# Great video



## Madsnooker (Aug 26, 2013)

If this has been posted already forgive me.

The faith of Darwin evolutionists is not to be taken lightly!!!


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 26, 2013)

Thought provoking.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 26, 2013)

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 27, 2013)

Great video. Goes along with the theme of "Is there an edge to evolution" thread.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 27, 2013)

Lungs vs Gills - There are plenty of animals with both... Gar, lungfish (who would have thought) and salamanders (I think). That is a sign macro evolution - living transitional species.

One of them said it, "MACRO evolution." It's not observable because it takes too long for us to observe it.. It isn't shown well enough in fossil records because they are fossils, not pretty pictures in a book. For me, though, there is no clear evidence that humans evolved from mud. There is clear evidence that micro evolution happens and is easily observable which leads me to believe that macro evolution is possible, just as possible as a creator. And much more likely than the creator that is argued here.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 28, 2013)

Make a rose from nothing. That's a stupid question. When a person says, I can't, should the host say, "but hey, I know who can!" That would go over well. 

So let's talk about gars and lungfish. Fish with both gills and "primitive" lungs. Living transitional species? Are they really fish if they have a lung? I believe all animals are transitional species, but these two stand out for discussion.

I've owned both of these fish, several of each... and they definitely breath. It's not just for filling their air bladder for buoyancy. The lung fish sits on the bottom except when feeding or breathing.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2013)

There are a few fish with the ability to breathe in water and outside of water. The snakehead comes to mind.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Are they really fish if they have a lung?


According to one guy in the video, people are fish.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 28, 2013)

I can put a video together of idiotic christians too


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I can put a video together of idiotic christians too



Exactly.
If the interviewer got any logical or correct answers I am positive they were not included in the final editing.

Like on here, the people on the video were average people that know what they want to say but have a hard time putting the correct words to it. We/they do not know all the proper terms that explain what is needed to get the point across in a better manner.
I can't remember that interviewers name but that is his standard operating procedure. He is well versed in his god arguments and he goes out and finds people that are not on his level to debate with. When he gets into a debate with someone of equal skills, he gets his rear end handed to him.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> When he gets into a debate with someone of equal skills, he gets his rear end handed to him.



Reminds me. I miss Mr. Hitchens.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Exactly.
> If the interviewer got any logical or correct answers I am positive they were not included in the final editing.
> 
> Like on here, the people on the video were average people that know what they want to say but have a hard time putting the correct words to it. We/they do not know all the proper terms that explain what is needed to get the point across in a better manner.
> I can't remember that interviewers name but that is his standard operating procedure. He is well versed in his god arguments and he goes out and finds people that are not on his level to debate with. When he gets into a debate with someone of equal skills, he gets his rear end handed to him.


Post a video of him "getting his rear end handed to him".


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I can put a video together of idiotic christians too


Weren't they all science majors in college?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 28, 2013)

Idiotic people can have an education. Unless I'm using the word wrong.. You can replace idiot with whatever you'd like.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Post a video of him "getting his rear end handed to him".




Check out Ray's Banana claims


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2013)

I'll save you some searching

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Banana_fallacy


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 28, 2013)

I remember that.. Great stuff... That means that you know what is meant for you know where... with it's shape, ease of use and nutritional value....


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2013)

http://darwinsteapot.blogspot.com/2009/04/ray-comfort-apologizes-for-his-banana.html


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 28, 2013)

Dang, that video isn't working..


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 28, 2013)

He impressed the people who pay his bills. The rest of us can easily see how intellectually dishonest he had to be to do it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 29, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Post a video of him "getting his rear end handed to him".



He doesn't put those on the internet...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> He doesn't put those on the internet...



Ray surely won't post them but youtube has them.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 29, 2013)

These guys had a really good analogy using the evolution of language. A woman who spoke Latin never birthed a child who spoke Spanish or Italian. There were many different dialects or slangs of Latin and some of those began to change enough to be considered different languages. 


That's funny... 45:00 Ray says, "Be tolerant." 



I have a question for the believers... Does ANYONE feel like this guy does christianity justice in either this video or the one posted above?


----------



## Madsnooker (Sep 3, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I can put a video together of idiotic christians too



I'm sorry, I thought this video was 4 professors and a bunch of college students that would "appear" fairly smart based on their Majors? These were not a bunch of wacky people.

My reasoning for posting the video was to show how much "faith" these people had in evolution because they couldn't point to one single kind, changing to another. Its all based on faith because no one can give one single fact of evidence to support Darwinism evolution. Even the 4 professors agreed in the end?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 3, 2013)

You're right, maybe not the professors... I'm also sure none of them rehearsed their lines... When the people being interviewed throw him curve balls he's not expecting, he can't hit them either. 

