Obama Supports Sex Ed for Kindergartners
“Sex Ed for Kindergarteners ‘Right Thing to Do,’ Says Obama,” the headline at ABC News’ Political Radar blog, had the desired effect: It got me to click through.
ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is “age-appropriate,” is “the right thing to do.”
Shocking, right? Well . . . not so much.
When Obama’s campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers “age appropriate” for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had “moved to clarify” in his Senate campaign that he “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois’ sex education standards with ‘medically accurate’ information . . . ‘Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,’ Obama said. ‘If they ask a teacher ‘where do babies come from,’ that providing information that the fact is that it’s not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that’s going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'”
In addition to local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an “opt out” provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about “inappropriate touching,” according to Obama’s presidential campaign. Despite Obama’s support, the legislation was not enacted.
It’s a touchy subject, to be sure. Many parents would prefer to shelter their young children from any information about sexuality. On the other hand, given the ubiquity of sexual innuendo even on family friendly television shows and PG movies, kids are going to have questions. Do we want teachers lying to them? And, unfortunately, there are indeed perverts out there sexually abusing children.
Figuring out what’s “age appropriate” and incorporating that into the curriculum — or, at least, teacher training — strikes me as perfectly reasonable.
“If they ask a teacher ‘where do babies come from,’ that providing information that the fact is that it’s not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that’s going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards”
Local communities and school boards???…um, no. It should be up to the parents. Who better knows their kids?.
And exactly what sort of judgment are we expecting kindergartner’s to exercise with this information? Don’t these folks have children?
JJ – I always get confused – what exactly is your experience you’re drawing on for this discussion- I’m sorry is it zero? I have 3 kids who have been thru kindygarden and 1 going next yr – all in the public schools – since none of them have had science or biology in K2 what exactly would be the age appropriate way to teach sex ed in kindygarden?
I have children, and I don’t see the issue here.
I think the point of the legislation was to prevent the schools from providing false information to the children. I would have no problem if my child was told that “babies come from mommies”, but I wouldn’t be too thrilled if someone, especially a teacher, told him that “babies come from storks”.
Bandit, did you even read the rest of the post? Here’s the part that answers your question:
Honestly I think at the kindergarten level the appropriate response from a teacher on “where do babies come from” should be “why don’t you discuss that with your mom/dad/parents when you get home” unless the question is totally on topic.
But there are still age appropriate ways to provide accurate information to kindergarteners and way too much information ways-the problem with some groups is that in their aim to teach accurate information, they often go overboard into the general “too much information for that age level” direction.
At the kindergarten level, when it comes to issues of sex, sexuality, and where babies come from the conversation really should be at the individual level-and I personally like the “ask them what they think” method, and correcting misinformation as they reveal it without pulling out a copy of and 8th grade health book.
If the Right thinks they’ve got a great “gotcha” moment on Obama they better think again. There are reasonable ways to deal with some sexual topics without getting graphic or age-inappropriate. (I’d get around this by sending my kids to private school.) This isn’t deserving of a one day story.
With Obama keeping digging around his connection to Tony Rezko.
M –
Yeah – I did – and your response has nothing to do with my post. Presumably sex education implies reproductive biology – if the kids aren’t taught any sort of science or biology what would be the appropriate class to teach that in? Certain subjects aren’t taught in K1 -K2 1st grade not because parents want to ‘shield’ kids from it but because they aren’t developed enough to learn it. So apparently kids who aren’t cognitively develpoped enough to learn science will be now because it’s reproductive biology? Sounds like ideology trumping education.
With this issue, AGAIN, Democrats want GOVERNMENT to do what typical Americans should be doing for themselves. These schoolteachers are Government Employees, and they are not responsible for the sex education of kindergartners! This issue just sickens me. Besides all that, they are not old enough, nor is that type of ‘education’ relevant for them.
If a kindergartner teacher is asked, he/she should say, “Good question, you should ask your parent/guardian.”
I think the point of the legislation was to prevent the schools from providing false information to the children. I would have no problem if my child was told that “babies come from mommies”, but I wouldn’t be too thrilled if someone, especially a teacher, told him that “babies come from storks”.
“”It’s a touchy subject, to be sure””
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Now, I don’t care WHO you are,Now that right there’s FUNNY! That is!
