Might as well get some consensus.

1. Being exposed to religion at a young age, do you feel it a violation of your rights?
2. Do you think others have the right to expose you to religion at a young age?

Similar but deals with the rights of both parties.

Might as well get some consensus.

1. Being exposed to religion at a young age, do you feel it a violation of your rights?
2. Do you think others have the right to expose you to religion at a young age?

Similar but deals with the rights of both parties.

Good questions. I don't think it's wrong to be given religious education as a young child (even if you don't like it, religion is a big part of society), along with studies in language, mathematics, science, history, etc. However it is wrong to force a child to live under the rules of a religion if they do not wish to. Such as making your kids go to church, just becuase you think they should. A child should be given the chance to mature and make their own minds up about religion (that goes for circumcision too!!!).
In that respect then it is a violition of your human rights, and no, not even your parents have that right.
My dad is a mason. Shortly after I turned eighteen he asked me if it was something I was interested in pursuing. We talked about it, I decided it wasn't for me. That's how it should be for all religions, give children time to make up their own informed decisions.

Might as well get some consensus.

1. Being exposed to religion at a young age, do you feel it a violation of your rights?
2. Do you think others have the right to expose you to religion at a young age?

Similar but deals with the rights of both parties.
1. No.
2. Yes.

I consider religion a part of culture, so being exposed to it is as natural as being exposed to baseball and hot dogs. When you're old enough to make decisions for yourself, you can detach yourself from all three if you want.

There is a difference between being exposed and being indoctrinated.

Being taught about religion at a young age is healthy provided it is presented as speculative and not as baseless truth.

I was never old enough to question it and I was never taught it in such a way that it was clear it should be questionable. It was the one true religion. No way is an 8 year old child going to stand up in class and say "Miss, why are you teaching us this bullshit?".

Not to mention all the sectarian trouble that came from children who were divided into protestant and catholic schools. Children getting beaten up because they are forced to adopt a religious label... nice.

It's just strange how parents and teachers have the mistaken belief that they are actually doing a good thing by indoctrinating children. Better to believe in Adam and Eve than the evil concepts of atheist rationality, huh? :rolleyes:

That someone is exposed to religion at a young age is a tremendous priviledge.

Unfortunately many of us sinners can abuse our responsibility of educating the youth about the truth and ometimes there are bad feelings.

But even if someone had a bad experience learning the faith as a child, what a privilidge nevertheless compared to those who thirst for a knowledge that is entirely hidden from them.

1. Being exposed to religion at a young age, do you feel it a violation of your rights?

Although "exposed" is quite ambiguous, I'll say yes.

2. Do you think others have the right to expose you to religion at a young age?

No.

I remember when I went to get my daughter's birth registered. The woman said:

"name of the child?"
"Parents names/professions"
etc

Eventually she said:

"religion?"

I turned round and said: "I dunno, you'll have to ask her".

She looked at me as if I was weird, and I looked back rather confused - hardly believing it to be true that people can really say what their children are going to believe in before they're even a week old. Personally I find it absolutely disgusting. I guess it's just lucky for most of you that your parents didn't believe in leprechauns.

It gets worse.. If your parents are jewish, at 6 days old they violate you physically and chop a bit of your body off. This should be illegal, (other than for serious medical issues).

Not one of you here has the right to tell your children what to believe or not to believe. Period.

Lawdog,

That someone is exposed to religion at a young age is a tremendous priviledge. A very strange and bizarre perspective.

Unfortunately many of us sinners can abuse our responsibility of educating the youth about the truth and sometimes there are bad feelings. You probably had something more specific in mind but your statement was simply quite ambiguous. What did you mean?

If we have any responsibility towards teaching our youth about religion then it should be to tell them the whole story, of the thousands of religious fantasies throughout time and how they conflict with one another, how they create wars and intolerance, etc.

But even if someone had a bad experience learning the faith as a child, what a privilidge nevertheless compared to those who thirst for a knowledge that is entirely hidden from them.You seem to imply that indoctrination is somehow connected with teaching a truth. Clearly nothing could be further from the truth.

I think the whole issue of teaching religion publicly (in some parts of the world anyway) is completely blown out of proportion - like for instance imagine the uproar there would be if the gideons were as persistent as pornographic inbox spam - I guess the whole issue of the dangers of religion is a big joke because even by a casual observation of our society you can see that we are in danger of so many more important things - I mean is religion a contributing factor to divorce, drugs, teenage pregnancy, environmental pollution etc ?
Getting exposed to religion at a young age would barely be perceptable amongst all the barrage of sex drugs and violence that makes up our diet of daily life

I mean is religion a contributing factor to divorce, drugs, teenage pregnancy, environmental pollution etc ?

Funny you should mention this...

It is shown that the more secular a society (ie percentage of atheists/non religious civilians), the higher the chances of the above social alements (and more) would be less frequent. If you want a source for this you will have to wait till I get home. Or you could do a search on this forum for something like "most americans will be nonchristian in 2035ce" as it is the second url in that thread.

for kenny "most americans will be nonchristian in 2035"
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49941

I mean is religion a contributing factor to divorce, drugs, teenage pregnancy, environmental pollution etc ?


