The brits and Islam?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DasBoot

Moderator
I don't even want to start a discussion on this yet.
I've only heard this on the radio so I have no direct knowledge of it's veracity.
Have the Brits stopped teaching about the Holocaust because they fear it may enrage their Moslem population?:confused:
I'd HATE to think they would do that!:(
 
Thanks for the info.
So now it's not just a matter of teaching history.
They have to worry about certain people being "offended" by history.
Don't teach that Germany lost WWII because it might "offend " German kids.
Don't offend Japanese kids by teaching about their defeat.
Don't teach about the marauding Mongolian hordes and Ghengis Khan.
Might "offend" the Chinese kids.
How about Britsh colonialism?
Can't teach that.
Don't want to make the Britsh kids feel like bullies.
It also said the way the slave trade was taught could leave both white and black children feeling alienated.
Click to expand...
ANyone here feel alienated?
Teachers and schools avoid emotive and controversial history for a variety of reasons
Click to expand...
.
Isn't discussion about contoversial subjects a major part of good schooling?
"Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to individuals or groups in their classes.
Click to expand...
The damn PC liberals at work!
It cited another school which taught the Holocaust, but then avoided teaching the Crusades because "balanced treatment" of the topic would have challenged what some local mosques were teaching.
Click to expand...
Are they for real?
WHo cares what the mosque, or the church, or the synagogue, or any other place of worship is teaching.
Teach the history and if there are conflicting views, get it out in the open and discuss it.
Don't shy away from it!
What a bunch of crap!
Everybody, at some time or another, in some way, gets screwed in history.
Just teach the facts.
Too bad if someone gets "offended".
Hard to belive it's come to this.
Once again, the liberalism rears it's filthy head!
What the heck is happening to the Brits man?
I always thought they were a pretty tough, common sense country.:confused: :(
Next they'll be changing the names and race of the great discoverers and inventors of history just to make sure everybody feels included and happy:mad:
The Brits have lost it!
 
WHo cares what the mosque, or the church, or the synagogue, or any other place of worship is teaching.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a pretty direct parallel to teaching evolution here in the states. It ain't just the brits. . .
 
There are plenty of wackjob christians out there that don't want evolution taught in schools.
Click to expand...

But the difference is that evolution is still an UNPROVEN THEORY that whacko athiests want to be taught as fact.
The haulocaust was a real and verifiable historic event, so it should be remembered and taught in history classes.
Evolution, on the other hand, has many gaping holes in it's theory. There is not one single fossil record proving any one creature has evolved into or from another. The human genome project has revealed more scientific proof and data that the human race is much younger than the evolutionists have been claiming.
So if we stick to scientific data and verifiable facts, the human race is younger than 10,000 years old.
DNA evidence also revealed that ALL human races are direct descendants of one woman. Interesting that the scientific community decided to name her 'Eve'
 
"Those who ignore history and the lessons it teaches are doomed to repeat it..."

So who's ready for round 2 with all this crap?

Man, I am so sick of all the PC crap running the show. We aren't any better here in the US, make no mistake. It's gotten so rediculous that I'm considering pulling my son out of public schools all together and opting for home-schooling. At least that way he has a chance of learning a little reality instead of all this fantasy BS that's made its way through the school systems.

But the difference is that evolution is still an UNPROVEN THEORY
Click to expand...
So is "divine creation". At least evolution has solid scientific foundation to support it.

There is not one single fossil record proving any one creature has evolved into or from another.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you have absolutely no knowledge in the area of Historical Geology.
 
Thanks for the info.
So now it's not just a matter of teaching history.
They have to worry about certain people being "offended" by history.
Don't teach that Germany lost WWII because it might "offend " German kids.
Don't offend Japanese kids by teaching about their defeat.
Don't teach about the marauding Mongolian hordes and Ghengis Khan.
Might "offend" the Chinese kids.
How about Britsh colonialism?
Can't teach that.
Don't want to make the Britsh kids feel like bullies.
Click to expand...
Very true but it's also reminiscient of some hard line right wingers complaining that kids are being taught Jefferson owned - and did other things to - slaves, that the pioneers slaughtered natives of this land, that this country was built on the backs of people that were routinely treated like scum and that until this century most women were nothing more than property to those honorable Americans.

I agree with your point but let's not pretend that it's only liberals trying to squelch history.
 
But the difference is that evolution is still an UNPROVEN THEORY that whacko athiests want to be taught as fact.
Click to expand...
There is more data supporting evolution than there is supporting the events of the holocaust. Sorry but this is no different.
The haulocaust was a real and verifiable historic event, so it should be remembered and taught in history classes.
Evolution, on the other hand, has many gaping holes in it's theory. There is not one single fossil record proving any one creature has evolved into or from another. The human genome project has revealed more scientific proof and data that the human race is much younger than the evolutionists have been claiming.
So if we stick to scientific data and verifiable facts, the human race is younger than 10,000 years old.
DNA evidence also revealed that ALL human races are direct descendants of one woman. Interesting that the scientific community decided to name her 'Eve'
Click to expand...
With all due respect, the only people that push forth the opinions you just stated are ones that don't understand the science behind it. That mitochondrial even you mentioned lived 140,000 years ago, not 10,000. A grave misconception is the idea that she was the only female around at the time and that none of the other females of her time have descendants.
 