Maybe you read it, but you did not comprehend it. It was a bill about sexual education from k-12, obviously it wasn’t going to teach high-school biology in kindergarten. But 5 year olds can still understand that babies come from “mommies” and not storks, and they can understand what “inappropriate touching” is, just like they understand “stranger danger”. Don’t freak out just because it involved genitals.
Again, read the article and you will see that they are not teaching them about sex!
Why? What is it about babies that is so horrifying to you that you don’t want anybody else talking to your kids about it?
I would be against that for the same reason I’m against telling them babies come from storks, because humans evolved from apes, not monkeys.
Humans ARE apes, right? Part of the ape family?
The reasons I don’t like sex-ed for kindergarteners is it takes all the fun and imagination out of it. And ok, the horror. I remember us thinking babies came from stomachs, which meant they shared space with all that mashed up food…
“If a kindergartner teacher is asked, he/she should say, “Good question, you should ask your parent/guardian.””
Presumably, that’s what would be said to a child whose parents selected the “opt out” provision mentioned in the article which you claim to have read. So if, indeed, that’s what you want said to your child, simply opt out, and you’re golden. Meanwile, if *my* daughter (who’ll be attending kindergarten in two years) asks her teacher the question, I’d like it answered honestly, in an age-appropriate fashion. So I *wouldn’t* opt out, and I’d also be golden. Everybody wins! My child gets her question answered (like I want) and your child gest ignorance (like you want).
I really don’t see what the problem is.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
I’m always amazed that so many people are aghast at the thought of public schools teaching sex education to kids yet have no problem with public schools teaching kids about religion.
“”Humans ARE apes, right? Part of the ape family?””
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Some sure seem to be![lol]
Get your story straight,evolutionists claim that Humans are primates. an order with flexible hands and feet, each with five digits. this includes, humans, great apes, monkeys and lemurs.
Shucks this stuff is so simple “Even a caveman can do it”[lol]
Important,you are not allowed to count cartoons since they only have four digits.[grinz]
Micheal; get your [non]theology straight!
Kids? I have two kids about to enter 12th and 5th grade respectively, and there are age appropriate things each of them needs to be taught regarding sex. But I’m still struggling with exactly what is age appropriate for a five year old. Anybody want to offer some specific examples or does this have to remain in the realm of the theoretical where it is easy to hurl epithets at the foolish ideas and beliefs of others.
“I’m still struggling with exactly what is age appropriate for a five year old. Anybody want to offer some specific examples or does this have to remain in the realm of the theoretical where it is easy to hurl epithets at the foolish ideas and beliefs of others.”
Well, just off the top of my head, I think it might be age-appropriate to tell a five year old that his/her body belongs to himself/herself, and that everyone’s bodies are different and unique and that’s okay. It might also be age-appropriate to tell a kindergartner that it’s it’s not okay for anyone else (besides his/her mom or dad) to touch him/her on a part of his/her body where the swimsuit covers, and if that happens he/she should say no and tell his/her mom and dad.
I think it might also be age-appropriate to tell a kindergartner that a baby comes from inside his/her mommy’s belly, not from a stork or from the cabbage patch. And I might (*MIGHT*) also consider telling a kindergartner who proceeds to ask how the baby got into the mommy’s belly that it happened when the baby’s mommy and daddy made a special hug that only grown-ups can make with each other.
I currently have a two year old daughter, and I’d be fine with an adult telling her any of those above things *now*, let alone when she’s five. That said, I understand that there are probably parents of young ones who feel differently, which is why it would be important to allow such parents/children to “opt out” of such a program. Luckily, according to this article, the program in question (the one Obama apparently supported) included just such an allowance.
Which, to me, makes all of this about nothing.
Anyway, you asked, so an answer. *My* answer, anyway.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
We already start sex education sooner than kindergarten, anyway. Otherwise, how do the boys and girls know which restroom to use? When you teach your kids that there’s a difference between boys and girls–without even explaining biologically what that means–you’re beginning an age-appropriate version of sex ed.
Anyone claiming that this is leading to teaching kindergarten kids about sexual reproduction either didn’t read the story, or didn’t comprehend it. I don’t like Obama, but this is certainly an attempt to create an issue where there isn’t one.
Teaching our children theory as fact is a lie.
Floyd, that’s good, but I would lean more to some of us coming from the jackass instead of the ape, there is non-theory type evidence for that.
Patrick, let me first say that I believe we all agree on the need to protect and educate children, which is more important than any disagreements we may have on how best to do so. Thanks for your comments, because I sincerely do want to know what others believe is appropriate.