Indirectly it can be. I've heard it said by a man that runs a hunting lodge on his land that it's ok to breed animals to be shot, becasue God gave him the land and the animals on it to use as he sees fit. This could apply to natural resources, such as oil, gas, coal, etc where the planet is being torn apart for profit. But since God gave humans this planet then it's ok what we do with it.
Before you say it, I know I'm generalising, but these are words that I have heard spoken by individuals, be them the minority or not.
I could mention the AIDS issue, but we all know what the Catholic church has done there.

Thanks thepreacher:

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism.

Lawdog,

[QUOTE]A very strange and bizarre perspective.

You probably had something more specific in mind but your statement was simply quite ambiguous. What did you mean?

If we have any responsibility towards teaching our youth about religion then it should be to tell them the whole story, of the thousands of religious fantasies throughout time and how they conflict with one another, how they create wars and intolerance, etc.

Hello Cris. My perspective is practical: indoctrination of the youth is necessary. Since our culture has become diabolical, it is necessary to indoctrinate the youth concerning the content of the faith, the dogmas, doctrines, traditions, customs, history, as well as warn them concerning the numerous false doctrines that they may encounter in their life's journey, and inculcate in them a deep trust in the doctrinal judgements of the Church, the representative of God on earth.

Certainly such an indoctrination is beneficial. Even though a youth may not fully grasp the metaphysical realities of faith or the supernatural character of Grace, or in anyway understand what it means to believe in God, the concepts will always be available for reference. There will always be tools for distinguishing truth from falsehood.

in the end, the individual chooses through his own discernment and reasoning power what the truth must be. Therefore our indoctrination is not coercive in the final analysis, since as adults they are free to reject our teaching. We only supply the tools.
You seem to imply that indoctrination is somehow connected with teaching a truth. Clearly nothing could be further from the truth.
The Church of previous eras understood the importance of indoctrinating the youth. Evil groups born of Satan also understand, such as communists and nazis; educate and indoctrinate the youth and you can transform the society. Since we in the west, being suicidal, have allowed socialist and fascists instead of the Church to educate our children, our society will die. It is now the choice of the Western world:Choose Catholicism (with all its apparent inconsistances) and worship God or you will all end up with the Terrorists ruling over you. It is very simple. As of old every corrupt civilization has been given this choice by mankind: convert or the barbarians will overwhelm you.

I consider religion a part of culture, so being exposed to it is as natural as being exposed to baseball and hot dogs. When you're old enough to make decisions for yourself, you can detach yourself from all three if you want.

Yes but baseball and hot dogs do not have quite the profound implications and convincing effect as religion. If you try a hot dog and say, i dont really like it, nobody is going to make u feel bad about it or try and convince you that the hot dog is good. If you feel unsure about religion, however, as i did when i was a kid, you stay quiet about it, because you feel like you should accept it, and sometimes your parents and sunday school teachers make you feel guilty or dirty if you convey doubt. So i kind of went with the flow and got confirmed and everything just to kind of finish waht i started for my family's sake. Luckily I was able to be honest about my opinion and express my doubt because my family is not very religious in the first place. My case is not very extreme, but i know that there are kids out there who are forced into religions by fear and environment, and that is not right. I think kids should decide for themselves if they want to learn about religion, because i think some kids naturally have or at least develop an interest in the spiritual and want to search for something that will fill a gap in their life. I think religion has many beneficial effects, but only when the follower truly believes and is not doing it because they have to. Religion should not be introduced until the kid is old enough to decide if he wants to explore it or not.

Lawdog, what planet are you living on? Your whole post demonstrates why people like you should not be feeding this bullshit to impressionable children. So thanks for stating my point.

My perspective is practical: indoctrination of the youth is necessary. Since our culture has become diabolical, it is necessary to indoctrinate the youth concerning the content of the faith, the dogmas, doctrines, traditions, customs, history, as well as warn them concerning the numerous false doctrines that they may encounter in their life's journey, and inculcate in them a deep trust in the doctrinal judgements of the Church, the representative of God on earth.

Well first I would need to know what culture you are talking about. I'm guessing that since you are an idiotic Christian fundie, that you are American. 90-95% of Americans are already indoctrinated anyway as they are strongly religious. So where is the link between lack of indoctrination and decline of society?

If you will read my last post in this thread you will see my argument that the opposite is true, and that the more secularism advances, the healthier society becomes. This does not include America as America is not a secular country and their social ills can not be attributed to lack of religious faith.

Also it raises an eyebrow that you say children should be educated on false doctrines. Since creationism (as stated in Genesis) has been proven false on many counts, would you not therefor admit that your own doctrine is false? If you still think it is true, then you are in no position to have a say in our childrens education as you are an idiot.

ince we in the west, being suicidal, have allowed socialist and fascists instead of the Church to educate our children, our society will die. It is now the choice of the Western world:Choose Catholicism (with all its apparent inconsistances) and worship God or you will all end up with the Terrorists ruling over you.

Isn't it funny when idiot Christians start ranting about how humanity will end if they don't convert to their faith. You are an ass, Lawdog.

Lawdog,

Oh man that is atrocious. Your view represents what I see as among the greatest evil that man can devise. While I'd like to think that ignoring your kind would mean you would fade away your assertions here enrage me so much that I feel an overwhelming need to seek out and actively oppose you and your kind at every opportunity.

You represent the very opposite of freedom and reasoned thought that should form the basis of human kind.

Might as well get some consensus.

1. Being exposed to religion at a young age, do you feel it a violation of your rights?
2. Do you think others have the right to expose you to religion at a young age?