The curve ball he throws is horrible anyway. The word species has 10 different definitions, I don't want a change of species, I want a change of kind... like kind is any more specific?? There is a lot of evidence out there, he just didn't like it. Evidence like whales having hips. Not just that there is a whale, or plants and animals, but something specific...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 3, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You're right, maybe not the professors... I'm also sure none of them rehearsed their lines... When the people being interviewed throw him curve balls he's not expecting, he can't hit them either.
> 
> The curve ball he throws is horrible anyway. The word species has 10 different definitions, I don't want a change of species, I want a change of kind... like kind is any more specific?? There is a lot of evidence out there, he just didn't like it. Evidence like whales having hips. Not just that there is a whale, or plants and animals, but something specific...



Just curious, but if a whale has a bone that resembles a hip, how does that point to evolution.  Is a whale a "transitional species" and if so what is transitioning into....a man.  If so why not consider us a transitional species that are devolving into whales?  Which way is the arrow pointing.  What are these other "transitional species" transitioning into?  Surely someone knows?

The video makes a huge point in that there is not one solid shred of evidence that proves macro evolution exist.  It's a farce that the whole world has bought into.  What's becoming more apparent is that the evidence against macro evolution is beginning to build and some notable scientist are beginning to take their blinders off and seriously question the theory.  The results are not encouraging.  One day somewhere down the road macro evolution is going to be spoken of as an embarrassment amoungst the scientific community.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just curious, but if a whale has a bone that resembles a hip, how does that point to evolution.  Is a whale a "transitional species" and if so what is transitioning into....a man.  If so why not consider us a transitional species that are devolving into whales?  Which way is the arrow pointing.  What are these other "transitional species" transitioning into?  Surely someone knows?
> 
> The video makes a huge point in that there is not one solid shred of evidence that proves macro evolution exist.  It's a farce that the whole world has bought into.  What's becoming more apparent is that the evidence against macro evolution is beginning to build and some notable scientist are beginning to take their blinders off and seriously question the theory.  The results are not encouraging.  One day somewhere down the road macro evolution is going to be spoken of as an embarrassment amoungst the scientific community.



Yeah....NO examples...


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...tion-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48


----------



## JFS (Sep 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What's becoming more apparent is that the evidence against macro evolution is beginning to build



What evidence is that?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yeah....NO examples...
> 
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
> ...



Again, not one solid example of macro evolution, but keep up the blind faith.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

JFS said:


> What evidence is that?



String addressed some of it in his Edge to Evolution thread.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, not one solid example of macro evolution, but keep up the blind faith.



You are just the type of guy religion needs behind the pulpit on a Sunday. The articles give specific and solid examples of macroevolution so you either did not read them or did read them and choose to totally refuse to accept the examples because they go against the very beliefs you preach. Either way you have shown us how narrow minded you are by having the examples you say do not exist literally be stood in front of you and you are standing on your tippy-toes looking everywhere but right at them saying " I don't see them...I don't see them". "See I am right..."
You just keep finding ways to show everyone how dark your blindfold really is.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 4, 2013)

http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html


----------



## bullethead (Sep 4, 2013)

http://biologos.org/questions/fossil-record


----------



## bullethead (Sep 4, 2013)

http://nature.ca/puijila/index_e.cfm


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just curious, but if a whale has a bone that resembles a hip, how does that point to evolution.  Is a whale a "transitional species" and if so what is transitioning into....a man.  If so why not consider us a transitional species that are devolving into whales?  Which way is the arrow pointing.  What are these other "transitional species" transitioning into?  Surely someone knows?
> 
> The video makes a huge point in that there is not one solid shred of evidence that proves macro evolution exist.  It's a farce that the whole world has bought into.  What's becoming more apparent is that the evidence against macro evolution is beginning to build and some notable scientist are beginning to take their blinders off and seriously question the theory.  The results are not encouraging.  One day somewhere down the road macro evolution is going to be spoken of as an embarrassment amoungst the scientific community.



So BH and I pointed toward specific evidence... You're right, I think EVERYTHING is a transitional species. I have specific evidence and you've seen it. It doesn't PROVE anything... because we haven't been able to dig up fossils of the same type of organisms to see their evolution over a million years.... Your evidence - just look, nothing specific at all. Good try.. 

EVERY RELIGION that the world has ever seen has been seen as an embarrassment over time. There have been a lot of scientific theories that have been provided evidence to show that they were wrong. I'm sure one of your ancestors thought the Earth was flat and that everything in the universe revolved around around it. There have also been plenty of scientific theories that remain. To me, that's a little bit better batting average than any supreme being(s) can claim.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 4, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So BH and I pointed toward specific evidence... You're right, I think EVERYTHING is a transitional species. I have specific evidence and you've seen it. It doesn't PROVE anything... because we haven't been able to dig up fossils of the same type of organisms to see their evolution over a million years.... Your evidence - just look, nothing specific at all. Good try..
> 
> EVERY RELIGION that the world has ever seen has been seen as an embarrassment over time. There have been a lot of scientific theories that have been provided evidence to show that they were wrong. I'm sure one of your ancestors thought the Earth was flat and that everything in the universe revolved around around it. There have also been plenty of scientific theories that remain. To me, that's a little bit better batting average than any supreme being(s) can claim.