Aren’t these things entirely true and teachable outside of a sex education curriculum?
A fair point, but is this sex education or basic edcuation protection not dissimilar from don’t take candy from strangers or get in the car with someone you don’t know? It is hard to explain, but I think kids develop a sense that some things are wrong before they fully comprehend why they are wrong. I also worry that much discussion at this age about sex may tend to produce false positives that can be terribly damaging to people’s lives.
I agree that there’s no need to lie, but isn’t there a difference between answering a question and having a curriculum to teach this to 5 year olds? With respect to opting out I think it is too hard on the faculty and administration to have to remember what can be said or taught to which kid, and to avoid any aspersions being cast because a kid’s parent does or doesn’t approve. Hopefully, kids won’t be segregated into classes of “believers” and “non-believers” of this pedagogy. Anyway, if you tell it to some of the kids, you can be assured that the others are going to get it as well, only second or third hand, so misinformation is probably the rule rather than the exception for those kids whose parents opted-out.
The decisions my wife and I have made in sheltering our children from and exposing our children to the bad things in the world is something I struggle with as a theoretical and practical matter all the time. When to introduce them, scare them, challenge them, whatever verb you want to topics ranging from sexual predators to the full gamut of drug abuse is something that doesn’t have easy, simple answers and varies from kid to kid. As you’ll discover, innocence is lost soon enough as it is. Needless to say, I think such tutelage should come a little later than 5 years old when the state is administering it, but your mileage may vary.
Good luck and enjoy each and every age.
When we were a more agrarian society, there was never a question of physiological sex education. It was obvious to the casual observer of animal behavior on the farm.
The real question , then and now, was whether human sexuality should have a further element of morality attached to standards of conduct.
Throughout human history the answer has been a resounding..YES!
Today it seems to be a resounding.. HUH??
No human endeavor can be pursued in a moral vacuum. Therein lies our present conundrum.
We simply do not have consensus as to who has the moral standing to implant the standards of the next generation.
Monkeys are not apes, and neither apes nor humans evolved from the simian branch that monkeys belong to. Yes, humans are apes, which doesn’t necessarily invalidate my claim that humans evolved from apes and not monkeys, since “apes” is a large category of which humans evolved from only a small portion thereof, and since, as mentioned above, monkeys are on a different evolutionary branch.
Evolution is taught as a theory, evolution is taught as a fact. That is appropriate for both cases.
Michael;
Take it up with “Webster’s New World Dictionary” from which the above is drawn directly. Or Wells, or Pfeiffer, or any Evolutionist, Heck I’m only quoting your theory!
There seems to be some confusion about a few scientific points here.
Humans are members of the Order Primate, Superfamily Hominoidea, Family Hominidae (great apes), and in the subfamily Homininae which includes gorillas, chimps and humans.
To say
in response to
amounts to saying get your story straight, geometricians claim that squares are quadrilaterals not rectangles.
A question for those of you who have a problem with evolution being taught in public schools. Do you also have a problem with children in public schools being taught about the theory of gravity, electromagnetism, plate tectonics etc? These are after all ‘just’ theories.
I think it might also be age-appropriate to tell a kindergartner that a baby comes from inside his/her mommy’s belly, not from a stork or from the cabbage patch.
Except that this also isn’t really true either.
It is probably enough, but if we introduce a curriculum that says “a baby comes fro inside it’s mommyu’s belly” you are going to then beg the two other questions “How did it get in there?” and “How does it come out?” So what is your suggested age appropriate curriculum for answering these two questions.
See, I am just not seeing the need for a specific sex education curriculum, and I think most sex, sexuality oriented questions really should be referred on an individual basis to the parents. I don’t see the need for large group, curriculum based instruction on these issues.
Floyd, I’ll concede then that “ape” isn’t the best word for me to use, since it’s definition seems to be rather imprecise. So I’ll take Grewgills’ hint and instead say that “monkeys” are not “Hominoidea”.
It’s true enough, it’s falsehood is in the details, not the concept. And from working with children that age, I can tell you that most of the time those questions will not be asked. Usually a single direct answer to their question is enough, they tend to accept it and move on.
no, no, and yes, but this is why, most are not presented as such. And because they are presented as fact and the proper why to think, its called indoctrination.
so with your logic then what about creation, to you its just a theory?
..and I’m not sure what in the great blue hell your talking about but for some reason I think it supports my theory on liberal indoctrination.