Similar but deals with the rights of both parties.
1. Yes
2. Absolutely not

An interesting perspective and worthy of argument. Please do not call us idiots, just becaiuse you disagree. It sounds bad and makes you look bad. You may call us evil if you want, but their have been many ingenious christians: shakespeare, newton, galileo, copernicus, etc.

I am a creationist. Evolution has not been proven. Nor will it be.

I am a creationist. Evolution has not been proven. Nor will it be.
I think that most educated people would dis-agree with that statement. :rolleyes:

Lawdog,

Oh man that is atrocious. Your view represents what I see as among the greatest evil that man can devise. While I'd like to think that ignoring your kind would mean you would fade away your assertions here enrage me so much that I feel an overwhelming need to seek out and actively oppose you and your kind at every opportunity.

You represent the very opposite of freedom and reasoned thought that should form the basis of human kind.
well said ;)

It gets worse.. If your parents are jewish, at 6 days old they violate you physically and chop a bit of your body off. This should be illegal, (other than for serious medical issues).



First let me start by saying i completely agree with what you said earlier and I do not think children should be indoctrinated at all, but just a minor detail, circumcision is done to almost all babies now because it is a matter of sanitation. A foreskin is unsanitary and often causes medical problems later in life. It is not done anymore on basis of religion, it is on the basis of medicine. Sorry for picking on fine points but just thought you should know

Evolution has not been proven...

Only to people who are too idiotic and/or blinded by religious doctrines. There is much we don't know about evolution, but it is fact that it happens.


...Nor will it be.

Of course it will. Don't you think that in 1,000,000 years (if we are still around), humans will be quite different? Humans then (or whatever they could be called) will look back at 1,000,000 years of recorded history and have a more detailed view of biological evolution than we ever have.

Why then have aligators not evolved and walking among us?

An interesting perspective and worthy of argument. Please do not call us idiots, just becaiuse you disagree. It sounds bad and makes you look bad. You may call us evil if you want, but their have been many ingenious christians: shakespeare, newton, galileo, copernicus, etc.

I am a creationist. Evolution has not been proven. Nor will it be.

What proof is there for creation? :confused:

First let me start by saying i completely agree with what you said earlier and I do not think children should be indoctrinated at all, but just a minor detail, circumcision is done to almost all babies now because it is a matter of sanitation. A foreskin is unsanitary and often causes medical problems later in life. It is not done anymore on basis of religion, it is on the basis of medicine. Sorry for picking on fine points but just thought you should know

Is this true? In what countries does this happen "to almost all babies"??? I've had a foreskin for 30 years and it hasn't caused me any problems. What about female circumcision, what are the benefits (apart from religous reasons of course)???

First let me start by saying i completely agree with what you said earlier and I do not think children should be indoctrinated at all, but just a minor detail, circumcision is done to almost all babies now because it is a matter of sanitation. A foreskin is unsanitary and often causes medical problems later in life. It is not done anymore on basis of religion, it is on the basis of medicine. Sorry for picking on fine points but just thought you should knowwhat like docing dogs tails.
can you supply some evidence for that, I have never heard so much crap in my life.
or has somebody been feeding you this crap.
lets ask M*W she'll know.

Why then have aligators not evolved and walking among us?

Oh my, there writes an individual that knows NOTHING about evolution!! There are lots of answers to that question, but just one small point is that humans are not the ultimate perfection of evolution (that doesn't exist). Evolution is not about reaching a certain point, such as modern humans. Are you suggesting that if evolution theory is correct then alligators should have evolved into a green human with a big mouth and long tail?
Amazing ignorance, WOW!!!! :p
I've said it before but try reading some Richard Dawkins.

Lawdog - have you read the Blind Watchmaker yet? If not then please do so as a matter of some urgency. Your incredible ignorance on evolution as demonstrated by your aligator comment simply makes you look very folish.

Lawdog,

I am a creationist. Evolution has not been proven. Nor will it be. I thought Catholicism has already publicly accepted evolution as fact.

Are you perhaps confusing abiogenesis with evolution?

Since you state that the Catholic doctrines are inerrant and are the hand of God and that they support evolution then aren't you now at odds with God's plan?

Funny you should mention this...

It is shown that the more secular a society (ie percentage of atheists/non religious civilians), the higher the chances of the above social alements (and more) would be less frequent. If you want a source for this you will have to wait till I get home. Or you could do a search on this forum for something like "most americans will be nonchristian in 2035ce" as it is the second url in that thread.

then there you ar eleft with the arduous task of srawing a connection between religious and social decay (without delving into fiction) - for instance there are heaps of other variables - like the fact that most christian countries are excessively opulent western ones - on a cursory glance it would appear that material opulence leads to social decadence - for instance bangladesh is quite a religious country but they don't have these problems (like the usa for instance) why? - most americans will be nonchristian by 2035? I would argue that most are not christian at the moment anyway - they simply slap a denomination to their activities of nonsense and write it off as religion -

First let me start by saying i completely agree with what you said earlier and I do not think children should be indoctrinated at all, but just a minor detail, circumcision is done to almost all babies now because it is a matter of sanitation. A foreskin is unsanitary and often causes medical problems later in life. It is not done anymore on basis of religion, it is on the basis of medicine. Sorry for picking on fine points but just thought you should know

Aye, I did hint in my post that I have no quarrel with circumcision for health reasons - much like I see no quarrel with someone having a kidney removed for health reasons, but would actively defy kidney removal if it was solely because some invisible space being seemingly had an issue with kidneys, (although why then put those kidneys there is anyones guess).

