# Anti-science is Child Abuse



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Physicist Lawrence Krauss on teaching creationism: It’s a form of child abuse | The Raw Story


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

I'll show you what child abuse is. A wanker like that diminishes children who have been a victim of child abuse.

As for science, it's becoming a religion. As for the religious, maybe they should stop speaking on behalf of a god they don't know.

M-theory is the latest fashion and its promoters behave like a bunch of medieval priests themselves.
I take the average scientist just as serious as the average religious man.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Surely those that physically abuse children are performing ''child abuse'', of course. Also, those that are attempting to inhibit their education/intelligence and their understanding of the world around them, that is also abusive because it makes them grow up to be ignorant/stupid on many subjects.

Science is not a ''religion''. That is only a common misconception of the idea of science by those that reject it or don't understand it due to religious beliefs.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Roland787 said:


> Surely those that physically abuse children are performing ''child abuse'', of course. Also, those that are attempting to inhibit their education/intelligence and their understanding of the world around them, that is also abusive because it makes them grow up to be ignorant/stupid on many subjects.
> 
> Science is not a ''religion''. That is only a common misconception of the idea of science by those that reject it or don't understand it due to religious beliefs.


Be careful here. You're putting words in my mouth and you pretend to know my beliefs. Don't speak on behalf of me.

Life is a state of mind. If you want truth, then let go of the way you have been conditioned whether this condition is scientific or religious. Science is prone to change and so is religion. 

Just like you, I don't like it when I see that schools teach children the wrong kind of materia. But you have a next to nothing knowledge, just like basically every religious man, about religion and I think your opinion towards creationism is too simplistic. It makes you no better than the priest who has the arrogance to speak on behalf of God.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

All in Twilight said:


> Be careful here. You're putting words in my mouth and you pretend to know my beliefs. Don't speak on behalf of me.
> 
> Life is a state of mind. If you want truth, then let go of the way you have been conditioned whether this condition is scientific or religious. Science is prone to change and so is religion.
> 
> Just like you, I don't like it when I see that schools teach children the wrong kind of materia. But you have a next to nothing knowledge, just like basically every religious man, about religion and I think your opinion towards creationism is too simplistic. It makes you no better than the priest who has the arrogance to speak on behalf of God.


I was not speaking at all about what you yourself personally believe. Was not at all putting words in your mouth.

The only thing that I said that may be representing of what you said is the fact that ''science is not a [religion]''. And I only say that based off the very fact that that is what you said. Science very simply put, is *not* a religion, and to say otherwise just shows a great amount of ignorance on what science actually is.

Science is prone to change, by it's very nature it is willing to change it's aspect on something if it is shown to be wrong. However, religion does not share that same concept, and being that it just makes shit up to begin with, it's not at all willing to admit when it is wrong. It is pure bullshit, no way around it, sorry!The reason we are so against religion is because it has nothing to back up it's claims. So therefore there is NO reason to take it at all seriously. We are so against creationist and any other IDish claim is because they are so far fetched and they have no rational argument to even back up these claims. It's fucking non-sense. Sorry, but it's the same thing as trying to tell me there is a God of Ice Cream that will give us all very flavorable afterlifes because it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy for believing such nonsense that we couldn't imagine not believing it, because then we wouldn't be all warm and fuzzy inside.


----------



## SwordsmanBudo (Nov 19, 2012)

Comparing this to child abuse is absurd IMO. I would definitely agree such parents could be neglecting their child's education but I disagree on calling this abuse. And besides with information being so freely available these days it just takes a bit of curiosity to overcome such ignorance.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Roland787 said:


> I was not speaking at all about what you yourself personally believe. Was not at all putting words in your mouth.
> 
> The only thing that I said that may be representing of what you said is the fact that ''science is not a [religion]''. And I only say that based off the very fact that that is what you said. Science very simply put, is *not* a religion, and to say otherwise just shows a great amount of ignorance on what science actually is.
> 
> Science is prone to change, by it's very nature it is willing to change it's aspect on something if it is shown to be wrong. However, religion does not share that same concept, and being that it just makes shit up to begin with, it's not at all willing to admit when it is wrong. It is pure bullshit, no way around it, sorry!The reason we are so against religion is because it has nothing to back up it's claims. So therefore there is NO reason to take it at all seriously. We are so against creationist and any other IDish claim is because they are so far fetched and they have no rational argument to even back up these claims. It's fucking non-sense. Sorry, but it's the same thing as trying to tell me there is a God of Ice Cream that will give us all very flavorable afterlifes because it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy for believing such nonsense that we couldn't imagine not believing it, because then we wouldn't be all warm and fuzzy inside.