Creationism is not a theory, it’s a belief. It makes no predictions and offers no means of validation. It’s simply a statement of belief, there is no science involved.
Evolution (with the capital letter E) is the name of the theory describing the mechanisms (or rather collections of mechanisms) that drive evolution (lowercase e), which is an observable event and therefore fact.
This is very similar to how Gravitation (capital G) is the theory that describes the mechanisms that drive gravity (lowercase g), which is an observable event and therefore fact.
“”[1]Creationism is not a theory,[2] it’s a belief. [3]It makes no predictions and offers no means of validation…..[4]there is no science involved
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
[1]I certainly agree with this assertion!
[2]True,as far as it goes.
[3]Of course it does,Michael, you just don’t believe the Author, or recognize the realm of the spirit.
[4] Right, because science is simply the study of Creation!
I know I shouldn’t, I know this is going nowhere, but what the heck, you did say something good on the animal cruelty thread, so I’ll humor you.
[3]What predictions does creationism make that we can test, retest, and use as the basis for further predictions? How would we go about proving those predictions wrong?
[4]By “no science involved” of course I meant that it doesn’t use the scientific method either to derive isn’t conclusion, or to support it’s conclusion.
What is your problem with plate tectonics?
Scientific theories ate presented as theories. Virtually every science class I’ve attended or taught up to and including first year university courses began with an explanation of the scientific method and a full description of what is meant by hypothesis, theory, and law. The factual evidence for theories is presented as fact which is entirely appropriate.
It seems that you did not pay attention to this part of your science courses.
Once my son was able to speak, I explained his body to him. I advised him that no one should touch him and he shouldn’t touch any one else in the private areas. He was taught to scream ‘No and don’t touch me there.” As he got older, I gave him a little more information. There are too many children getting molested because they don’t know about their bodies and what’s off limits. We keep sheltering our kids thinking they won’t find out about sex until they ask us those inappropriate and embarrassing questions in mixed company. It may not happen in your households, but as a Social agency volunteer, I’ve seen girls as young as eight-years-old get pregnant.
My only requirement is that the parents participate in the conversation and creation of any materials that the children will be provided. Think about the last time you initiated a talk with your child about sex and reproduction.
what tests do you have for evolution, bigger E or smaller e that are worth their weight in basic single cell organisms?
ok if you say so.
Some reading for you
Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). “Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?”. Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 19 (3): 111—4.
*Weinberg JR, Starczak VR, Jorg, D (1992). “Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory”. Evolution 46 (4): 1214—20.
and a rather basic overview 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
I do. Do you have any evidence that this is not sop in most science classes?
The parental “opt out” provision is only as valid as the district the child is being taught in. In Boulder High School (Boulder, Colorado) children were required to report to the auditorium to hear panelist tell them that it was ok to have sex with multiple partners, no matter the sex and to experiment with drugs, and that you don’t need your parents input or need to feel love to have sex acts.
Comments such as:
I’m going to encourage you to have sex, and I’m going to encourage you to use drugs appropriately,†panelist Joel Becker, a Los Angeles clinical psychologist, told the students. “And why I am going to take that position is because you’re going to do it anyway.â€
were common throughout this assembly.
All a pedophile for example needs is an experienced child to satisfy a sick fantasy. That pedophile prevention excuse by Obama is just as bad as jobs Americans won’t do. This is the mark of a disturbed presidential candidate that believes the government should control the sexual upbringing of a child instead of its parents, or basically deprive a child an essential part of natural evolution and discovery of ones own being.
Michael;
Think of it this way for a moment,
The scientific method can show you the “clockwork”[a metaphor for the mechanics of the natural world]
Faith, will show you “what time it is”[a metaphor for understanding the spiritual world.]
You are a spirit. You have a soul. You live in a body.
You are blind to the existence of God because the only eyes you have are those of science. Science is limited the study of that which was created.
A thorough autopsy of a “clock” will not by itself prove the existence of “time”
Now, whether this “goes” anywhere, in terms of your understanding is up to you.
Grew, I said prof not the latest thing you have to keep your faith in Evolution going because all of you old prof was ether shown to to be wrong or fabricated.
please read this again, you have missed my point, you liberals sure like the small print at the bottom of the contract,even when its the meaningless way at the beginning of a class to cover for teaching your theory as the truth.