However, I can assure you that circumcision is still done on the basis of religion. There are also many many people uncircumcised. Nothing wrong with fine picking, but in this instance it was inaccurate.

Might as well get some consensus.

1. Being exposed to religion at a young age, do you feel it a violation of your rights?
2. Do you think others have the right to expose you to religion at a young age?

Similar but deals with the rights of both parties.

1. Exposed? No. Indoctrinated? Yes.
2. That's too broad. Give me some specific 'others'.

1. Exposed? No. Indoctrinated? Yes.
2. That's too broad. Give me some specific 'others'.

Others as in parents, relatives, institutions(churches, schools), atheists & theists, media, literature, evangelists, government, the bum on the street, Adstar & his ilk

Others as in parents, relatives, institutions(churches, schools), atheists & theists, media, literature, evangelists, government, the bum on the street, Adstar & his ilk

If we're only talking about exposure and not indoctroniation then:

parents - yes
schools (private) - yes
media - yes
literature - yes

relatives - depends on the method of delivery and consent of the parents.
churches - depends on the method of delivery and consent of the parents.
atheists - depends on the method of delivery and consent of the parents.
theists - depends on the method of delivery and consent of the parents.
evangelists - depends on the method of delivery and consent of the parents.
the bum on the street - depends on the method of delivery and consent of the parents.

schools (public) - no
government - no
Adstar and his ilk - never

Oh my, there writes an individual that knows NOTHING about evolution!! There are lots of answers to that question, but just one small point is that humans are not the ultimate perfection of evolution (that doesn't exist). Evolution is not about reaching a certain point, such as modern humans. Are you suggesting that if evolution theory is correct then alligators should have evolved into a green human with a big mouth and long tail?
Amazing ignorance, WOW!!!! :p
I've said it before but try reading some Richard Dawkins.

Then pehaps in your wisdom, knowing how all things came into being, you can educate me concerning this Evolution concept.

Then according to you I must conclude this: Evolution then does not have a purpose other than change for change sake. There is no final product. no perfect evolved creature adapted to its environment. is this your point? and if so please explain why.

Lawdog,

[QUOTE]I thought Catholicism has already publicly accepted evolution as fact.

Actually no Cris. We say that we do not reject the concept outright. There is no authoritative word on the issue. We are free to decide for ourselves. Catholicism knows that science should be left to function without interference, as long as it does not violate the natural law and morality. Catholicism does not make scientific claims, like some other bible christians do. Some official Scientific organizations however are all too ready to make morality claims and act as authorities in an area, theology, that they know little or nothing about.

As for me, unlike many catholics I reject Evolution because it does not make sense on a philosophical level. It is not really a theological issue with me.

[QUOTE=Cris]Lawdog,

As for me, unlike many catholics I reject Evolution because it does not make sense on a philosophical level. It is not really a theological issue with me.

How can you reject evolution when you've already said (in a manner of speaking) that you know nothing about it! I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you, that would take too long and frankly I doubt it would make any difference. IF you really want to know, then look it up yourself.
The simple truth is this: There is tons of evidence to support evolution theory, yet there is NO EVIDENCE to support creationism.
How do you like them apples? :eek:

I know enough about it to discuss it,
and if you want to teach me the finer points of the doctrine
I will listen. but then do not think that you know enough about
religion and God, and the philosophical principles to reject them.

You must assume this premise or else discussion IS useless.

I know enough about it to discuss it,
and if you want to teach me the finer points of the doctrine
I will listen. but then do not think that you know enough about
religion and God, and the philosophical principles to reject them.

You must assume this premise or else discussion IS useless.

Clearly you don't know enough about it, your post regarding alligators is proof of that!
Do you know who Richard Dawkins is? Educate yourself about the real world, the world we all live in, don't just take as truth all that jazz you read in the Bible.

What amazes me is all these Theists think that evolution disproves their god(s) from creating us... err... not so...

Secondly, Creationism is taking the Bible Creation story/account literally... funny how the Adam and Eve story contradicts the 6-Day creation story, so I want to hear you explanation on that.

Thirdly, if you believe that (a) god(s) created us, then evolution can still be accepted. As stated above...

Fourthly, microevolution has been proven, macroevolution has almost been proven, but even when it is, you will not accept it.

Fifthy, I was indoctrinated when I was a little Kid... it was nothing horrible, it didnt cause problems afterwards, but Im still against it. In 7th grade, my friend brought the Davinci Code to school and read it during free time... the book was confiscated the teacher told him never to question his religion again. One time i questioned somthing, but i cannot remember what, which didnt make sense to me and I was immediately yelled at and sent to the Principles office. Wasnt even serious, but I got a detention. Ah well, I feel violated by the fact that I am not allowed to question MY PERSONAL BELIEFS.

How has microevolution been proved?

http://ohioline.osu.edu/b586/b586_6.html

So in other words macro evolution hasn't been proven - otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to tag the words "when it is proven" - fanatic christians do the same when they say you will understand god "when you go to hell"

-my point is that either way you are looking at a belief system

-my point is that either way you are looking at a belief system

They are not parallelled.

I'm fed up with religious moderates trying to draw parallells between atheists and theists. They are the worst kind of religious people as at least fundamentalists, you can see where they are coming from.

