Religious indoctrination of children

[Cyberman]

Except for the fact that evolution isn't false science (nor a religion neither, before anyone dumps that particularly noxious little turd into the pool). Otherwise you might have a point.

Seems a bit strange you would say such a thing, there are evolutionist who have said that it's a religion, and the creation view can not be allowed to be examined because it is not a part of this religion. My on words on what has been stated. So I do have a point.

Even if there are people, including 'evolutionists', claiming that evolution is a religion, that still does not change the plain and simple fact that it simply is not. I could sit here until the cows come home claiming that the Moon is really a giant eyeball watching everything we get up to here on Earth. I might even be able to find someone to back me up, the internet does after all have some pretty peculiar dimensions. None of it changes the reality, viz the Moon is not an eyeball.

Evolution would be a damn strange religion. It has no deities, no prophets, no ceremonies, no tax breaks, essentially it lacks just about everything that would be recognised as characteristic of a religion; and any part of it that might be so regarded depends on a definition of religion so loose as to encompass subjects as diverse as sports, science fiction and stamp collecting.

As for the creation view, either there is nothing tangible that can actually be examined or else what is presented can be dismissed as irrelevant, misrepresented, or outright lies. If creationists actually had something, anything, to support their case, it and they would be taken seriously in a scientific context. Instead, they trot out nothing but half-baked conspiracy theories and misleading mumbo-jumbo in an attempt to sell snakeoil to the credulous.

But just for the moment let's entertain the notion that evolution is indeed a religion. Which part would be the religious aspect? The observed fact of evolution in nature, perhaps? Or would it be the theory, the model which, with its mass of supporting and mutually-corroborating evidence, supplies a mechanism for the natural phenomenon? Please, give the history and status of evolution as you see it. I would really be interested in that, as I'm sure we all would.

ETA: Also, why evolution specifically, as opposed to any of the other hundreds of theories in the scientific arena? Are they [u]all[/i] religions?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Hello all.

I believe that religious indoctrination of children is a great problem everywhere in the world, and I have therefore started a fundraiser to help fund the education of religiously indoctrinated youths. I was greatly inspired by the American documentary "Sons of Perdition" where dozens of young people where escaping the oppressive religious parents and community, just to end up without a home, job or family. I want to help those people trying to break free from the religion they were born into, but does not believe in.

Do you see religious indoctrination of children as a big problem, and if so, in what way?

Let me hear what you say.

-Simon

I don't think that it's a problem. People can raise their children in whatever religion they believe in, just like they teach the children their own language and culture, which is as much as an indoctrination as teaching their children about their own faith.
Besides, I don't think that this requires fundraiser, for what are you going to use the money for anyways?

[Godscreated]

I like that you showed evidence of the above theories, oh except for evolution, I see another has been brain washed into believing the religion of evolution. Maybe you should check with all the evolutionary scientist and see what they say, please do not exclude the ones that disagree with your brain washing. Also let me know when the VRSA bug changes into a species that is new to us. By the way the MRSA and the VRSA are the same except for the adaptation to resistant to certain drugs. What you have stated is only adaptation, not a change in species, that has never been proven to have taken place.

A - I am not your teacher and more importantly you are an unteachable waste of oxygen.

B - Adaptation is evolution you fucking retard.

C - Your fucking apologists are not scientists nor does a degree in communications amount to a scientist able to speak on evolutionary biology. Neither does having a degree from before I was born (as Duane "The Galloper" Gish has).

A- I would not want you as my teacher, you have nothing to teach.

B- Adaptation is not evolution, adaptation was deemed as evolution because no transitional form have been found, until science can prove that one species actually evolved from another evolution is a fail.

C- Are you a scientist, if so what kind? I and other christians can read scientific papers, study with scientist, I happen to know three very good scientist who are advanced in their fields.

[Norfolk And Chance]

You think you might get charge of your own galaxy when you die, what makes you think your opinion is credible?

[Napoléon]

A - The first letter of the alphabet.

