Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No evolution/creation debate in Europe
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 57 of 107 (478845)
08-21-2008 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Agobot
08-16-2008 8:44 AM


Communism Europe and the evolution indoctrination
Religion was uprooted and demolished by the communists and evolution was explained in great detail to the children/students.
Well now I call that incredibly sad. Communists sure know how to indoctrinate and evolution is all part of it -a very important part. After all how are we going to bow down to our leader if we have God.
I see that this Europe thread isn't really doing much so I'll speak for South Africa. Having lived in Canada and Zimbabwe, I have to say that South Africa has to be the most Christian nation in the world apart from, maybe, the United States. I learned all about evolution in Canada and then at University in South Africa but as far as the schools go, nothing substantial hit the books until this year. Suddenly it is required learning and goes well with the general downfall of the country. We used to be taught real physics and chemistry and biology, now we have evolution and we get to learn all about our ascent from the apes.
I feel incredibly sorry for those in countries that do not have the opportunity to learn about God's existance. If it hadn't been for South Africa, I would have had no clue either.I used to think the Christians were really quite silly believing in myths but now I know that it was not myth that they believed in, but truth.
As for Europeans, I meet plenty of them here and I know without asking that God does not exist in the majority of their lives because the indocrination of years in Europe has had its effect.
My daughter is spending the year in England and has found to her horror how Godless the people are. She thought everyone believed in God. I am incredibly grateful that I have been able to bring my children up in South Africa despite the state of the country now. What they have learned here will never leave them.
As the country disintegrates, so does our dependance on God increase. The evolution/creation controversy is going to be big in this country now that we are forced to teach evolution to the children. We are a little behind in the debate but it's coming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Agobot, posted 08-16-2008 8:44 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 08-21-2008 11:20 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 64 by Agobot, posted 08-21-2008 1:34 PM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 66 of 107 (478935)
08-22-2008 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Agobot
08-21-2008 1:34 PM


Re: Communism Europe and the evolution indoctrination
How could you teach children something that's based COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY on belief?
You mean like evolution?
The question is not whether or not an explanation is based on a personal belief, but is it true? An explanation may be both based on a personal belief and true. Personal beliefs are rarely based on nothing.Facts don't speak for themselves, they are interpreted within a framework.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Agobot, posted 08-21-2008 1:34 PM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by AdminNosy, posted 08-22-2008 9:40 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 79 by anglagard, posted 08-26-2008 2:35 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 68 of 107 (479061)
08-24-2008 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Rahvin
08-21-2008 11:20 AM