Macro evolution is based on the fossil record, which is evidence. Call it a belief if you wish, but it is belief based on evidence. There is more evidence coming in all the time which supports rather than contradicts macro evolution, and if people were to educate themselves on evolution without bias, they could only come to one conclusion.

They are not parallelled.

I'm fed up with religious moderates trying to draw parallells between atheists and theists. They are the worst kind of religious people as at least fundamentalists, you can see where they are coming from.

Macro evolution is based on the fossil record, which is evidence. Call it a belief if you wish, but it is belief based on evidence. There is more evidence coming in all the time which supports rather than contradicts macro evolution, and if people were to educate themselves on evolution without bias, they could only come to one conclusion.

Well if evolution is a fact but it hasn't been replicated in observable scientific experiments (which is generally what science holds as the distinction between a theory and a fact) what is it if not a belief? Maybe an educated guess .....

If you cannot see that then I guess it is just because you are too fixated in your belief system

Micro and Macroevolution were separated only because fundamentalist theists didnt want to admit evolution was proven when, what is now called microevolution, was proven. The evolutionary process has been proven in a short-term observation and yet you say it is not proven until we witness it in a long-term (millions of years) observation.... yea... right...

Well what else should be accepted in the absence of actual evidence? Charisma? Exhibitions of will power? How about throwing buckets of money at something?

The evidence wouldn't have to be so grand - just one evidence of one species turning into another one - shouldn't be too hard to find surely

We have evidence of that in fossil records... its pretty much impossible to see a species change into another ... ever... especially since we havnt accounted for SO MANY species, we wouldnt know if it was evolution or a newly discovered one... so... yea

plus, evolution doesnt just mean changing from one species to another... it just means change... which insects have done to repellant... so in my eyes, evolution is proven, especially with the loads of scientific evidence giving it a 99.99999999999999% chance of being total fact...

The evidence wouldn't have to be so grand - just one evidence of one species turning into another one

Done and dusted.

In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species.

Here is how this speciation occurred. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilised a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species.

---------

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse occurred less than 250 years after humans brought it to the island. Species identification in this case was based on morphology, since breeding experiments could not be performed with the parent stock . (S. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1979, p. 41)

----------

After five years of selective crossbreeding, E. Pasterniani in 1969 produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of corn. The species were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids, which were not used for future breeding. (Zea mays L. Evolution 23, pp. 534547)

etc etc etc.

We have evidence of that in fossil records... its pretty much impossible to see a species change into another ... ever... especially since we havnt accounted for SO MANY species, we wouldnt know if it was evolution or a newly discovered one... so... yea

plus, evolution doesnt just mean changing from one species to another... it just means change... which insects have done to repellant... so in my eyes, evolution is proven, especially with the loads of scientific evidence giving it a 99.99999999999999% chance of being total fact...

The problem is though that it seems every species is suffering from the enigmatic "missing link"

ROTFLMAO, yet again lightgigantic, you are the master of mirth, my hat goes of to you man, you are beyond hilarious, fantastic.

Beyond the hilarious once again - seems like you just keep making more and more spiritual advancement despite yourself

spiritual, LOL, to the delusional maybe, beyond to the general concensus means: On the far side of; past or Later than; after.

Beyond the hilarious once again - seems like you just keep making more and more spiritual advancement despite yourself

Hey, you ignored my post! You said all it took was one piece of evidence. The facts have been laid before you. Where you gone?

We have evidence of that in fossil records... its pretty much impossible to see a species change into another ... ever... especially since we havnt accounted for SO MANY species, we wouldnt know if it was evolution or a newly discovered one... so... yea

plus, evolution doesnt just mean changing from one species to another... it just means change... which insects have done to repellant... so in my eyes, evolution is proven, especially with the loads of scientific evidence giving it a 99.99999999999999% chance of being total fact...

*************
M*W: The cockroach has lived on Earth 250 million years and has never changed.

Hey, you ignored my post! You said all it took was one piece of evidence. The facts have been laid before you. Where you gone?

Don't go and do a silly thing like post some facts directed at a theist. Denial is a powerful weapon as is ignorance. I don't think I've seen anyone pull it off the way Jan Ardena does... but lightgigantic is getting there...

One species cannot change into another. Read your Aristotle.

One species cannot change into another. Read your Aristotle.

What does it matter what Aristotle thought? He wasn't alive at a time when the theory of evolution was (properly at least) addressed bearing witness to evidence.

Maybe you should read up on what scientists of the present day have to say about it rather than ancient Greek philosophers.

As for species changing into another, well I suppose they do, but theists take this a little bit too literally... as quotes I've read from theists here usually say something like "how can a dog turn into a chicken" which clearly demonstrates lack of understanding of evolution. What we call a species describes that living thing at a particular snapshot in time. However, throughout a longer timeframe, you merely have an organisim which replicates and adapts to enivonmental changes over millions/billions of years.

Take a huge landmass in which an island breaks away: from that point on you have a new direction of evolution, which explains the variety on many of the worlds most remote islands.

Just the immense pressures of time, change and new environments has a gradual but dramatic change on what form life takes. It's really elegant and simple if you think about it for a moment without religious bias.

Ok, I will read up on evolution if you want, but it will take time and I will be sceptical. i would also expect you to read up on classical philosophy.