Mitochondrial DNA Mutation Rates have been observed to be 20 times faster than the original estimates. The estimates were incorrectly derived from evolution based science. Even the FBI acknowledged the original rates (Phylogenetic rates) were flawed and changed to the more accurate observed rate (Pedigree rate). (The FBI uses those rates in forensic science.)

The most accurate rates observed (with a 95% accuaracy by Columbia University) confirm the Phylogenetic rates were 20 times too slow. The more accurate observed rates (Pedigree rates) reveal a younger age for man; 6500 years.

Show me a link to a verifiable fossil record that substantiates evolution.

I can provide you with a dozen links substantiating the Mitochondrial DNA Mutation Rates that I have quoted.
 
The very idea that you think a single fossil record can substantiate a concept that inherently requires a long period of time is just hilarious.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

You can provide all the information you want about mitochondrial mutation rates but not a drop of it refutes the fact that human beings have been around for millions of years. I sure you don't also think the entire world is only 6500 years old...:eek:
 
How old do you think the earth is?

Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses infer that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 years (a). Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much (b-c). Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed their evolution that began a thousand million years ago.
a)"Analyses of Historical Data Suggest Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September, 1979, pp. 17-19.
b) David W. Dunham, et. al., "Observations of a Probable Change in the Solar Radius Between 1715 and 1979," Science, Vol. 210, December 12, 1980, pp. 1243-1245.
c) Irwin I. Shapiro, "Is the Sun Shrinking?", Science, Vol. 208, April 4, 1980, pp. 51-53
 
Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived.
Click to expand...

Assuming a linear rate of change, of course.
 
I can provide you with a dozen links substantiating the Mitochondrial DNA Mutation Rates that I have quoted.
Click to expand...

*sigh*, so you missed the part about the bottleneck hypothesis? If you are going to use science to try and prove whatever point you are trying to prove, you can't cherry pick.

As for fossil record, the fact that snakes have vestigial legs and other animals have vestigial organs (like, umm, humans) was noted by Darwin as evidence for evolution.
 
Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived.
Click to expand...
the double entendre there made my side hurt with laughter

edit: yay five more posts until I'm at 1776 :cool:
 
http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/heidelbergensis.html

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/video/Making.html

http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/newsandevents/n4_x.jsp?id=303

Ok, so here's a couple links I pulled from a quick search of human evolution. Draw your own conclusions about the depth of meaning they might imply, but I'd say with some level of experience that there is a great deal more to support the "theory" of evolution. How much can you provide for Divine Creation" that doesn't rely on simple faith?

whacko athiests
Click to expand...
This simple statement speaks volumes about your standpoint. Just bear in mind that such a label can be just as easily flipped around, and the recorded history that was the original point of discussion proves the extent that it can and has been correct at defining behaviors of extreme religious views.

Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived.
Click to expand...

WOW! You really need to take some courses in the area of physical science--especially chemistry, mineralogy, and geology according to this statement!
 
Assuming a linear rate of change, of course.
Click to expand...

Which is ridiculous for a sphere.

Besides, this was already debunked by tim-thomspson.com where there is the fun phrase as part of the refutation: "That's because they never published the paper, and later retracted their own results, a minor point that seems to have escaped the creationist gaze all these years."
 
All of Europe has been conquered by the Muslems.

It is over for the Europeans, they have been defeated, now it's just a matter of the Muslems officially taking over and cutting off the infidels heads. The Europeans were so afraid of offending someone, so PC, they allowed unchecked immigration and they have been taken over from within. The Spanish elected a Muslem friendly socialist gov't on command after the train bombings. There are large parts of France the police are forbidden to enter, due to Muslem threats and violence. The Brits crime rate is so high now, (the Brits voted in a socialist gov't which disarmed all law abiding citizens) it isn't safe any where except central London during the day time. None of the European countries have a real military. All of Europe's military's could combine and not be a real threat to anyone. But no matter, the threat that over took them was not external, it was their immigration and social welfare policies which inevitably caused the collapse of Europe. First Russia, then all of Europe. Canada and Australia are now on the brink. Next will follow America, if Americans do not stop being afraid offending someone, do not stop voting for liberals/socialists, and do not honor their 2nd Amendment freedoms. A strong 2nd Amendent is the first step in keeping America free.
 
Besides, this was already debunked by tim-thomspson.com where there is the fun phrase as part of the refutation: "That's because they never published the paper, and later retracted their own results, a minor point that seems to have escaped the creationist gaze all these years."
Click to expand...

Yeah, anytime I've bothered to look further into the supposed scientific evidence creationists present it's always either been cherry picked (and generally out of context) or previously debunked.

Evolution is just a theory, and that's all most public schools are looking to teach it as. It does have scientific evidence supporting it, though. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is simply religion dressed up as "science."

Though I have a feeling that if this continues to be nothing but an evolution/creation debate then it will quickly fall victim to lockitude for both being OT for the thread as well as being a religious debate (OT for the forum).

So can we instead (looking at A/C Guy) simply admit that both ends of the political spectrum, in many countries, enjoy monkeying with the curriculum of public schools to their own ends? Whether it's in science, history, health issues, whatever. This holds true even if we ignore evolution as an example.
 
Fundamentalism fun·da·men·tal·ism

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

------

This thread is the result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top