Re: Communism Europe and the evolution indoctrination
Hello Rahvin,
It is sad. Any time the government decides to make religion (or non-religion) mandatory by law is a travesty of justice.
I agree with you there. No government should make religion or non-religion mandatory by law. It’s your choice. Christianity cannot be enforced or it becomes a farce.Communists made non-religion mandatory and took all the Bibles away. Everyone should be free to choose
But while the rationale you mention may well have been the reasoning of the Communist Party, it doesn't mean God exists.
Absolutely but what did they have to fear if God didn’t exist in any case -so leave the believers to their’ myth’ if it is one.
...except of course that evolution is grounded in observation and evidence just as strongly as any part of physics and chemistry, and is the entire groundwork for modern biology.
Well this is where we part company as far as agreement goes.Evolution is by no means grounded in observation and evidence. Physics and chemistry is and has no need for evolution whatsoever.Neither is evolution the entire groundwork for modern biology.
If my doctor tells me I have a disease and need this or that treatment, evolution never played a part. If my dentist tells me that my wisdom teeth are impacted, is it important to know his evolutionary view about my apparently vestigial teeth or should he know how to extract them?
Evolution is historical science as opposed to experimental observational science.Evolution is also a philosophical worldview based on the belief that matter is all there is.It provides a framework for materialists to insert their observations into. Creationists and ID’ers insert the very same facts into their respective worldviews and try to make sense of them in that way. They say that matter is not all there is and that intelligence was required to bring about life and all of its complexity, rather than just chance mutations and natural selection.
Facts never speak for themselves - they are considered within a worldview and the most accurate or likely worldview has the least anomalies.Neither worldview can be absolutely proven since then you’d have to prove that matter is all there is and that mutation and selection are capable of producing the complexity of biological systems and I’d probably have to produce God.
Continuing to learn about well-founded science in science classes and continuing to develop a country struggling to catch up to the rest of the world is a good thing, Beretta
We’ve had no problem with keeping up with the rest of the world as far as medicine and engineering and every other discipline goes. A lack of evolution only ever held evolutionary biology back and that is no contribution to technology IMHO.
Without evolution, modern medical research, genetics, and all of the other biological fields simply don't work.
I’m afraid I absolutely cannot agree with you there. Do we need to know how our hearts adapted from ape hearts to be able to do heart transplants for example? Genetics works perfectly well apart from evolution. All we need to know is how mutation and natural selection works which we all agree works. We just differ in that we do not believe that a belief in macromutation is essential for understanding anything -especially since it is not proven by any means that it actually ever happened.
By the way, we do hear about evolution in our universities just not in the schools - but it’s more an aside than anything of importance. I remember learning about the ontogenic recapitulation of phylogeny in embryology and about vestigiality of wisdom teeth at university but frankly I never needed any of it in my life or in my profession. It’s a whole lot less important than you seem to think, for practical purposes.
Is it fair to say to South African kids, "we're not going to teach you about evolution, and so you're not likely ever going to be the one to find a cure for AIDS or cancer, you'll never be a biologist, your medical education will always be substandard, and other countries will laugh at you, all because of our religious beliefs that you may or may not share?"
My my, you really do have an inflated opinion of the value of evolution in education. All it is, is an alternative creation story - if there’s no God, you need to make up a story of your own to fulfil a basic need of knowing where you came from, even if it is a complete fabrication. In that way you can become, as Dawkins put it, an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Personally, I wish I hadn't been indoctrinated into the Christian faith from birth.
Well now all that’s happened is that you’ve been indoctrinated into a worthless alternative story. You’re going to regret giving up the truth for a lie. Keep looking into it. There’s more than enough evidence to support intelligence behind what exists.
...and yet you wouldn't be able to present any evidence for that supposed "truth," would you.
Well like I’ve said before, facts don’t get interpreted in a vacuum. Either everything came from nothing or there’s an intelligence behind everything. Logically, I know which one makes more sense.
What do you mean, the "indoctrination of years in Europe?" You mean simply learning accepted science in science classrooms without religious bias?
Well there is a religious bias. Everything created itself or everything was created. They can’t both be true. Both are religious views.
Because if you'll notice the Christian religion is still going quite strongly in former Soviet-held territories.
Oppression can really wake people up. Freedom of choice has its downside too - everybody sleeps. Now that they have a choice, Christianity (that had to remain hidden) is flourishing. Shouldn’t be long before Putin puts a lid on it though.
...and yet you wouldn't be able to present any evidence for that supposed "truth," would you.
There’s more than enough historical evidence backing the Bible’s veracity. As for evidence, we all have the same facts -we interpret them differently. For example, we say that mutations can’t produce complex specified biological systems. Evolutionists, on the other hand, say they can. Which one is wish projection? Evolution. There’s no evidence for information adding beneficial mutations even though you’ll find lots of negative mutations. Would you want your child to be born with a mutation? No -because we all know what that means. But when it comes to evolution, it is apparently happening positively all the time with no evidence whatsoever except that we’re here and evolutionists have already decided how that happened. So they have a philosophical attachment to materialism.
What do you mean, the "indoctrination of years in Europe?" You mean simply learning accepted science in science classrooms without religious bias?
No, with religious bias as mentioned above.
Ignorance isn't bliss, it's embarrassing, and the lack of exposure to any other culture or belief set demonstrates exactly how even mainstream Christianity behaves exactly like a cult, and the only difference is popularity.
I believe that the problem with people like you is that you are taught the Bible but not how to defend it scientifically and historically - and along with your own insecurity, you backed off when challenged until they took you out. I’m sure there are other reasons as well -people tend to blame God for lots of things -even those who deny God’s existence secretly or not so secretly hate the God they don’t even apparently believe in.
And if your side wins, the youth of the nation will be condemned to be the laughing stocks of the entire scientific community when they graduate.
Not if we teach the controversy and kids learn both sides of the argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 08-21-2008 11:20 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 08-24-2008 10:48 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 70 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2008 12:40 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 86 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-27-2008 2:53 AM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 71 of 107 (479169)
08-25-2008 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taz
08-24-2008 10:48 AM