You missed my point here. Religion is a concept misunderstood by too many and you follow the guidelines of the people who claim that these misunderstandings are truths: a false form creationism. And this false form should not be taught in schools. 

But...and this is the thing, I think it's more important to teach children to think for themselves instead of pushing some facts down their throats. Empiricism is nice but is also very flawed. Children should be given the choice to choose their own conditioning and we should supply them with the right tools to make their decision as truthful as possible. So *how* can we know is more important than *what* do we know to keep it simple right now.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

I'll go a step further and say that any religious indoctrination at an early age is child abuse.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Yeah because obviously we must misinform our children based on some fundamental misconceptions of what science really explains and since some very stupid/ignorant people choose not to believe that which science shows to be right, we must give them the same credibility and respect that we give to those with other very stupid and ignorant ideas.....yeah, again, I know I'm an asshole for saying this....but fuck religion and those who are so religious that they are willing to be stupid enough to buy into this simpleton bullshit that has no credibility whatsoever....yeah....you're an idiot....


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> I'll go a step further and say that any religious indoctrination at an early age is child abuse.


I'd go a step FURTHER and say teaching your child anything is child abuse!


----------



## Jetsune Lobos (Apr 23, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> I'd go a step FURTHER and say teaching your child anything is child abuse!



_*OBJECTION!*_

Wait, what?


----------



## Orion (Jan 25, 2011)

our society has become so technologically based that you really can’t be a fully operating citizen unless you understand basic science. How are you supposed to make judgements about the health of your children if you don’t believe in science? How are you supposed to make a judgement about a generation of fuel and power if you don’t believe in science? You can’t operate as a sensible voting member of a democratic society these days unless you understand fundamental scientific principles to a degree.
–	Brian Cox and Robin Ince interview the legend himself, David Attenborough


----------



## Adversary (Dec 5, 2012)

All in Twilight said:


> You missed my point here. Religion is a concept misunderstood by too many and you follow the guidelines of the people who claim that these misunderstandings are truths: a false form creationism. And this false form should not be taught in schools.
> 
> But...and this is the thing, I think it's more important to teach children to think for themselves instead of pushing some facts down their throats. Empiricism is nice but is also very flawed. Children should be given the choice to choose their own conditioning and we should supply them with the right tools to make their decision as truthful as possible. So *how* can we know is more important than *what* do we know to keep it simple right now.


Explain how Empiricism is "very flawed".


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Adversary said:


> Please explain how Empiricism is "very flawed".


I already did. How as in opposition to what. Empiricism is sensory based so this means that many conclusions we draw are based on missing evidence as well. And we can't know if we have missed out on that sensory based evidence. That missing evidence can be sensory evidence but also theoretical evidence. So we can never be sure if the outcome is true or not. And then we haven't even analyzed the data yet. Empiricism has the potential to be useful right now but its conclusions are never universal. At least...so far.

Empiricism is just a reaction on...and should be utilized with care. 

So when it comes to what is the right education for children, I can't follow the laws of Empiricism. It would be pointless.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> I'll go a step further and say that any religious indoctrination at an early age is child abuse.


I'm afraid I kinda have to agree with that other guy that this is sorta overly broad. I'm not sure how a religious person is supposed to raise a child without "indoctrinating" them somehow, or how any parent can raise a child without "indoctrinating" them in some fashion. Obviously abusive brainwashing type stuff is bad of course.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

"Teaching creationism: it's a form of child abuse"
"Anti-science is Child abuse"


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> I'll go a step further and say that any religious indoctrination at an early age is child abuse.


Any kind of indoctrination is bad, not just religious.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Shahada said:


> I'm afraid I kinda have to agree with that other guy that this is sorta overly broad. I'm not sure how a religious person is supposed to raise a child without "indoctrinating" them somehow, or how any parent can raise a child without "indoctrinating" them in some fashion. Obviously abusive brainwashing type stuff is bad of course.


Yes, I am kind of leery about sweeping statements like that as well.