B - This is the second letter of the alphabet.

C - The third letter of the alphabet.

I could go on...

[Nine]

A - The first letter of the alphabet.

B - This is the second letter of the alphabet.

C - The third letter of the alphabet.

I could go on...

[Godscreated]

---

Except for the fact that evolution isn't false science (nor a religion neither, before anyone dumps that particularly noxious little turd into the pool). Otherwise you might have a point.

---

---

Seems a bit strange you would say such a thing, there are evolutionist who have said that it's a religion, and the creation view can not be allowed to be examined because it is not a part of this religion. My on words on what has been stated. So I do have a point.

---

Evolution would be a damn strange religion. It has no deities, no prophets, no ceremonies, no tax breaks, essentially it lacks just about everything that would be recognised as characteristic of a religion; and any part of it that might be so regarded depends on a definition of religion so loose as to encompass subjects as diverse as sports, science fiction and stamp collecting.

As for the creation view, either there is nothing tangible that can actually be examined or else what is presented can be dismissed as irrelevant, misrepresented, or outright lies. If creationists actually had something, anything, to support their case, it and they would be taken seriously in a scientific context. Instead, they trot out nothing but half-baked conspiracy theories and misleading mumbo-jumbo in an attempt to sell snakeoil to the credulous.

But just for the moment let's entertain the notion that evolution is indeed a religion. Which part would be the religious aspect? The observed fact of evolution in nature, perhaps? Or would it be the theory, the model which, with its mass of supporting and mutually-corroborating evidence, supplies a mechanism for the natural phenomenon? Please, give the history and status of evolution as you see it. I would really be interested in that, as I'm sure we all would.

ETA: Also, why evolution specifically, as opposed to any of the other hundreds of theories in the scientific arena? Are they [u]all[/i] religions?

I agree evolution is a strange religion, faith in something unproven makes it a religion, per your definition of religion. It is up to those who believe in evolution to define it's god/s not those on the outside, that burden is on you. By the way no observation of evolution has ever been proven, unless you are going to claim adaptation as evolution and no species has ever become a different species through adaptation. For the last 50 years or so the Russians have been breeding silver foxes, they have managed to change behavior, for better or worse, and even a variation in color, but they are still foxes and will always be.

"Why evolution specifically," because billions have been milked from tax dollars and yet evolution after all these years is still an unproven theory. That money would have been better spent feeding the poor and ect. There is no evidence for evolution, until an undeniable transitional form is proven to have been part of the making of a new species then faith is all you have.

"Are they all religions," no many have been shown to hold up to scrutiny, I can give you an example, yesterday my feet slipped and I wound up on my bottom side, ie. gravity, here's another the last time I worked on an electric appliance I was careless and got the geewhezz knocked out of me, ie. electricity.

---

A - The first letter of the alphabet.

B - This is the second letter of the alphabet.

C - The third letter of the alphabet.

I could go on...

I'm not sure you can.

[Napoléon]

A - The first letter of the alphabet.

B - This is the second letter of the alphabet.

C - The third letter of the alphabet.

I could go on...

I'm not sure you can.

D - Is the fourth letter of the alphabet

I just went on.

[Norfolk And Chance]

G

oh bollocks.

[Godscreated]

Indeed, if Godschild clicked my second link, he would see that change in a species (evolution) has been proven and observed in a lab.

Only for microorganisms, since their generations are so much shorter (and thus evolution take much less time for them), but the same principal applies to all living things.

It's still a bacteria and after 50,000 generations has adapted very little. Yes your right, I do say those forms you gave are not proven transitional forms, and never will be, we should take all the money that will be wasted on trying to prove a theory that's 200 years false and help those who are in need of food, clothing and health care.

---

A - The first letter of the alphabet.

B - This is the second letter of the alphabet.

C - The third letter of the alphabet.

I could go on...

I'm not sure you can.

D - Is the fourth letter of the alphabet

I just went on.

Could be some hope for you.