Re: Communism Europe and the evolution indoctrination
Thanks for your opinion Taz but I just have to say that your argument makes no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 08-24-2008 10:48 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Taz, posted 08-30-2008 3:28 PM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 72 of 107 (479172)
08-25-2008 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Coyote
08-24-2008 12:40 PM


Re: Nonsense
One stems from evidence and the other stems from revealed knowledge.
No, one stems from revealed knowledge and the other stems from human efforts to do away with the need for revealed knowledge. Man's opinions versus the truth.
not all interpretations are of equal explanatory value
You're right -intelligent design fits the equation while evolution is force fitted against all the odds. If it was such a sure thing, they'd stop coming with absolute final confirmation that Darwin was right but they are always desperate to justify what is unjustifiable and far from evidential.
Science, as it stands today, is a very complex weave of facts and interpretations (theories).
No it is a grand attempt to make the facts (which are the same for both sides) fit the theory. It is man's attempt, via naturalistic philisophy, to remove himself from what really happened. It's called self delusion.
If you start to force alternative interpretations where they don't fit, you end up with too many loose threads.
There you go, that's what evolution ends up with, too many loose threads.
some interpretations of the facts simply don't work and no amount of twisting and distortion will make them work.
You hit the nail on the head there. Natural selection and mutation doesn't make complex biological systems except in some people's wishful imaginings. Only intelligence can produce the genetic information for life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2008 12:40 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by lyx2no, posted 08-25-2008 8:53 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2008 10:42 AM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 74 of 107 (479177)
08-25-2008 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by lyx2no
08-25-2008 8:53 AM


Re: Less Then Nonsense
But the facts aren't the same for both sides; i.e., radioactive decay rates are pretty much immutable in Sci-circles, while in Creo-circles they can do what ever is convenient.
Well they do appear to be constant now but something's amiss with the helium quantities and the C14 that should be long gone.We can't just ignore the inconvenient anomalies, you know.
All you really need to do is show us how new and complex genetic information is generated by random mistakes converting bacteria into nuclear scientists and we can all go home -it's that simple.
Why does God make silly faces behind out backs and then go all straight faced when we snap around to look?
I suppose God just finds it interesting the lengths to which humanity will go in their misguided attempt to write Him out of the equation.Making up their own stories of life's origin sure can liven things up - unfortunately the truth remains and I don't think anyone's scoring any points for the best story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by lyx2no, posted 08-25-2008 8:53 AM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 08-25-2008 10:36 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 78 by Coyote, posted 08-25-2008 11:01 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 80 by bluegenes, posted 08-26-2008 5:40 AM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 77 of 107 (479185)
08-25-2008 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by NosyNed
08-25-2008 10:36 AM


Re: Repetition
Beretta writes:
Well they do appear to be constant now but something's amiss with the helium quantities and the C14 that should be long gone.We can't just ignore the inconvenient anomalies, you know.
Since you've been around awhile you know that the above is utterly wrong. Continuing to repeat yourself after you have had things explained makes you look like you are stubborn, deaf or stupid. Which is it?
Deaf? Blind? Didn't see any explanation for it so perhaps I never got one?
NosyNed writes:
Beretta writes:
All you really need to do is show us how new and complex genetic information is generated by random mistakes converting bacteria into nuclear scientists and we can all go home -it's that simple.
This can be taken to another thread. It's been covered but perhaps not to you.
Definitely not to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 08-25-2008 10:36 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 81 of 107 (479291)
08-26-2008 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Straggler
08-25-2008 10:42 AM


