29% of UK teachers favor teaching creationism

Are you mistaking the white settlers who came to an accord with the Crown for the indigenous peoples who's societies were smashed to bits?ABE: sorry, miss read your last post and are not making the above mistake. My appologies.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

What you said and what I took objection to was this; What I am trying to get through to you is that the end of Empire is not even remotely sad. The Empire, for all the good you might find to say about it, was deeply unethical and immoral. It stands as a giant blot upon my nation's copybook. I find it distasteful that you should seek to downplay this or portray it as some sort of lost halcyon age. Pious, naive fantasizing. The Empire wasn't founded on some nebulous blessings Faith, it was founded on guns and ships. Glory to God for his bounteous blessings of firearms and warships! Praise him for granting us with the power to kill and enslave people more efficiently than they can resist! Praise Jesus and pass the ammunition!If God ever did bless my country, then the Empire was part of the process of squandering that blessing, not a result of it. Its loss is not sad. Rather, we should celebrate the independence of former colonies. Can't you see that claiming those places as "colonies" and those people as "subjects" was a wrong in and of itself, regardless of how they were subsequently treated? Fair enough, but saying that we were the "least nasty conquerors" is a little bit like calling someone the "tallest midget". Fair enough. Those are weasel words. Those people regarded themselves as True Christians every bit as much as you do. But I know what you're going to say; they weren't filled with the Christian spirit. Well all I can say is that you've changed your tune. In your first post you bemoaning their loss. now you accuse them of not showing Christian spirit. Well which is it?

​

and possibly India could have evolved into something similar to Canada or Australia in their relations with their conquerors.

​

a) How highly do you think the Native Australians regard their conquest? Or the indigenous peoples of Canada? How grateful do you think they are for genocide?

​

b) India and the UK have a pretty good relationship actually, as we do with many Commonwealth countries. The Empire is in the past for the most part. I just don't think that making apologetics for it is any way to improve those relations. Any culture must own up to its past misdeeds and the Empire is certainly one of Britain's, just as the genocide of indigenous peoples is one of America's. You shouldn't be viewing it through rose-tinted glasses.

​

Mutate and Survive

But that isn't what you said is it.

No more immoral than it is today. It is just immoral in different areas. I would say that the british common folk are vastly more immoral than their ancestors during the times of colonialism.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

What makes you conclude that?

The average posting on this forum from people from the UK. The way you people think and your standards of morality and your lack of belief in God are horrible.

Yeah, sure there's less slave-trading, less genocide, less child labor, a lower crime rate, and the age of consent is no longer 10, but the standard of morality of posters on internet forums has gone way down since the colonial era. Why, back in the eighteenth century if you called someone a "conceited jackanapes" on a discussion board the moderators would ban you immediately for caddish behavior. O tempora, o mores! Let's bring back that good old Christian era when a God-fearing Englishman could exterminate a nation of defenseless aborigines for a little light exercise before enjoying tea, crumpets, and sex with a 10-year-old --- and no-one ever disagreed with you on the Internet.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, I can be rude that way, but even when I'm not, which was the case for long periods of posting at EvC, the level of animosity was no different. I've always been blown away by the level of animosity here, no matter what I say it seems. It's kind of fascinating really.Sole arbiter? Only if you don't count all the authority I lean on, which is not represented at EvC.Sorry about Geology, sometimes I just let it all hang out. Sometimes I try to be polite about it, and I do admire the British creationist in that link I posted a couple times now, who is very respectful toward establishment Geology. I suppose he has to be since he's one of them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, look, we believe the opposite of almost all of that, but we don't find your insistence at all rude or offensive. What's rude about a full-throated defense of one's position? Right or wrong, people are entitled to make the best case for their views.That's what I've never really understood about you, Faith, how you take it so personally that we hold unapologetically to a different view than you do, like it's just something we do to piss you off. I don't get that. My conclusions that the Bible is not the word of God - that there is no such thing as God - and that evolution is the scientific explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth are conclusions I held long before we ever met. What on Earth do they have to do with you, and why would telling you that my conclusions are different than yours be something for you to take offense about?

I haven't said disagreement constitutes animosity. I also haven't said I take the animosity personally. Now I forget where this trend of the conversation started but that's the way communication seems to go. I answer a question, somebody thinks I'm declaring something, I use a word that implies something other than I meant or whatnot, I have to go back and straighten out some kind of strange misreading and on it goes. I've at times lost my temper over things said here but generally I don't think I take any of it PERSONALLY. I'm blown away by the animosity, but that's as much amazement as an amotional reaction. The *moral indignation* level here is astonishing, getting up on one's moral high horse to denounce this that or the other, really quite astonishing. Needless to say I most often don't share the moral standard being applied, but that's another subject. Where DID this topic begin anyway? The animosity bit? I can't remember. I'd go back and reread but I'm SO tired.

Your post just confirmed what evil sons of bitches people from the UK are. Go crawl back under the rock you came from you slimeball.

We're getting hints of an impending nasty meltdown.No replies to this message, unless they are via PM. And I may be done with the internet for today, and may well not see any PM until Monday night.Adminnemooseus

Faith I think you should think a little more carefully on these things. In Canada we have a native population that now after years of colonization have largely been consigned to live on large tracts of land called reserves that were assigned to them by the Europeans who colonized the country. They were essentially bought off and marginalized. The conditions on many of the reserves today are appalling. Believe me, in most cases the natives of this country were better off before the Europeans arrived.In many ways your thinking is very western. It equates quality of life with the level of materialism achieved. Self esteem has far more to do with our quality of life than does a big screen TV.The British treated the indigenous people of India with great disdain even though they were often kind. The British have a history of class distinction and certainly the Indian people were very much at the bottom rung of the class system. Possibly the country is better off economically, ( a very open question by the way), but socially I don't believe it to be the case. I will allow that the British did introduce democracy but I don't believe that makes up for the psychological damage that colonization does to a nation.Incidentally, my ancestry is primarily English and my Grandfather, who I was extremely close to, immigrated from Kent England to Canada.

quote:

---

Yes, I can be rude that way, but even when I'm not, which was the case for long periods of posting at EvC, the level of animosity was no different. I've always been blown away by the level of animosity here, no matter what I say it seems. It's kind of fascinating really.

---

Let's say I don't remember any time when you were less hostile and received the same level of animosity.

quote:

---

Sole arbiter? Only if you don't count all the authority I lean on, which is not represented at EvC.

---

Really ? Does your "authority" say that geology must be easily overthrown by somebody who doesn't even know what they are talking about ?

quote:

---

Sorry about Geology, sometimes I just let it all hang out. Sometimes I try to be polite about it, and I do admire the British creationist in that link I posted a couple times now, who is very respectful toward establishment Geology. I suppose he has to be since he's one of them.

---

I'm just expecting a little honest humility.

What examples of the lowering of UK morals can you provide to support your conclusions?Edited by Larni, : No reason given.