe a ball or sphere, Isaiah used a word that meant a circle, the sort you draw with a compass.

And another Christian. All this was already given. And we also have a word for sphere (sphere). The Greek already knew the earth was round. Cosmas' interpretation was rejected by the church. Darwinism/atheism is rejected. Cosmas' attempt is right on par with finding bacteria turning into men in the creation of man. We should really learn from him.