Everything Is a transitional species. Every generation differs ever so slightly from the one before it. The time involved to see a major change is staggering. Creationists think/expect to see evidence that a reptile turned into a chicken within 5 easy, very noticeable steps in fossils that have died lined up next to each other. In reality it has taken tens if not hundreds of millions of years of minute subtle changes that have gotten one to the other. To find a complete fossil of anything is quite an accomplishment. There are many things that go against a fossil ever being preserved let alone long enough, and in any quantity that shows a timeline from one species to another, yet with all the available fossils and work of scientists and archeologists some examples have been found, just not in a row...one dead on top of the next, as a creationist thinks it should be laid out so pictures could be taken and then flipped by their corners so that the scenes show how one fossil transforms into another fossil and into the next like some sort of slideshow.
It comes down to a failure of educate yourself in order to understand how things actually work instead of guessing.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> One day somewhere down the road macro evolution is going to be spoken of as an embarrassment amoungst the scientific community.



Slowly, but surely, the bible is becoming an embarrassment. Already, most of the old testament is shunned. Like the ancient religions before it, knowledge will deem it obsolete. The so called 'attack' on christianity is nothing more than the overall population getting more educated. This has been happening for 1000s of years as people become more knowledgable about their surroundings, religions fall by the wayside.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 4, 2013)

One of the worst examples of transition is the timeline/illustration of a monkey to a man in 5 steps lined up in a row. People believe that. In reality to illustrate how long something like that would take would have the common ancestor on the left hand side of the page and modern man on the right hand side of the page with enough examples of transitions in the middle to wrap around the planet a few times. For the lack of a better term science examples have to dumb it down and eliminate a few hundred million steps in between, BUT the abbreviated version is what the people who do not want to educate themselves about the actual process choose to believe and then EXPECT to find in the fossil record! AND argue as if they have a clue about what they are talking about!!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 4, 2013)

So you're saying that a monkey didn't birth a human baby at some point??????


----------



## bullethead (Sep 4, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So you're saying that a monkey didn't birth a human baby at some point??????



Unfortunately for creationists....NO!
And all I've said does not mean that believing in a higher power is stupid, it means that there is overwhelming evidence that says religions versions of how things happened just simply are not the way things really are.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You are just the type of guy religion needs behind the pulpit on a Sunday.



And what exactly do you mean by that?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So BH and I pointed toward specific evidence... You're right, I think EVERYTHING is a transitional species.



What are you transitioning into?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

660griz said:


> Slowly, but surely, the bible is becoming an embarrassment. Already, most of the old testament is shunned.



Griz, you need to get out more.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 4, 2013)

So you want a picture book of millions of years of the same organism's  evolution in to something else... and you want a picture book of what I'm transitioning in to? You want me to show you the future?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

Here is a site with over 1000 scientist from around the world who have signed a document expressing their skepticism regarding evolution

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/about.php

This in essence is their stance:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true. 

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.

The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

"There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard."

Not inconsequential, I would suggest.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."



I don't think any scientist has ever said, "It's the way the truth and the light," "Just go with it," "All you have to do is believe," or anything along those lines.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't think any scientist has ever said, "It's the way the truth and the light," "Just go with it," "All you have to do is believe," or anything along those lines.



Your point?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here is a site with over 1000 scientist from around the world who have signed a document expressing their skepticism regarding evolution
> 
> http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/about.php



A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism (or Dissent From Darwinism) is a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. The statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism," a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.

The statement was published in advertisements under an introduction which stated that its signatories dispute the assertion that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things, and dispute that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution". Further names of signatories have been added at intervals and as of the August 2008 update, it contains 761 names. The list continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support.

The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community. Robert T. Pennock says that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: "The "scientific" claims of such neo-creationists as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists. " ... "according to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit." The statement in the document is described as artfully phrased to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public. The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 4, 2013)

Did they mention the banana????


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Your point?



I'm sure most proponents of Darwinian evolution have encouraged careful examination of it. Like I quoted.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

660griz said:


> A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism (or Dissent From Darwinism) is a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. The statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism," a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




None of which discounts the fact that many scientist, to include several prominent ones, are skeptical that neo Darwinism can support the weight of its assertions.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Griz, you need to get out more.



You got that right. And you should stay in and read the old testament.

I think a christian in a video, possibly in this thread, remarked how he didn't agree with the bible when slavery was mentioned. Embarassing? I would hope so.  Cherry picking.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> None of which discounts the fact that many scientist, to include several prominent ones, are skeptical that neo Darwinism can support the weight of its assertions.