Obviously parents will teach their children what they believe. 

And typically we give parents a lot of leeway to teach their children as they see fit. _Those _kids are the kids of _those _parents; we thus assume those kids are those parents' responsibilities, "the buck stops here" bottom-line in regards to those children.

There is a huge gray area in the middle between genius and stupidity, where the parents are teaching what they believe but aren't necessarily impacting the physical or emotional well-being of the kids. This kind of behavior to me has more of an impact on mental flexibility and accuity. Someone who is not an astonomer or scientists can function just fine in society and at their job believing the world is only 6000 years old, for example, and the parent is teaching what they are teaching (1) with good intent for their kids and (2) believing it to be true.

So I'm not going to call it abuse in the same sense as what it's being used here. If that is the case, we should also make it a criminal offense for parents to inadvertently teach their children that 2+2 = 7. Yes, it's illogical; and yes, it's incorrect; but no, it's not "abuse."

i think the problem relies more on the translation of HUGE long-term concepts figured out through data collected by non-obvious means, versus things that are easily observable. For example, simple science will say that water freezes at 32 F, give or take; that is observable, it's repeatable, it's visible and apparent, it's within the range of everyone's experience. So you don't really see religions trying to say otherwise; and if they did, the kid would soon figure out they were worong anyway.

But the age of the universe? No one really even understands where the number is coming from; they can't really witness the world "age" like that, and so they don't accept this big vast vague truth that flies counter to things they do experience daily.



SuperDevastation said:


> Any kind of indoctrination is bad, not just religious.


How do we define "indoctrination"?


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

@Jennywocky

Indoctrination is forcing beliefs/views and lies/half-truths onto others, that should be obvious.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

SuperDevastation said:


> Indoctrination is forcing beliefs/views and lies/half-truths onto others, that should be obvious.


Uh... apparently it isn't, because there's a substantial number of people who believe that something they are doing in this country is NOT indoctrination and another substantial number that believes it IS. Even in this thread.

That's a pretty big difference of opinion, so clarification is essential.

For my own kids, I let them hear the church teachings on things and explained what the rationale was, but also offered them other PoV ("some people believe [this], some believe [this]," etc), and then at a certain age no longer required them to attend any specific type of religious training. My ex is less open and has a different view of the degree something should be enforced/endorsed vs not. Oh well.

Let's face it, if we start at a blank slate, whatever you teach someone first will be the foundation/framing view they will then compare everything else to. But there's no way to get around the fact you need to teach people something they can then build on.


----------



## Morpheus83 (Oct 17, 2008)

Very simple  It's 'indoctrination' if somebody is 'teaching' something you dislike to others (who're considered 'dumb' or 'ignorant' by implication).

I don't really have a strong opinion on this matter -- but isn't this really a matter of what 'we' think is 'best' for all children?


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

Jennywocky said:


> Uh... apparently it isn't, because there's a substantial number of people who believe that something they are doing in this country is NOT indoctrination and another substantial number that believes it IS. Even in this thread.
> 
> That's a pretty big difference of opinion, so clarification is essential.
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter what people believe to be indoctrination or not what matters is whether or not it's true, if it isn't and is forced onto people as truth anyway that's indoctrination.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

SuperDevastation said:


> It doesn't matter what people believe to be indoctrination or not what matters is whether or not it's true, if it isn't and is forced onto people as truth anyway that's indoctrination.


So... let's clarify this:

If you teach a child (who isn't yet experienced or mentally mature) something, and they accept it (because that is what kids do, as they have no way to evaluate it yet), is that indoctrination?

We're not talking about adults here, who you can "force" to learn something. We're talking about kids who are still open and thus you're not really 'forcing' anything.


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

People push creationism onto the science curriculum, not out of a desire to give students a balanced worldview, but out of fear, fear that it will shatter the illusion which they tried so carefully to imprint onto the minds of their young ones. 

It scares me how many religious people I've met who, when the topic of faith arises, will just completely short-circuit the reasoning parts of their brain. The response can only be described as childlike. 

...and yes, I have also seen Christians/Muslims/w.e. openly embrace the idea of evolutionism and modern science, even if it does contradict their pre-conceived ideas. Unlike the above group however, these people have the rationality to realize that the problem does not lie with the science, nor does it the religion, but rather their _own_ _interpretation_ of religious texts X, Y and Z. 