Some thoughts and conclusions which the ancient philosophers like Aristotle made cannot be disputed, for they are the basis of sound reasoning. Aristotle himself designed the discipline of formal logic. Ancient philosophy is not merely old and no longer relevant just because science has made a few discoveries.

lawdog,

A good reference site for an objective view of the evolution vs creationist debate is -

www.talkorigins.org

Ok, I will read up on evolution if you want, but it will take time and I will be sceptical. i would also expect you to read up on classical philosophy.

Some thoughts and conclusions which the ancient philosophers like Aristotle made cannot be disputed, for they are the basis of sound reasoning. Aristotle himself designed the discipline of formal logic. Ancient philosophy is not merely old and no longer relevant just because science has made a few discoveries.

WOAH WOAH WOAH ... you came in here and claimed Evolution is wrong and Creationism is correct... when you havnt even researched the former but know good well of the latter? Talk about Bias! You might as well go up to a Muslim and say his religion is wrong and bad without even knowing what he believes... Oh wait... nevermind. :rolleyes:

lawdog and others.

For all those complete imbecile's who think evolution never happened,
educate yourselves or try to explain these?
Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs)

10, The Wings on Flightless Birds
9, Hind Leg Bones in Whales
8, Erector Pili and Body Hair
7, The Human Tailbone (Coccyx)
6, The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus
5, Wisdom Teeth in Humans
4, The Sexual Organs of Dandelion
3, Fake Sex in Virgin Whiptail Lizards (Vestigial Behavior)
2, Male Breast Tissue and Nipples
1, The Human Appendix

I looking forward to some of the answers.
there's actually eighty-six vestigial organs.
source: http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/rudimentary_organs.html

lawdog and others.

For all those complete imbecile's who think evolution never happened,
educate yourselves or try to explain these?
Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs)

10, The Wings on Flightless Birds
9, Hind Leg Bones in Whales
8, Erector Pili and Body Hair
7, The Human Tailbone (Coccyx)
6, The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus
5, Wisdom Teeth in Humans
4, The Sexual Organs of Dandelion
3, Fake Sex in Virgin Whiptail Lizards (Vestigial Behavior)
2, Male Breast Tissue and Nipples
1, The Human Appendix

I looking forward to some of the answers.
there's actually eighty-six vestigial organs.
source: http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/rudimentary_organs.html


Compare the motorcycle and wheat harvester - both of them are different applications of a similar design(combustion powered locomotive) to suit a purpose - its not like the motorcycle went through gradual changes of evolution to become a wheat harvester or vice versa. The motorcycle appears similar in some ways but it never had the capacity to harvest wheat. Similarly a wheat harvester never had the capacity to overtake freeway traffic. They both share the same "blue prints" and have borrowed elements of design but they remain constantly fixed in their design applications (its not like a wheat farmer will ever consider a motorbike suitable for harvesting)

Similarly when designing the bodies of animals the blue print is "tweaked" by the designer to suit the different applications - if there are 8 400 000 different applications in this world (ie different species of flaura and fauna) why should a designer wrack their brains to produce 8 400 000 different designs? Its sufficient just to come up with one or two dozen different designs and tweak them a little this way and that way, just like automotive technology (which is just one single design) is tweaked to produce a myriad of design applications from motorcycles to wheat harvesters to armoured tanks

Lawdog said: One species cannot change into another. Read your Aristotle

Wrong.

In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species.

Here is how this speciation occurred. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilised a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species.

You've got nothing to say.

Of course, unless you're saying that an elephant wont wake up one morning as a giraffe, in which case you're totally right.

--------

To light:

Seems I need to repeat myself:

"Hey, you ignored my post! You said all it took was one piece of evidence. The facts have been laid before you. Where you gone?"

why should a designer wrack their brains to produce 8 400 000 different designs?

Wrack their brains? If these designers are considered omnipotent, (which they most often are), then there is no wracking of brains, merely clicking of fingers. Three nanoseconds and the blink of the eyelids and you have several billion different designs that aren't quite as messed up as they are in reality.

-------

Don't go and do a silly thing like post some facts directed at a theist. Denial is a powerful weapon as is ignorance.

So it would seem.

Compare the motorcycle and wheat harvester - tanks

Or try another analogy, computer programs.

If I need a program to perform a particular task the chances are that I start off by finding one that does something similar, in order to adapt it to suit my purpose.

The result is then likely to be replete with recognisably vestigial characteristcs derived from the original, the same variables or sub routines or whatever, but would this then prove that one "evolved" from the other?

I would rather get some credit for the design work, and the same would go for DNA. If a boffin in a laboratory knows how to modify the genetics to suit a particular purpose, then a notional God could just as well attempt the same.

--- Ron.

Or try another analogy, computer programs.

If I need a program to perform a particular task the chances are that I start off by finding one that does something similar, in order to adapt it to suit my purpose.

The result is then likely to be replete with recognisably vestigial characteristcs derived from the original, the same variables or sub routines or whatever, but would this then prove that one "evolved" from the other?bad analogy, on your part, of course one evolved from the other, as you started with one that does something similar. hence why we have vestigial organs we've all evolved from something, that does something similar.
computers used to be written, in machine code and basic was the interpreter, now we have menu driven programs, we now have no need for a interpreter, it evolved, ok with the help of the programer, we adapt to our surroundings, I have programs on my computer that remove any vestigial, characters, if there was a god would he not have done the same.

I really dont understand what theists are trying to refute. If they refute the biological fact of evolution, then they aren't coming up with any alternatives. Why?