Really? "The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community. Robert T. Pennock says that intelligent design proponents are *"manufacturing dissent*" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims 

I could probably find a few 'scientist' that don't believe we have been to the moon. 

There are plenty of nut jobs to go around.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 7, 2013)

660griz said:


> You got that right. And you should stay in and read the old testament.
> 
> I think a christian in a video, possibly in this thread, remarked how he didn't agree with the bible when slavery was mentioned. Embarassing? I would hope so.  Cherry picking.



I've read it brother and I don't cherry pick it.  I read it in context.  I'm also old enough to know that I can't take a 2000 to 4000 year old photograph (if such a thing existed) and pretend to know enough about that entire culture and environment to the point that I can make value judgements on it.  We have a hard enough time maintaining our own countries history and heritage.  Much of it has been lost in the last 20-30 years.  High school history books have been rewritten to the point I don't recognize much of what is being taught to the kids these days.  It contradicts what I was taught.  I was taught our country was founded on the concepts of freedom and individual liberty by great men who had the insight and vision and we should be proud and grateful that we lived here.  Now the kids are taught the country was founded on greed by men who were hypocrites and scoundrels out for themselves and we should be ashamed of who we are and how we came to be: that we are personally responsible for every bad action of our forefathers.  Now that has happened in the last 30 years.  I'm not hypocritical enough to pretend I can do the same over 2000 to 4000 years ago.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 7, 2013)

660griz said:


> Really? "The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community. Robert T. Pennock says that intelligent design proponents are *"manufacturing dissent*


*

Listen, if 750-1000 scientist have signed it, nobody is manufacturing anything unless these scientist are illiterate, and if they are literate then the claims are not being rejected.  It's akin to denying the nose on their face.   It's not there.  It's not there.  It's not there.  This isn't happening.   This isn't happening.  This isn't happening.*


----------



## bullethead (Sep 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Listen, if 750-1000 scientist have signed it, nobody is manufacturing anything unless these scientist are illiterate, and if they are literate then the claims are not being rejected.  It's akin to denying the nose on their face.   It's not there.  It's not there.  It's not there.  This isn't happening.   This isn't happening.  This isn't happening.



Yet the tens of thousands of scientists that did not sign it mean nothing to you.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yet the tens of thousands of scientists that did not sign it mean nothing to you.



He thinks billions of people that don't believe in his god are wrong.  It's not a numbers game to him.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yet the tens of thousands of scientists that did not sign it mean nothing to you.



Absolutely not, but it cannot be said with any honesty, that macro evolution is universally accepted among the scientific community, nor that science and Christianity are incompatible.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> He thinks billions of people that don't believe in his god are wrong.  It's not a numbers game to him.



He's not my God.  He's our God.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> He's not my God.  He's our God.



You're being whack.  He aint mine anymore than Allah is.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I've read it brother and I don't cherry pick it.  I read it in context.  I'm also old enough to know that I can't take a 2000 to 4000 year old photograph (if such a thing existed) and pretend to know enough about that entire culture and environment to the point that I can make value judgements on it.
> 
> ........
> 
> Now the kids are taught the country was founded on greed by men who were hypocrites and scoundrels out for themselves and we should be ashamed of who we are and how we came to be: that we are personally responsible for every bad action of our forefathers.  Now that has happened in the last 30 years.  I'm not hypocritical enough to pretend I can do the same over 2000 to 4000 years ago.



You're saying you can't make value judgements on the bible? Don't you do that for a living?

Funny, you also teach that we are personally responsible for the sin of our forefathers....


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I've read it brother and I don't cherry pick it.  I read it in context.


 I bet you do cherry pick or you would be in jail. 


> I'm also old enough to know that I can't take a 2000 to 4000 year old photograph (if such a thing existed) and pretend to know enough about that entire culture and environment to the point that I can make value judgements on it.


 You got me there. I just don't want to search back to try and find out what you are talking about. 


> Now the kids are taught the country was founded on greed by men who were hypocrites and scoundrels out for themselves and we should be ashamed of who we are and how we came to be: that we are personally responsible for every bad action of our forefathers.  Now that has happened in the last 30 years.  I'm not hypocritical enough to pretend I can do the same over 2000 to 4000 years ago.



What I have learned is for virtually every good, there is a bad. Europeans settled N. America, good for me. Bad for indigenous folks, probably made slavery a no brainer, among other things. What I don't believe in is cherry picking the history teachings either. Tell the good, the bad, and the ugly. I know when I was in school, they left out a lot of the bad. People make mistakes, learn from them so we do not repeat them. If history has to be sugar coated for folks to be proud to be an American, I feel sorry for them. 
I love the 'mostly' freedom from religion we enjoy. Compared to religious countries, we have it made.


----------