And thus the open-minded theist lives on to see another day.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Jennywocky said:


> So... let's clarify this:
> 
> If you teach a child (who isn't yet experienced or mentally mature) something, and they accept it (because that is what kids do, as they have no way to evaluate it yet), is that indoctrination?
> 
> We're not talking about adults here, who you can "force" to learn something. We're talking about kids who are still open and thus you're not really 'forcing' anything.


I think it's crucial that we let kids explore as much as possible on their own without judging them. 

Kids are enlightened in a way. You give them something, they look at it without judgment (beautiful) and they will give it back to you. They are not attached to things during the first 4 years of their lives. They just don't understand this concept of possession. This changes however with experience. So...what is good experience? Perhaps they can learn faster through bad experience? It's hard to say really. I have a lot of bad experiences but I am happy that I have those....or not. Either way, I can never check.

When we get older, we have to learn through reason to let go of the way we have been conditioned and cultivated. We have to become children again *laughs* and that is emotionally and mentally very hard. 

I am not sure where I am going with this but maybe you can work something out here? xD


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

Jennywocky said:


> So... let's clarify this:
> 
> If you teach a child (who isn't yet experienced or mentally mature) something, and they accept it (because that is what kids do, as they have no way to evaluate it yet), is that indoctrination?
> 
> We're not talking about adults here, who you can "force" to learn something. We're talking about kids who are still open and thus you're not really 'forcing' anything.


Pushing so called facts onto others regardless of age and not caring they hold no truth is indoctrination.


----------



## Adversary (Dec 5, 2012)

All in Twilight said:


> I already did. How is in opposition to what. Empiricism is sensory based so this means that many conclusions we draw are based on missing evidence as well. And we can't know if we have missed out on that sensory based evidence. That missing evidence can be sensory evidence but also theoretical evidence. So we can never be sure if the outcome is true or not. And then we haven't even analyzed the data yet. Empiricism has the potential to be useful right now but its conclusions are never universal. At least...so far.
> 
> Empiricism is just a reaction on...and should be utilized with care.
> 
> So when it comes to what is the right education for children, I can't follow the laws of Empiricism. It would be pointless.


So Empiricism has "many flaws" simply because it could be wrong? I am not sure you understand much about Science if that is the case. Empiricism in the philosophy of science is quite different to the one used in general philosophy. The only assumption being made in Science is that the universe follows a set of rules. It is a fundamental requirement in Science that hypothesis and theories are to be tested against rather than concluded solely on intuition or revelation. It is actually essential for you to think for yourself and question others.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Adversary said:


> So Empiricism has "many flaws" simply because it could be wrong? I am not sure you understand much about Science if that is the case. Empiricism in the philosophy of science is quite different to the one used in general philosophy. The only assumption being made in Science is that the universe follows a set rules. It is a fundamental requirement in Science that hypothesis and theories are to be tested against rather than concluded solely on intuition or revelation. It is actually essential for you to think for yourself and question others.


I knew it was leading to this. I am not going there. This topic is not about about feeding your ego and correcting others. That was the only reason you called me out and I wasn't in the mood to give you a definition of what empiricism really is. Books have been written about this and my post was made especially for Roland1987 because he is as sensor as a sensor can be. So I was merely trying to neutralize him.


----------



## Adversary (Dec 5, 2012)

I called you out only because you made it seem like Science exclusively followed the laws of empiricism. Forgive me for trying to correct a misconception.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

SuperDevastation said:


> Pushing so called facts onto others regardless of age and not caring they hold no truth is indoctrination.


yes, and I agree with that.

But that is not the type of parents we are discussing: The parents don't have to do any "pushing" because the kids are young enough to accept the information at face value, and the parents actually believe they are teaching their children the truth about the world, both factually and morally. They're not lying; WE just happen to believe that they are misinformed.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

All in Twilight said:


> I think it's crucial that we let kids explore as much as possible on their own without judging them.
> 
> Kids are enlightened in a way. You give them something, they look at it without judgment (beautiful) and they will give it back to you. They are not attached to things during the first 4 years of their lives. They just don't understand this concept of possession. This changes however with experience. So...what is good experience? Perhaps they can learn faster through bad experience? It's hard to say really. I have a lot of bad experiences but I am happy that I have those....or not. Either way, I can never check.


