betsy

I must admit I'd be impressed by anyone who could describe the history of Western civilization in a single paragraph. However, you managed to get everything wrong (even the little you said). First, you, like most people, don't understand the historical concept of separation of Church and State. The point was to prevent the interference of either in the other’s affairs and areas of jurisdiction, not to "boot" the church out. Although developed in the West, the concept is expressed, first as far as I know, in the Bible. When tempted by synagogue officials as to whether He believed He should pay taxes to the Roman authorities, Jesus said "...render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matt. 22:21) Is there nothing new! A relatively recent example in Canada demonstrates the wisdom of such separation. In the early 1960s, the Duplessis government and the powerful RC Church in Quebec tried together to restrict the rights of a particular business by disallowing a business licence. The real reason for the restriction was the fact that the business owner was a Jehovah's Witness. The court found Duplessis and the involved church people guilty of whatever they were charged with. The church in fact has always been the major and essential social influence in the West, both in our day-to-day lives and in our institutions. All our major universities are the product of the church - in most of Europe, the Roman Church and since the mid-sixteenth century, Protestant denominations, and in England, the Church of England. Come to think of it, where would all the atheist professors like Dawkins make a living if it wasn't for their ill-gained tenure. Our legal systems also are based on Biblical law and teachings. The Mosaic Law of the Old Testament and the Judeo-Christian Gospels are the basis of the law of all Western societies. Our Common Law in Canada (Quebec's civil law is based on Roman Law, but its criminal law is based on the Common Law) and most if not all the U.S. was imported directly from England, which was there developed based on Christian moral standards and the process of precedent. The booting out of the church started later. Napoleon, Marxism, Stalin and the U.S.S.R., Pol Pot, Mussolini, Hitler are some examples of the benefits of secular thinking. You may not see them as tyrannies in the severe sense such as Cromwell, or the Pope, or Louis XVI, but still... However, the "booting out" that you so enthusiastically praise is somewhat different but every bit as insidious. It is the legislation preventing the teaching in public of Christian doctrine and is much newer and differently motivated, although it is equally based on the desire for power and control. Even in the middle of the 20th century, the idea that the church was not, let alone should not be, a major influence on society, was considered ludicrous. And it still is ludicrous. That's why it has been necessary to propagandize, lie, legislate, and coerce poor children and mindless adults into believing what they know to be ludicrous. Like most of those poor souls, you too have become a victim of the indoctrination of a secularist tyrant who has spent the last 60 or 70 years manipulating the population with the collusion of a large portion of the scientific community. And the indoctrination is not into a doctrine of science - a doctrine of science could live comfortably and happily alongside any other - it is an indoctrination into an ideology whose proponents intent to control, dictate and regulate. They understand the importance and power of Christianity and are intent on seeing it gone. They understand that those who believe in God don't see secularists (or scientists) as important or authoritative. So they will restrict your freedom of speech and expression until they are meaningless; they will restrict your right of access to information to only what they want you to believe. They already are. Maybe you imagine going along with it will protect you. It won't. Maybe these are the people you refer to. and maybe you're okay with them. Poor you. Okay, what does this mean? I can accept "knowledge" in a loose sense to mean something like information being passed along that the teacher hopes will become the opinion of the kids (its truth believed or not by the teacher), but what about "doctrinal"? I take it from your context, and your nature, that you mean by doctrine, religious belief, and therefore don't see scientific doctrine, as doctrine. But of course, you're wrong. Scientific theories and methodology are doctrinal if anything is. So what you must mean is that it's really unacceptable to teach something in school, but it's okay if it's your doctrine. That of course, doesn't really mean your doctrine; it is "your" doctrine only in the sense that it is what you learned in school, or on the net, or wherever. Btw, what do you mean Do you mean the doctrine of Christ? Jesus was crucified by the Romans. They killed thousands of Christians in the 300 hundred years before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Quite apart from the fact that it is decidedly not a doctrine of the Roman government, what does the age of a doctrine have to do with its validity? One last point. If you teach scientific methodology in science class in the public system, things have certainly changed. We were taught science - told what science had "proved". That certainty is still the case today when it comes to the theory of evolution. Anyway, to suggest that the theory of evolution explains what we see in nature is, to say the least, a contradiction. "What we see in nature" is now and observable. The theory of evolution attempts to explain what we don't see in nature. And come to think of it, what we don't see in the fossil record either.

So you responded about the earth. And it was proven that you've got it backward. Anyway, support all your claims! Most especially, show a reference that what I posted was not Hawking's statement. From now on....I insist other credible materials to back up claims used by you, or Dre, or any of you religious atheists in discussions. Your claims without any credible support are nothing more than emotional babblings by religious cultist fanatics!

Eh? Come again? You didn't like my first source. I obliged you. I even gave you a source from your own camp! I challenge you to do the same - don't just rely on TalkOrigin! So what's your problem now? I guess he can't answer my challenge as to giving sources. So now here comes the bashing! It's both of you who got it backward! Several noted scientists, including Stephen Hawking disagrees with you. Seems like this "disagreeing" with scientists is becoming a pattern. Anyway, I'll just post this much - the list is long! Anyway, we're talking universe! Not just earth. As an example, space travel required that scientists know exactly the laws that govern the orbits of heavenly bodies to allow a successful launch and return. They can't just send that rocket up with a hope and a prayer and count on a Luke Skywalker to bring it back. One thing though....Faith is faith - whether blind or not. Faith in their belief. I admire all the religious atheists' courageous show of strong faith in this board. ***(Edited to add a short emphasis of statement) Yep. It's a religion. So there.

Yes? Was that quote not correct? Can you explain how so?