I said to people like you its a theory not a belief like as to me Evolution is a belief not a theory, ect.ect.ect….
and you people practice scientific materialism not science.
it is not measured as such, it is the word of God, its truth is measured by Revelation in the Scriptures that has come to pass showing Gods word to be true, and on the other hand true science is to study of the workings of Gods creation. the way you test Evolution is perfect, I think this because it always disproves your theory and gives evidence to my belief, I think that might not be the answer you where looking for but its the only scientific way to look at it .
Grewgills;
Now that we have thoroughly explored two of my three points in response to Phoebe’s comment, what about the most important one?
What about CARTOONS? Do they descend from primates, or is it an “emergence” as Pfeiffer put it? or maybe it is ascension??
After all,complex art and humor proofs humanity?
Right?
Just out of curiosity, how is it that evolution is incompatible with the design of an all-powerful creator? In other words, why are the devout Christian scientists (not Christian Scientists, necessarily) who insist that they are studying God’s creation wrong to believe in evolution, as so many of them do?
GA,
No, you said,
The article references provided and the link provided some answers for the question asked. I am guessing that you read none of it.
Regarding your new question, the business of science is not absolute proof that our current theory is correct. Rather we constantly test and refine our theories moving on to new theories that offer better explanations for the available evidence when an earlier theory is disproven.
Students are taught and retaught every year what is meant by the terms hypothesis, theory, and scientific law (though you don’t seem to have learned those definitions). Theory is taught as theory and factual evidence in support of theory is taught as fact. You may not like the facts, but facts they are. The theories taught are the best explanations that conform to scientific method we have available to explain those facts.
The scientific method is responsible for the rapid advance of science in technology in our recent history. Presumably you have little problem with its results that don’t cast doubt on a literal reading of Genesis.
The difference being, I have provided evidence you have provided only your opinion.
Patently untrue. Provide any evidences that you think support this assertion.
Floyd,
I only count two points you try to make in that post. First that humans are primates rather than apes. They are both. and
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Do you think that since humans can create things that they must be created?
To which Pfeiffer do you refer?
They are among the shifting elements used to differentiate humans from other animals. Previous proofs were tool use, understanding of null states, and language. The first two have been shown in other animals and there is some evidence of the third.
Billy,
I think that depends on whether you read the Bible as literal fact or as allegorical truth.
well in the first place ether you believe the word of God of you believe what it means to you. In the second place you can not date any thing beyond recorded history.
wrong I have read and am still reading more of it and it is exactly what I said it was, and not prof.
for some reason you still have missed my point about indoctrination, I wonder why, maybe its because you have been Indoctrinated?
the whole theory of Evolution was was based of the “fact” that things started out simple and over great amounts of time became complex, wrong, so where is your continuation of this theory with the evidence that has disproved it getting any of us, you ask me to provide evidence, I give you yours.
The only thing I see evolving around here is your theory of Evolution.
“” I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Do you think that since humans can create things that they must be created?””
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Grewgills;
OH!!!!!PULEEEASE! It was levity for the purpose of perspective. Sorry you missed that.
“”After all,complex art and humor proofs HUMANITY?”” Right?
BTW; plenty of humans have no humanity! {or apparently no sense of humor.}[lol]
So did you also think that I considered the lack of a fifth digit a dis-qualifier for cartoons?[grinz]
Would it be accurate of me to translate this as saying you believe in the Bible as literal fact rather than allegorical truth?
Incorrect again. There are several methods of dating things beyond recorded history among them the decay of C14 for anything organic that is less than about 60,000 years old.
You asked for evidence and I provided evidence. You have provided nothing other than your belief. If you demand absolute proof you will never be satisfied with anything provided by science. After all I cannot absolutely prove that when you flip the switch to turn on your lights it is not magical undetectable fairies that create light in your home. I can provide you with evidence that it is the result of supplying electrical current to whatever type of light bulb you use and that in turn either exciting a gas or filament, but I can’t prove absolutely its not the fairies.
Webster’s defines indoctrinate as
1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
By the first definition certainly there is rampant indoctrination in schools.
Incorrect yet again. That is a conclusion of the theory for which there is considerable evidence. You have provided exactly zero evidence to disprove or even dispute it.
So what of, for instance, an Orthodox reading of Genesis whereby it can be understood allegorically? For instance, the length of a “day” might be numbered in billions of years considering that the sun, by which our time is reckoned, was not created until the fourth such “day.â€
What is our understanding of time and the cosmos to God, anyway? Is it your position that you have the only window into the divine, and that you know better than anyone else what exactly God is and thinks?