I tend to have mixed feelings too. The major problem I see is that parents are instilling the basis for their children's future experiences, so whatever they learn after that point will be filtered through the bad knowledge, and if the child is not naturally one who challenges what s/he is being taught, then the misinformation will persist until there is a cognitive dissonance moment, causing a great deal of distress.

There are some things that pain can teach us that we won't learn without hard experiences; at the same times, bad information can really mess up a kid. I wish I had had more exposure to varied views on faith when I was young; I searched them out as best as I could, but I ended up not really having access to counter information until my twenties, then had to work through all those contradictions; and all that time I spent doing that and could have done other things, I lost. Then again, I gained a deep understanding of faith vs agnosticism and whatever else, but it wasn't fun, and I don't know what would have been best. 

In any case, I think a parent has a responsibility to be there for the child, which means when you are there to guide and steer -- not dominate -- your child. So regardless of all these questions, a parent who is just trying to control a child without regard for truth or the child's natural self (to me) is not doing their job as a parent. 



> When we get older, we have to learn through reason to let go of the way we have been conditioned and cultivated. We have to become children again *laughs* and that is emotionally and mentally very hard.


That's very true. You kind of "let it all go" and become more open again. I mean, in the end, we can't retain anything anyway. A lot of life is about "letting go" in the end, and learning how to approach life as a child.


----------



## BlackMoonlight (Oct 16, 2012)

The effects of brainwashing kids often last a lifetime and leads them to be closed off to information that conflicts with their beliefs. It's the reason many people in this country are still ignorant about science and refuse to accept that humans are a product of evolution. It's a good question to ask if the kind of brainwashing that leads people to be misinformed about reality and not allow them to think freely is abusive. I think it's reasonable to say that it is.


----------



## Geodude (Nov 22, 2009)

I struggle with this, in honesty. I am very much an atheist, but dogmatic atheists annoy me. It would be just as legit, from their perspectives, for creationists to state that teaching evolution is a form of child abuse.

For me, teaching neither would be the worst option. More information is the best thing you can give children - give them the facts, the theories, the ideas, and let them develop their own views. Giving them a one sided account of a vexed issue is simply teaching them to be adults who fail to think for themselves.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

People speak of science as if they know it's extent. It is absurd that science is made a tool by ignorant & biased people to rule out any form of spirituality. We dwell but in the 3rd dimension, therefore our comprehension of the world is limited only to this dimension. 

Anyway the way I see it the cards have turned. Children are now giving their parents abuse. The way I see it parent & child are equally matched in the majority of cases. 

From where I'm standing, teaching our children that they came from apes & survival of the fittest is far worse for that shapes a twisted mentality in their impressionable minds. As far as I've dug into the theory of macro evolution which is being fed to our children I have discovered nothing but lies & biased nonsense. It is nothing more than a cunning mindset oppressed on our younger generations to keep them caged in a carnal reality so that they are easier to govern. The people who push these "facts" into text books don't even believe it themselves, but ofcoarse this is an absurd statement, for science cannot possibly be infiltrated with lies. Nobody would possibly want to use science as 

Science is being used as was religion in the dark ages to oppress & subvert the common man. It has been twisted & infiltrated & everybody is eating it up because it's "factual" & "proven" & science gives us medicine & pills & television & phones & what not. 

So yeah go ahead, slander creation as if science ever proved otherwise. Macro evolution doesn't count because you'd realise it is entirely unscientific if you'd actually bothered to study it for yourself rather than soak up what the textbooks have to say. The truth is our beginning is still a mystery, nothing has been proven yet. You either believe we were created by a God who exists far beyond this simplistic dimension or you believe over billions of years we evolved from rodents, birds, apes, cavemen & what not into the ignorant power-hungry fools we are today. Either way, saying that creation being taught to children is child abuse, well that is biased ignorance at best. Science isn't gonna help you out on that one, buddy.


----------



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

Gypsy said:


> You either believe we were created by a God who exists far beyond this simplistic dimension or you believe over billions of years we evolved from rodents, birds, apes, cavemen & what not into the ignorant power-hungry fools we are today.


I believe both? I mean, I don't think we evolved from birds or apes  but nobody does because that's not how it works. Now you're just embarrassing yourself.