Of course it's hard to find the exact edition 1954 from that magazine. I actually went to TalkOrigin, and found a rebuttal that quoted an article from 1958. Four years gap - verbatim statements would be hard to verify unless we get a copy of the magazine when the statement was actually made. So we've both reached a stalemate: Your Talk Origin version of that particular quote by Wald (given in the previous post) cannot be taken as is, the same way you cannot take mine as is. I will humor you, Toadbrother and give you another piece which was taken from another site - american science magazine itself! The article actually supporting more than one of my arguments. Take note of the date it was published. Since I gave you another source which should not be doubted for its bias, I expect you to do the same. TalkOrigin - which is the apologetics-counterpart of Christianity - cannot be accepted on its own. How do we know that it's not pulling the same tricks as a lot of atheist evolutionist scientists do - wildly distorting, desperately fabricating to fill in the gaps?

28 DAYS LATER. This is not that sci-fi/horror movie....but horrific nevertheless. I guess women get a trial period if they want the baby - 28 days. And we think Hitler was a monster.

Now back to the so-called imbecilic-neener-neener-atheism-is-a-religion-too. Here is a quote from atheist George Wald, a recipient of the Nobel Prize. This is about belief.

I came across this quotation from Dawkins, It is understandable why several rabid atheists in this forum spout out the same insults to those who oppose their views. One thing I notice though that all these people - Dawkins, Hitchens, and some of the atheists on this board (the same ones most of the time) - seem to share one thing in common. They are short-fused. At the beginning, they all start with a seeming rational approach to a debate, with a seeming serious attempt at civilized discussion. However, they can only maintain it for so long. They almost, always end up bashing their opponents with insults and personal attacks. Rationality is quickly replaced by senseless verbal bashings. They love to bash! They inevitably revert back to their chimphood. I guess it must be true.... you can definitely separate God's man from a chimp, but you can't take the chimp out of a religious atheist.

First off, being an atheist does not eliminate curiousity or to know our roots. Second of all, I don't have a need to disprove religious people, but if religious people make claims that are absurd, I will, as I will with political people or backgammon people or anyone else saying nonsensical or invalid things, correct them. Nothing to do with atheism, everything to do with this being a discussion forum, and not your soap box. Does that answer your questions that have nothing at all to do with what we're talking about? Kind of you to indulge me.

Says you. Clearly we'll never agree on this.

I take it you don't want to answer these. Tough questions to an atheist I suppose. It's okay, you don't have to if you don't want to.

Religious people believe there is God. If religious people find solace and contentment believing there is life after death, why would he want to dash that belief? So badly enough that he makes it his life's goal? What does he gain by that cruel act - keep in mind that he believes that once we're dead, we're dead - so what's his point?

If I'm not mistaken, theey were going to appeal the ruling however the members of the board who promoted ID were all replaced....so that put an end to the plan for an appeal. The main reason it got that ruling was due to the fact that it broke the groundrules of science regarding the supernatural. Methodology? or Jean Dixon predictions? Prediction takes on a whole new meaning when faced with undeniable evidence that there's an Architect behind all these! And I stress again, why do we put a limit to how we come to the truth? There is a first cause in creation of the universe (which makes more sense than an accident happening given all the fine-tunings that's been pointed out.) And the fossil records have not produced a single evidence! Not one! So again, that points to an Intelligent Designer. So I asked: why do they - ID and evolution - have to be separate?

I'm not asking all evolutionists. My question is directed to atheists and I've explained why.

Okay, okay..... let's see who can give me the most satisfying answer. I'm really curious. Here are the questions. If you atheists believe that your existence happened by fluke or by sheer accident, you believe that this is the only life you get, that once you die you die, and that there is no life after death....

Isn't Hitchens wasting what precious time is left of this one-time chance at life....indulging in debates (that lead to nowhere) with religous folks? Eat, drink, be merry I say. Time's a-ticking!

Why does ID have to be separate from evolution?

CTV Jane Taber took a dig at him suggesting, isn't avoiding to give a straight answer contemptuous of democracy. He kept clearly saying though..."Look I'm in politics...." In other words he's nothing more than your typical politicians who don't mean what they say and who say what they don't mean! So why should people take his promises seriously? Makes a whole lot of sense to stick with Harper! Voters may not like his personality or may not agree with his method....but at least he's tried and tested! At a very difficult time to boot!

It's bad enough they can't agree between a chimp and a monkey! Throw in a lemur, apes, all primates, "monkey-like," ....maybe including a baboon-like cat....inclusivity-galore! ...then include the banana and the chicken.....and yes, Dawkins said to also include the "slime" (the green or the clear?), whatever that means....the more , the merrier! Ayayayayayaya!

Your response doesn't make any sense. Kindly scroll back and follow the flow of discussion. Speaking of the meaning of relativism and its usage, you never did get back to me to point and correct me where I was wrong. Why don't you explain? Methinks either you know that there was nothing wrong....or you can't tell.

On the contrary there is a system! Intelligent Design makes more sense than that silly Common Descent prediction. These are some of the "fine-tuning" pro-ID scientists are talking about! Excerpt from Charles Price: http://www.livingtruth.ca/pdf/transcriptions/KNG/KNG_1.pdf

Methodology? or Jean Dixon predictions? Prediction takes on a whole new meaning when faced with undeniable evidence that there's an Architect behind all these! The only reason that there is an element of prediction in scientific theories is because they discover the things that are already in place. They found the law of nature that they didn't know before. It doesn't mean it wasn't there.

I'm not surprised! DNA is God's word processor. He made the template and then needed only minor adjustments to produce the monkey...or the monkey's banana!

The relativism continues.... Dre accepted that the chimp is her uncle. Nobody said anything about descended or mentioned "descendant"....except Jonsa! Anyway.... Guess who's coming to dinner....and it ain't Sidney Poiter!

Deleted: Misplaced reply.