Obviously they have an issue with the apparent natural basis for life and its evolution... But what I want to ask is what they wish God's role to be? Do they wish God to create each species individually rather than allowing them to evolve? Basically I just want a theist to describe the emotional basis for their argument against evolution... However, that would require a theist to be honest, which is something that won't happen.

It sounds to me theists refute evolution for the same reasons they refuted Earth not being the centre of the universe in the 17th century. Ignorance and unwillingness to reduce the role God plays in Human affairs.

The leader of the Theology Department of my school once gave a speech on Evolutionism vs Creationism... it was a great speech, but alas, i have forgotten most of it. He described how Evolution was God's Revelation to us... revealing his plan for all the creatures, animals and plants, little crawling things (as the bible calls bugs :p ) etc. to us slowly. He said it a lot better, and it was a great speech. My point is Evolution = does not disprove God. Now, we know that Evolution DOES disprove the Creation Stories in the Bible... along with all others written in mythological and theological books.

But, you literalist Theists (btw, I am a Theist... not an Athiest... a Theist) have a chance! You have another way to back away from defeat! Claim you are not a rigid literalist but instead a loose literalist, and claim that the 6-Day Creation story describes that the world was created in 6 stages... although im sure THAt could easily be disproven, but still, back yourself into another corner :)

Evolution = pretty much proven, we have given examples of large plants evolving, insects evolving, fossils showing the possibility of ANIMALS evolving, we have leftover vestigial parts, seemingly to have a purpose at one point in time, we have seen that genetic mutations arent always bad (but usually), we have seen that not everything evolves the same, look at small islands separated from the main World. We have carbon-dated soil and rock and have discovered the world to be MUCH MUCH older than 10,000 years, the supposed time when Genesis was first written.

Along with the fact that even if Evolution is not proven in your eyes, what proves Genesis > all other stories? AND DONT DARE SAY "because it is the word of God" ! Prove it then! You cannot! Jeeze, stop trying to prevent science and technology from progressing.

I am disgusted that for years I was taught that a man and a woman, the woman lower than the man, were made out of clay (and a rib for the woman) and somehow hid from God.... didnt know how u can hide from GOD... and were banished from a garden never found ... wouldnt it be there still? After, it is being guarded by a flaming sword and a cherubim (cherubim is acctually a word stolen from another religion, cant remember which tho, sorry, and it is supposedly some monster-looking thing, kindof like a Minitoar, but for some reason over the millennia it was confused with a baby angel...)

I think perplexity is talking about the applications though.

The point is that the vestigal parts are just the remnants of a design brief that is applied differently

The point about evolution is that it is heavily steeped in deductive reasoning and the wider application of the principles of this deductive reasoning is speculation (eg - a butterfly develops grey wings therefore man evolved from a micro- organism). And it is the wider and unfounded conclusions of evolution that are used as evidence to lessen the credibility of such preliminary truths of religion, such as sentient design in the universe - I guess part of the problem is that religion is characterised by christiainity, which is plagued by a few historical inebrities - Like for instance not all religions held that the earth was the centre of the universe (and even that view held within christianity was more of a social phenomena than an idea clearly elaborated in the bible).

The point about evolution is that it is heavily steeped in deductive reasoning and the wider application of the principles of this deductive reasoning is speculation (eg - a butterfly develops grey wings therefore man evolved from a micro- organism).

Ah, that old chestnut. "Evolution has been observed in flies but you haven't seen a man born from a monkey or a giraffe born from a garden mouse, so evolution is false!"

Bad bad bad lack of education. 'Tis all it is.

And it is the wider and unfounded conclusions of evolution that are used as evidence to lessen the credibility of such preliminary truths of religion, such as sentient design in the universe

Ah, that old chestnut. Pretend that evolution is concerned with or gives a solitary droplet of rat piss about creator entities - and then undoubtedly claim evolution false because it does so, (even though it actually doesn't).

I believe it is the perogative of parents or legal guardians to bring their child up in their own faith, or non-faith, as the case may be. However, it is not the perogative of others to attempt to usurp parental authority in this matter. That is why the public schools need to mind their own business and leave the religious training of children to the parents.

I believe it is the perogative of parents or legal guardians to bring their child up in their own faith, or non-faith, as the case may be. However, it is not the perogative of others to attempt to usurp parental authority in this matter. That is why the public schools need to mind their own business and leave the religious training of children to the parents.

In parts of the world not every kid has living parents. !0 year olds are given a religious upbringing by surrogate parents who then strap a bomb on their back. Not sure if any school curriculum anywhere contains such a course. I would hope like hell that a kid's real parents aren't following suit but nothing surprises me any more.

In parts of the world not every kid has living parents. !0 year olds are given a religious upbringing by surrogate parents who then strap a bomb on their back. .

Really? what curriculum are you exactly examining here psychotic episode?

Not sure if any school curriculum anywhere contains such a course. .

Yes it does sound a bit sensational

I would hope like hell that a kid's real parents aren't following suit but nothing surprises me any more.
Kind of raises the question what you are doing talking about kids being trained to strap bombs to themselves

Really?
Kind of raises the question what you are doing talking about kids being trained to strap bombs to themselves

Oh sorry. Do you mean its better for a kid to learn about violence and how to kill from a respected religious establishment? Pardon my ignorance.

Might as well get some consensus.

