Topic: Health and Religion - page 114. (Read 210869 times)

It (nihilism) is the continued destruction of all meaning and signification. It is the belief that nothing really matters any more, because nothing really has any meaning. We have no system of beliefs or values which could orientate us. The old systems of belief, like religion and morality, still exist, but at best we only follow them half-heartedly, and at worst, think that they have no meaning whatsoever.  They exist only the edges of our lives and consciousnesses. But it isn’t just the world that doesn’t have any meaning anymore. We ourselves don’t have any meaning to ourselves. Why should we choice one course of action over the other? What does it really matter anymore, since no-one’s individual life really has any significance in the grand scheme of things...

Nothing is worth much anymore, everything comes down to the same thing, everything is equalized. Everything is the same and equivalent: the true and the false, the good and the bad. Everything is outdated, used up, old dilapidated, dying: an undefined agony of meaning, an unending twilight: not a definite annihilation of significations, but their indefinite collapse.

At its most pure and fundamental level knowledge is faith and faith is knowledge.

The standards assume that a significant number of boys will see themselves as girls, and a significant number of girls will see themselves as boys, regardless of biology. The standards also embrace the political claim that the government, local community and people should fully accept children’s declarations that their biology and feelings of gender are disconnected, and also endorse each child’s personal sense of “gender identity.

Learning standards for the other grade levels with regard to the “core idea” topic of “self-identity” are:

Grade 1: “Explain that there are many ways to express gender.”

Grade 2: “Understand there is a range of gender roles and expression; Understand importance of treating others with respect regarding gender expression.

Grade 3: “Explain that gender roles can vary considerably; Understand importance of treating others with respect regarding gender identity.”

Grade 4: “Identify how friends and family can influence ideas regarding gender roles, identity, and expression; Demonstrate ways to show respect for all people; Define sexual orientation.

Grade 5: “Describe how media, society, and culture can influence ideas regarding gender roles, identity, and expression; Promote ways to show respect for all people; Identify trusted adults to ask questions about gender identity and sexual orientation.”

Grade 6: “Understand the range of gender roles, identity, and expression across cultures.”

Grade 7: “Distinguish between biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.”


In response, more than 60 leaders concerned about the mental health of American children signed an open letter that says the Obama administration’s K-12 gender fluid policies are “putting the nation’s children at risk.”

Among the letter’s signers are Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, and Lisa Bell, founder of Youth Trans Critical Professionals.

The pediatricians assert that standards or policies that promote gender fluidity amount to “child abuse”:

"A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V)…

According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty. Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.”

Perhaps about Morris.

But you don't know how to do the math or you would see that Morris is right in this area.

Morris went easy on the evolutionists in two ways. First, he assumed a evolutionary stance of every other mutation being a beneficial mutation... something that would never happen in nature even once. Second, he didn't take into account all of nature that would have destroyed any mutation, good or bad, had a mutation even happened.

The point is that evolution is not only impossible, but it is so extremely impossible that any scientist that looks into evolution should be embarrassed beyond blushing that he is considered part of the scientific community.

Since impossible evolution is believed among so many, it is a religion, hands down.

Garbage in garbage out.
Henry M. Morris have degrees in civil engeneering and not evolution or mathematics.
It's obvious to anyone that know alittle about the evolution theory that he don't have a clue what he talks about

Right in the first line you quoted it says:Note that it says, "human evolutionary history." It doesn't specify the history of human family tradition.

Then later it refers to evolutionary history again:Is this really talking about human traditions when it says "evolutionary history?"

Personally, I understand to mean that family traditions are controlled by the process of evolution, which has to do with random selection, which is mathematically impossible in the extreme by any known process.

Strikingly, there has been no success in the attempts over sixty-plus years to create life in the laboratory under plausible ancestral earth conditions – not even the complex bio-molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids. It has, indeed, been well-argued that this is impossible; and that ‘living life’ must therefore have evolved from an intermediate stage (or stages) of non-living but evolvable molecules such as crystals – perhaps clays (Cairns-Smith, 1987). But nobody has succeeded in doing that in the lab either, despite that artificial selection can be orders of magnitude faster than natural selection.

...

Certainly natural selection can coherently describe the historical situations leading to relatively small differences between organisms – perhaps up to the level of creating new and related species. This was already known to Darwin and was indeed the basis of his evidential argument – e.g. he described the nature and scale of effects of artificial selection done by animal breeders, plus some effects on the shape and size of beaks among Galapagos finches. To this, modern biologists could add observations on the modification of microorganisms under laboratory conditions, for instance the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. And there are also human racial differences of skeleton, teeth, skin and hair, brains and behaviours and many others – probably amounting to sub-species levels of differentiation – again these were (approximately) noted by Darwin (for instance in the mention of ‘favoured races’ in the subtitle of his 1859 book).

But all these are quantitative, not qualitative, changes; changes in magnitude but not in form. Neither natural selection, nor indeed artificial selection done by Man, has been observed creating a new genus, nor any taxonomic rank more fundamental such as a new family or phylum. There is no observational or experimental evidence which has emerged since 1859 of natural selection leading to major, qualitative changes in form – nor the originating of a novel form. Nobody has, by selection, changed a cat into a dog, let alone a sea anemone into a mouse (or the opposite); nobody has bred a dinosaur from a bird, nor retraced, by selective breeding, a modern species to its assumed ancestral form. There have, at most, been attempts to explain why such things are impossible in practice – why, for instance, the linear sequence of evolution cannot be ‘rewound’.