Grewgills,
G.A.Phillips is a waste of conversation, no amount of fact or evidence will every convince him that he is wrong about anything. You’ve probably already guessed that, so I’m just reaffirming it.
*****So what of, for instance, an Orthodox reading of Genesis whereby it can be understood allegorically? For instance, the length of a “day” might be numbered in billions of years considering that the sun, by which our time is reckoned, was not created until the fourth such “day.†So what of, for instance, an Orthodox reading of Genesis whereby it can be understood allegorically? For instance, the length of a “day” might be numbered in billions of years considering that the sun, by which our time is reckoned, was not created until the fourth such “day.†*****
that’s because you think evolutionary, and God speaks and creates at will in what ever order pleases him.
*****Would it be accurate of me to translate this as saying you believe in the Bible as literal fact rather than allegorical truth?****
yes.
*****What is our understanding of time and the cosmos to God, anyway? Is it your position that you have the only window into the divine, and that you know better than anyone else what exactly God is and thinks?****
Billy that is the exact evolutionary indoctrinated way of looking at things that I have been trying to warn you about, you can see it no other way, When God tells you six days he means six days when he tells you he rested on the 7Th day he means he rested on the 7Th day. The concept of what time means to God is a humanists way of trying to think for God, God always says what he means by time In different parts of Scripture.
*****Incorrect again. There are several methods of dating things beyond recorded history among them the decay of C14 for anything organic that is less than about 60,000 years old.****
wrong, and wrong, but even if it did, you have nothing to compare it with that you know for sure that is that old so what again do I have to prove to you?
******You asked for evidence and I provided evidence. You have provided nothing other than your belief. If you demand absolute proof you will never be satisfied with anything provided by science. After all I cannot absolutely prove that when you flip the switch to turn on your lights it is not magical undetectable fairies that create light in your home. I can provide you with evidence that it is the result of supplying electrical current to whatever type of light bulb you use and that in turn either exciting a gas or filament, but I can’t prove absolutely its not the fairies.*****
and I told what your evidence was worth and that it was not prof, not for you any way.
*****Webster’s defines indoctrinate as
1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
By the first definition certainly there is rampant indoctrination in schools.******
forgive me I should have said liberal indoctrination.
*****Incorrect yet again. That is a conclusion of the theory for which there is considerable evidence. You have provided exactly zero evidence to disprove or even dispute it.****
OK Ill give you that but, what conclusion of this theory, your time aspect is unprovable, your mutation aspect has as been proved wrong, your simple cell aspect has been proved wrong, most of your original evidence was shown to have been fabricated, most of the good evidence that you have stumbled across has shown not a common ancestor but a common creator. But yet, as your theory evolves and morphs again and again, it still must be the right and the only acceptable way to think?
If your would try to use just a little common sense you will see that I am not trying to argue what you think to be your science with you but trying to get you to see what you believe in as a one of your faiths, not to mention having a little fun alone the way.
****G.A.Phillips is a waste of conversation, no amount of fact or evidence will every convince him that he is wrong about anything. You’ve probably already guessed that, so I’m just reaffirming it.****
oh I have been wrong many a time, mostly when I used to think and live my life like a liberal, but what would it matter to you if it was right or wrong, as I have surrendered to the notion that it is imposable to win an argument with a liberal.
C14 decomposes at a constant rate just as other radioactive isotopes. You would presumably trust the science regarding radioactive decay when it came to the dangers surrounding a dirty bomb. The science is the same. C14 has been used to date things that are within recorded history and so has accurate comparisons in that way as well.
The time aspect has considerable evidence in support of it. You have not disproven anything. Provide the evidence you believe disproves the ‘mutation aspect’ and the ‘simple cell aspect.’ Please also provide the evidence that most of the relevant evidence was fabricated.
I have faith in reason, you obviously place little stock in reason.
Re: literal reading
How do you explain away the contradictions inherent in reading this text literally?
Even the three tellings of the birth of Christ have substantive differences and there are different versions of who he presented himself to first after the resurrection just to name a couple.
Well, most of the priests and theologians with whom I’ve studied would beg to differ, but what do they know? I guess they’re going to hell too.
More questions for GA.
Did Moses see God face to face?
Does God lie either directly or through proxies?
Who killed Goliath and how?
How did Saul die?