1. Being exposed to religion at a young age, do you feel it a violation of your rights?
2. Do you think others have the right to expose you to religion at a young age?

Similar but deals with the rights of both parties.

1. No, I do not feel violated even though I was exposed to religion at a young age.

2. I think parents have the right to expose their children to religion.

1. No, I do not feel violated even though I was exposed to religion at a young age.

2. I think parents have the right to expose their children to religion.

2 is a direct approval of making someone blindly believe in a religion.

Why do u believe in God? becuase you do, or because ur parents say u do?

Oh sorry. Do you mean its better for a kid to learn about violence and how to kill from a respected religious establishment? Pardon my ignorance.

No I didn't say that - I am just trying to source what you are actually referencing - its not clear what you are even talking about, which is something we should clear up before we examine the general principles you are applying to come to your conclusions

2 is a direct approval of making someone blindly believe in a religion.

Actually that's not quite Wilmet said - I guess you are presupposing that religious exposure equals blind following

Why do u believe in God? becuase you do, or because ur parents say u do?

If only it was that simple - obviously you don't much experience with raising children - I think that if children automatically were obedient to their parents in religious affairs more parents would be religious just for the sake of bearing influence - most cut up atheists come from staunch religious backgrounds - seems that to further the cause of atheism more stauch religiousity is needed -lol

WOAH WOAH WOAH ... you came in here and claimed Evolution is wrong and Creationism is correct... when you havnt even researched the former but know good well of the latter? Talk about Bias! You might as well go up to a Muslim and say his religion is wrong and bad without even knowing what he believes... Oh wait... nevermind. :rolleyes:

Who says I never researched Evolution? I am only committing to review the material, and perhaps perusing the writings of a few wacky scientists.

As a youth I was very much an Evolutionist. One of My favorite film's was Quest for Fire. I undertook a geology major in college and wanted to be a paleontologist. That was one of my favorite classes.

[QUOTE=Provita]The leader of the Theology Department of my school once gave a speech on Evolutionism vs Creationism... it was a great speech, but alas, i have forgotten most of it. He described how Evolution was God's Revelation to us... revealing his plan for all the creatures, animals and plants, little crawling things (as the bible calls bugs :p ) etc. to us slowly. He said it a lot better, and it was a great speech. My point is Evolution = does not disprove God. Now, we know that Evolution DOES disprove the Creation Stories in the Bible... along with all others written in mythological and theological books.
There are innumerable wacky theologians, just as there are innumerable wacky scientists. Will you let the rhetoric of a university professor decide your position. His statements, from the Roman Catholic point of view, are not just wrong, the premise is absurd. The purpose of all creation is to glorify God.

To be so simplistic as to say that Evolution disproves creationism is a disservice to yourself. Even if the bible stories are not factual, that does not mean they contain no truth.

But, you literalist Theists (btw, I am a Theist... not an Athiest... a Theist) have a chance! You have another way to back away from defeat! Claim you are not a rigid literalist but instead a loose literalist, and claim that the 6-Day Creation story describes that the world was created in 6 stages... although im sure THAt could easily be disproven, but still, back yourself into another corner :)

i dont see the problem with that either

Evolution = pretty much proven,

pretty much? explain.

Along with the fact that even if Evolution is not proven in your eyes, what proves Genesis > all other stories? AND DONT DARE SAY "because it is the word of God" ! Prove it then! You cannot! Jeeze, stop trying to prevent science and technology from progressing.

why do you think we are trying to stop progress? have you ever thought that perhaps progress is just not in the direction that most modern human suppose.

I am disgusted that for years I was taught that a man and a woman, the woman lower than the man, were made out of clay (and a rib for the woman) and somehow hid from God.... didnt know how u can hide from GOD... and were banished from a garden never found ... wouldnt it be there still? After, it is being guarded by a flaming sword and a cherubim (cherubim is acctually a word stolen from another religion, cant remember which tho, sorry, and it is supposedly some monster-looking thing, kindof like a Minitoar, but for some reason over the millennia it was confused with a baby angel...)

Why do you think the author wrote she was from was Adams rib? Its because thats the body center, symbolically that makes her equal to Adam.

The story describes patterns of human behavior. It is YOU who are reading it too literally.

Read this thread, pages 3 and up, we, for a bit of time, discuss evolution and how it is proven, which u only responded by saying its impossible because someone before science said so. It may be aristotle, but even Einstein made false theories.

[QUOTE]
There are innumerable wacky theologians,
:rolleyes: All theologians are waqcky
just as there are innumerable wacky scientists.
:rolleyes: Yes micheal behe, richard hoaxland, and didn't I see the name dembowski recently?
Will you let the rhetoric of a university professor decide your position. His statements, from the Roman Catholic point of view, are not just wrong, the premise is absurd. The purpose of all creation is to glorify God.



why do you think we are trying to stop progress? have you ever thought that perhaps progress is just not in the direction that most modern human suppose.
:rolleyes: because the xian church has tried to stop the spread of knowledge since before the library of Alexandria..

2 is a direct approval of making someone blindly believe in a religion.

Why do u believe in God? becuase you do, or because ur parents say u do?

Hi Provita,

"Exposure" to religion does not equate to blindly believing in a religion. I'm not a proponent of blind belief. As a matter of fact, I have not found any belief system that can be reconciled 100%. I believe in God because of some personal experiences that I've had in adulthood. Both my parents are deceased. One believed in God and belonged to a religion... The other did not.