> As far as I've dug into the theory of macro evolution which is being fed to our children I have discovered nothing but lies & biased nonsense. It is nothing more than a cunning mindset oppressed on our younger generations to keep them caged in a carnal reality so that they are easier to govern. The people who push these "facts" into text books don't even believe it themselves, but ofcoarse this is an absurd statement, for science cannot possibly be infiltrated with lies.


It's amazing how you believe yourself to be so enlightened on the subject of evolution, and yet you don't even seem to understand what it is. "As far as [you've] dug" can't have been very far, can it?


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

Raichu said:


> I believe both? I mean, I don't think we evolved from birds or apes  but nobody does because that's not how it works. Now you're just embarrassing yourself.


Macro-evolution I think you'll find does work that way. Micro-evolution is completely justified, this is what Darwin observed in the finches in his expedition to the Galapagos Islands, unfortunately however this sparked the torch of Macro-evolution. According to macro-evolution over a large timescale it is possible for one species to evolve into an entirely new species. Unlike micro-evolution that states that variants evolve within a species as a result of external influences such as climate, diet, environment, etc.

Modern man dates back to the primordial soup, where certain compounds formed microorganisms that developed into fish that turned into amphibians that grew legs & walked the earth as reptiles into dinosaurs & rodents & so forth. Then we come to primates who evolved into cavemen who were our earliest ancestors, gradually we became human, until we have the modern man of today.

If you're interested in the process of macro-evolution I would recommend Bill Bryson's award winning "A Short History of Nearly Everything" which depicts the timeline from the big bang to where we are today from an evolutionary PoV. It's pretty thorough in depicting the macro-evolutionary processes. 



Raichu said:


> It's amazing how you believe yourself to be so enlightened on the subject of evolution, and yet you don't even seem to understand what it is. "As far as [you've] dug" can't have been very far, can it?


Enlightened is being presumptuous. Perhaps my tone was condescending, I do not believe myself superior in anyway because of the beliefs I hold, if it came across that way I was in fault. As for how far I've dug, I can assure you I've dug allot further than anyone who defends evolution.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

SuperDevastation said:


> It doesn't matter what people believe to be indoctrination or not what matters is whether or not it's true, if it isn't and is forced onto people as truth anyway that's indoctrination.


 A metaphysical gun (Hell) held to someone's head can be just as effective as an actual gun.

Do you not find these methods disturbing?
Watch Jesus Camp online - Watch Movies Online, Full Movies, Download


----------



## Svensenberg (May 13, 2012)

Gypsy said:


> Macro-evolution I think you'll find does work that way. Micro-evolution is completely justified, this is what Darwin observed in the finches in his expedition to the Galapagos Islands, unfortunately however this sparked the torch of Macro-evolution. According to macro-evolution over a large timescale it is possible for one species to evolve into an entirely new species. Unlike micro-evolution that states that variants evolve within a species as a result of external influences such as climate, diet, environment, etc.
> 
> Modern man dates back to the primordial soup, where certain compounds formed microorganisms that developed into fish that turned into amphibians that grew legs & walked the earth as reptiles into dinosaurs & rodents & so forth. Then we come to primates who evolved into cavemen who were our earliest ancestors, gradually we became human, until we have the modern man of today.
> 
> ...


So... you're telling me that small changes in organisms do indeed occur over time within species as they adapt to new environments and changes in the environment, but that God has to come down from Heaven and magically create a new species each and every time one appears?

Seems legit.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

Svensenberg said:


> So... you're telling me that small changes in organisms do indeed occur over time within species as they adapt to new environments and changes in the environment, but that God has to come down from Heaven and magically create a new species each and every time one appears?
> 
> Seems legit.


What I'm saying is that God created adaptability(micro-evolution) within species in order for them to adapt to various environments, because He is very fond of variation & so that He wouldn't have to come down to create a new species "magically" every time that species died out.

Anyways could it not also be presumed that magic is simply undiscovered science? Or that it is science that is inaccessible within the 3rd dimension? Magic & contact with "otherworldly" entities has been very real through-out human history, only recently have we denied this phenomenon as nonsense.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> I'd go a step FURTHER and say teaching your child anything is child abuse!


I'd go a step BACK and say that _teaching_ isn't the problem.... forcing unquestioning agreement is.


----------