Re: Evidence, Interpretation and Prediction
Tested conclusions versus faith based ideology.
You are obviously thinking of the wrong sort of science - historical science is not the sort of thing you can do repeatable tests on. Evolution is a philosophical material worldview into which man attempts to fit the facts. So evolution is the faith based ideology.
Again you miss the point. Tested conclusions. Predicted results.
Again, you’re dreaming, that might be the ideal but that’s not actually how it works.
The thing that makes science different, reliable as a means of investigation and ultimately superior in terms of advancing our understanding and knowledge is the testing of hypotheses.
Except when the ideology clouds the results. The facts don’t fit the picture but ”science’ has already decided the cause as random and undirected, natural processes only and come what may, evolutionists intend to keep it that way.
The fossil record is at best ambiguous and at worst contradictory with respect to the ”fact of evolution’. Whatever it shows, however, is far from “plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life” as Darwin predicted and illustrated as a tree of life. The Cambrian explosion remains a paradox, totally inconsistent with Darwin’s tree of life.
Much has been written on the Cambrian explosion and its inconsistency with the Darwin’s theory. As evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz puts it, “the major animal groups appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus -fullblown and raring to go.So you see, it seems that evolution is the faith-based ideology if there ever was one.
The 'All interpretations are valid' argument is wishful thinking and a complete misapprehension of what science actually is on the part of IDists. Including, it seems, you.
Well that’s where you’re wrong again -Id’ists don’t say that all interpretations are valid. They say that people do try to fit the ”facts’ into their big picture of what happened but quite clearly all interpretations are not valid. Something is true and all the rest are false. Whatever happened happened and any other story is false because it just did not happen.
What they are actually saying is that there are facts and there are interpretations of facts - ”facts’ don’t speak for themselves.
Lo and behold transitional forms have been discovered. Exactly as predicted. Exactly where predicted. Relating to exactly when predicted.
You really make it sound good but you know as well as I do that the supposed transitionals are few and far between and questionable at best -subject to interpretation and asserted far more than actually produced. There is no record of gradualism in the fossil record, there’s only sudden appearance of fully formed creatures that exhibit stasis for the duration of their stay. You can imagine as many transitionals missing as you like but the fossil record for the most part lacks evidence of the required gradualism.
So using knowledge of geology and the predictions of evolutionary theory we keep finding the fossilised remains of new species. Transitional species.
The funny thing is that evolutionists for the most part insist that everything is a transitional form meaning that every fossil is a transitional fossil so why bother to get excited when a ”transitional’ is found. It’s absurd.
The only delusion going on here is your delusion that faith based interpretations of evidence are even in the same ballpark in terms of reliability and ojectivity as the predicted and tested results of truly scientific theories.
Evolution is a faith-based interpretation of the evidence and it is a delusion. You believe therefore you find. Lets have some evidence that the sort of change you imagine has happened is actually capable of happening at all. How do we know that mutation and natural selection is capable of producing biological complexity? You can’t just assume, we need some proven positive beneficial genetic change producing morphological change - we can’t just assume it’s happened based on our philosophical premises.
PS - Do you know if you spell check IDists it returns “idiots”
Do you know that we also get to be called ”cretinists’ and that’s also very funny but we still need some evidence for your assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2008 10:42 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2008 1:07 PM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 82 of 107 (479296)
08-26-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by bluegenes
08-26-2008 5:40 AM


Super-evolution
levels of superstition are measurably lower in Europe, weakening the creationist side considerably.
Or perhaps it means that their level of 'superstition' (an irrational but usually deep-seated belief), the belief that we descended from the apes, is measurably higher than in the USA?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by bluegenes, posted 08-26-2008 5:40 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2008 10:22 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 85 by bluegenes, posted 08-26-2008 2:21 PM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 90 of 107 (479933)
08-31-2008 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Taz
08-30-2008 3:28 PM


Evolution as dogma
Nobody is suggesting we try to force everyone into an atheist. And certainly nobody is suggesting we take away everyone's bible.
Well the problem is evolutionists are indoctrinating little children into their religious dogma by forcefeeding evolution as fact down their gullible little throats. Admittedly some (maybe most) evolutionists are already the victims of the same agenda but this is the thing - we are trying to wake you up to the consequences of your religion by first showing you that evolution is faith-based not factual, before getting to consequences of a worldview that is not open to competing hypotheses and is thus dogma. Hopefully, should you wake up in time, you will be in a position to fix some of the damage done.
Sometimes you don't have to take the Bibles away -you just need to convert them to your religion and the Bible will be relinquished in time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Taz, posted 08-30-2008 3:28 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2008 6:13 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 93 by bluegenes, posted 08-31-2008 6:51 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 101 by Taz, posted 08-31-2008 4:34 PM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 95 of 107 (479959)
08-31-2008 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Otto Tellick
08-27-2008 2:53 AM


