betsy

Jonsa and Bloodyminded, let's have a little recap here: The following exchanges happened in the thread, Creation. I saw the debate video (link provided by Dre) between Dawkins and Wright. In that video, Dawkins repeated two times that we are related to the monkey. He also rebuked anti-evolutionists for resisting the idea that we are related to the monkey. Check it out for yourselves. So clearly, by your own exchanges as shown....the three of you don't agree. You protest: Jonsa disagrees with the great Dawkins himself. There is no twisting of words about this. Dre said her uncle is the chimp. You jumped in and talked about the monkeys....like chimp and monkeys are the same things. I guess so....they're related too, aren't they? And Bloodyminded....well...this is where it really gets really, really confusing. If Jonsa disagreed with Bishop Dawkins, Bloodyminded disagrees with the Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050515151741.htm I mean...c'mon! What have you got against the poor monkey, or the poor chimp? This looks kinda like the sophisticated folks ashamed of their poor relations....or rather, the country bumpkins. I've got a cat that has the facial features of a baboon....and I spoil him rotten! You guys should invite the monkey and the chimp for dinner! Note: edited to add to statement.

This is an excerpt from your source: I also said that teens - whether religious or not - usually don't listen to authority! That's why I say to focus on this group! Take note of the boldened statements.

I didn't mention anything about agnostics. Besides, Agnostics are neutral....so I don't think they're likely to have religion-like attitudes like some atheists (unless I'm wrong and that like Atheists, they too have come up with different denominations?) How likely is it for Agnostics to go rabid and be religious-like in promoting neutrality?

So what! First it's the piece of paper....now it's semantics! Person or human, take your pick! They're one and the same. Numbers of jurisdiction is moot. Nazi Germany had those who didn't agree with Hitler's assessment that Jews were not human....or sub-human. Face it.

It is women empowerment! Thanks to the influential Feminist Movement and the clime of apologists and political correctness gone bonkers!

There is no accurate data for abortions in Canada, since 1998(?), not sure with the date but iyt's in one of my links. So there is no way of gathering facts! His links also supported my argument. Anyway, when was that survey done?

No, nor do we teach science and biology in math class or hockey schools. I don't mean to bicker but I'm not sure where you're going with that. Actually I'm not whining. I don't whine. I leave that up to those who aren't very sure about their arguments. What are you saying? That because most people believe in God therefore it shouldn't be taught in schools? Are you trying to change the world? If most people believe in God (which is not a given) then why shouldn't Theism be part of the system? It should. It is because people holding power are secularists. And don't hesitate for a moment to impose their religion on our children. And yes, there is brain-washing. Just look how Christianity (which is a huge part of history and culture in this nation) is being eased out or omitted as the Christmas holiday I've given as an example. The reasons/comments given by some posters does reflect an approval of such revision - and it is indeed a revision of history and culture! If we let it be, what's our history gonna be? Mythology or fairy tale. And the same thing is happening to science - theory being passed off as actual fact, taught in schools! And again, the reason is of course, religion. That's blatant brainwashing! Anyway the fact is we're talking about western education system. You're describing the faults of the system, not the benefits. Yeah, as I've explained above about revisions, misrepresentations and brainwashing....soon children in school wouldn't know where reality begins and fantasy ends.

There isn't. There's no conclusive evidence in the fossil record. In fact it's so inconclusive that paleontologists doctor the "evidence." You can't go to a Museum of Natural Science, anywhere in the world, that hasn't filled in the missing links. Check out my quote of William Lane Craig. That's quite a metaphor, mixed as it is. First you've got a mind, then you've got a room, and now you've got a dumpster! Actually no I wouldn't balk at anything like that because there won't be any supernatural events that are outside the power of the Judeo-Christian God. So there.

It's not a matter of my lack of understanding. It's a matter of the misrepresentation of 'evolution' as a 'fact'. Further, like I said, why would you put a limit on what you use to arrive at the truth? If a naturalist cannot demonstrate physical evidence to substantiate whatever theory, why would he assume there's no other explanation? Because she's discounted the possibility of non-physical evidence (ie. the supernatural, God), that's why. Permit me to quote William Lane Craig: [My additions in square brackets, my emphasis in bold]

Eh? What page are you now?