Re: the evolution indoctrination
For the most part, your arguments here are based on a notion that evolutionary explanations are founded on a "faith" or "belief" in a particular "world view", rather than observable supporting evidence. But you systematically dismiss and ignore all the evidence without taking any time to understand what it is.
Actually I understand it all too well - philosophical naturalists, you see, have a worldview that a priori does away with any competing viewpoint. What they are selling is dogma.
Importing an assumption as an essential premise in a modified definition of science results in the prepositional statement: “Science is restricted to explaining natural phenomena using only natural causes.” However this statement begs the question. In other words the assertion assumes the truth of the premise that there are only natural causes, and enforcing the assumption excludes the design hypothesis by definition rather than by evidence.
Your distinction between "historical" and "experimental" science is a false one. Both are based on observation, both involve positing hypotheses that lead to specific predictions about what further observations can be expected to show, and in both cases, those further observations are doable and will either support or falsify the hypotheses in question.
“Historical events that cannot be recreated or tested by experimentation cannot be falsified by classic experimental methods, and must be tested against competing hypotheses.
This method of testing against competing hypotheses is the method used in forensic science, archaeology etc.When a crime scene leaves circumstantial evidence, forensic scientists must work from inferences based on the evidence to formulate hypotheses. Under these circumstances, the only remaining test is the one that seeks to rule out competing hypotheses on the basis of the evidence. Hypotheses are challenged, reformulated, and possibly falsified by other competing hypotheses.” (Carol Cleland, Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method )
“ID theory posits intelligent causation for living things. Like evolution, ID is a science that can be studied even if it cannot be directly observed or experimented on.
Like evolution, ID hypothesizes about something that happened in the past and should not be off limits for scientific study. Like evolution or any study of origins, ID is subject to the scientific activity of testing hypotheses, rather than being strictly held to laboratory experiments.
Thus to be scientific, the no-design hypothesis of evolution, the design hypothesis of ID or any origins related scientific enquiry must be practiced as defined -by making inferences from observations. Because these enquiries inherently involve historical events, the testing component must include at least the testing of competing hypotheses. Otherwise, a lone hypothesis is not an hypothesis, but an implicitly accepted, non-objective conclusion.
What purpose can possibly be served by steadfastly insisting on a view of reality that does not admit certain lines of scientific enquiry, regardless of how reasonable?
Discussing theories of origins may make for wearisome academic debates, but the truth of the matter (ie. the actual historic happening of the origin of living beings) has profound implications with respect to all areas of life -legal, political and ethical -to name a few. At bottom, the fact of our existence requires a theory of origins that is either matter-focused -matter is all that exists, or intelligence focused -there is intelligence behind the matter.” (Roddy M Bullock -“The Cave Painting”)
for those who understand the evidence, it makes no sense to say "genetics works perfectly well apart from evolution". Genetics is the very basis for evolution -- it is the thing that inescapably entails evolution as a process intrinsic to life.
It all depends on what you mean by ”evolution’ since the meaning of the word changes without notice as if genetic variation somehow extrapolates naturally to include everything that exists and how it got there. ”Genetics is the basis of evolution’ works if you’re referring to variation or adaptation but it does not automatically follow as the explanation of how life arose or how different biological organisms came to be. That remains to be proven - we need some proof that mutation can give rise to new and complex organs. It can’t just be assumed.
As for your long list of questions -it seems that you would like to know how allowing a non-material approach to origins would change things practically. The fact of the matter is that if ID is true then evolution (apart from variability within a particular kind of organism) is false as an explanation of origins and that would have profound influences over so many aspects of life including law, psychology, politics and ethics etc.
“Institutions of science must be open to competing hypotheses to prevent evidence from becoming subject to the dictates of dogma rather than the precepts of principle. When proponents of the hypothesis of no-design in nature ie. proponents of Darwinian evolution refuse to permit challenges of a contrary hypothesis, such proponents have ceased being scientific and the scientific method has been displaced by the dictates of dogma.” (Roddy M Bullock)
Trying to "balance" evidence-based explanations with Bible-based explanations in a science class can only lead to a failure to educate students in the scientific method, and a failure to give them a coherent basis for understanding and exploring the physical world.
Keeping students protected from a competing hypothesis that is generating a large amount of controversy is not the way to educate students either. Nobody is suggesting putting the Bible into the science classroom -all they are proposing is presenting the competing hypothesis in terms of scientific evidence that supports it and allowing Darwinism to be scrutinized more closely than has been allowed in the past. Educate kids rather than indoctrinating them in a particular viewpoint that fears contrary evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-27-2008 2:53 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Coragyps, posted 08-31-2008 8:47 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 100 by bluegenes, posted 08-31-2008 2:16 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 102 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2008 6:14 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 103 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-31-2008 7:00 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 104 by bluescat48, posted 08-31-2008 7:43 PM Beretta has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024