Why would a quest for truth put a limit on how we come to the truth? All roads should be open in searching for the truth. Schools and educational institutions should uphold this! You don't ram half-baked theories and ram it in as facts....that's being fraudulent - mis-representing - as an institution that passes itself as a place for "education." In this way, educational institutions become nothing more than "brain-washing" institutions for whomever or what ideology is in power. If the possibility of a supernatural causation is there....instead of saying, "hold it. Hold it. It's not a scientific method," shouldn't we say...."Prove it?" After all, that's what anti-evolutionists are telling the evolutionists....prove it! Shouldn't we keep an open mind?

There, you hit it in the nail. That's the reason why it is claimed that it didn't pass muster! The theory of evolution is only that....a theory. It is not an established fact....not even backed by clear evidence. You'd think that through the ages (millions and millions of years) that the earth will be littered by thousands and thousands (if not millions or billions) of fossils that show the evolution of one specie to another. Yet not even one....not a single one could be found! All we ask is ONE SINGLE evidence! Anyway, I don't want to get involved in yet another evolution debate on this thread. Just like abortion or global warming...I tend to agree that this has become nothing more than politics. More…http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v10i4f.htm

Thanks for explaining what you meant.

That's not what I said. Just to remind you, I'm reacting to WIP's accusation of the Pope's promotion of abstinence. I'm just stating a logical fact. If the Pope says to abstain from sex, those who will listen to him will abstain from sex. Those are not your problem. They're already using the natural method of birth control. Anyway, those Christians who will not listen and will not abstain from sex, they're the ones more likely to use birth control devices to avoid pregnancy. Since fornication is a sin, surely any Christian who do have fear of God will most likely take precaution so as not to commit another sin. After all, a wrong cannot be corrected by another wrong. As for the teens....do you really think most teens give a hoot what the Pope says? Think back when you were a teen. Did you really listen and follow authority? You've got to give your main focus on these folks....they're the ones with raging hormones and highly reckless. The positive note is that not every teener ends up pregnant....so some parents must be doing something right in raising their children. Sure there are still Christians who get pregnant out of wedlock, but I doubt that the numbers of those who go for abortion will be so high. So I say, focus your energy and resources in promoting condoms! Whether the Pope promotes it or not is not the real problem. Let him worry about his flock.....you concentrate on everyone (including his flock). If you did it successfully with anti-smoking, you can do it again with condoms!

Do you mean Canada? There are no accurate data since 1998(?). Records-keeping hasn't been enforced. So that means we cannot know.

Perhaps some did not. But others did. Oviously the fetuses had some protection. Otherwise why did abortion have to be de-criminalized? Anyway, now we know. We know that they are human.

It wasn't considered science because ID broke the century-old groundrules of science - not to invoke supernatural causation. That in itself shows a somewhat close-mindedness, I would say....to limit itself. What if - as other scientists assert - there is a first cause? A supernatural causation? Are we suppose to just ignore it? If we truly are searching for the truth....shouldn't we keep our minds open? Be prepared to entertain other theories that may or may not be to our liking? Anyway, it's still all politics.

I should've said the theory of Intelligent Design.

Being multi-cultural isn't a one way-street. Though so many would like to see any mention of Christianity erased or would rather sweep it under the rug....we can't deny that it's a huge part of our culture. To omit it is a distortion of this nation's history.

I was responding to the reasonings of other posters here who tried to justify by saying there's no need to impart others about our culture since ours is the dominant culture. Actually your previous statement: And then you asked this:

Okay I see your point. I shouldn't have used the word Creationism. BUT, definitely the theory of Intelligent Design ought to be taught in school as well.

As I said before, you need not worry about the Catholic Church. It is doing its share in promoting abstinence. And if I'm not mistaken....already compromised with other birth control message (?). Anyway, those who will listen to the Pope will more likely abstain....and if those Christians don't listen to the Pope, they're the ones who're more likely to use birth control devices! They'll try to avoid compounding a sinful act with the sinful act of murder! Excluding rape, it's those who don't have a care or respect for human life....those who lives by the moment....those who put themselves before all else....those who want instant gratification....those are your problems! And they're usually the ones who abandoned God, or don't believe in God or a god. So don't shift the accusatory finger to the Pope and his message. Refusing to address the root of all this problem is not addressing the issue. It is just going through the motion and merely indulging in the politics of faith and no-faith.

Just so to be clear, lack of evidence of what?

Don't dodge and skirt around what I pointedly asked you. Why is a piece of paper so important to you?

This will make a very intersting topic....wish you'd make one.