Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Evolution is a Lie?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Evolution is a Lie? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/5/2005 10:49:37 PM   
pleasureforHim


Posts: 171
Joined: 7/2/2005
Status: offline 		dark angel, darling..i have re-read this thread over a few times and cannot for the life of me see why you would have gotten the impression i was referencing your posts when i wrote earlier? please email me if i am being dim and need to aplogise; i always enjoy the lightness and grace with which you write.

What does confuse me a bit is that so many people reference the Cathoic Church in their arguments...and Lord knows, the Church has it's high points in madness and veniality -- but we are not crusading for creationsism. It is not taught in parochial schools...evolution is. In short, amazing as it may seem, on this issue, the Church has behaved rationally.

Proponents of creationism seem to me to be characters from Fahrenheit 451 by Kurt Vonnegut. (At one time, everyone i knew was reading him.) In the book, firemen have been changed into book burners because it has been deemed in the best interests of the general population that they have no stimulation from novels and other written works.

It beggars the imagination that Darwin was wrong and species do not adapt and evolve. Why creationists find this simple scientific fact so offensive is beyond me...species also become extinct and have been doing so since time immeorial. Was it part of God's plan that during the 6 days He would create many species with a short shelf life? What about species that become extinct due to Man's activities, such as the ravaging of the Amazon rainforest? And if species are "disposable" within the story of creation, then why aren't newer versions also permissible?

Creationists (i believe) do not really care about hijacking a portion of the biology cirriculum to teach their beliefs. I believe what they DO care about is winning a battle they have lost in the courts for nigh on 30 years; to introduce christian values, activties and icons into the public schools. In short, creationists want to get into the public schools by the back door because the courts have consistently closed the front door.

At a time when the public schools are failing by any standard within any city, the creationism debate saps limited energy and resources. The fact that there have been inroads in some places feeds the frenzy of a modestly sized but highly organized group. They do our school children a dissevice but they can nothing for that; what matters to them is that every public school student have at least some christian ideas inclucated into them before graduation.

The purpose of the "separation of church and state" clause of the first amendment is primarily to prevent government from becoming a theocracy. The religious right cannot accept this boundary and attacks wherever possible. Those of us who have different beliefs would be unable to send our children to school without fear of religious instruction by a sect we do not belong to and do not care for. In a theocracy, those who do to belong to the state church are marginalized...and the religious right seeks this effect as its ultimate goal. Be christian (at they define it) or ride on the back of the bus.

i propose we give them Utah (or some other state) and sever them from the Union, inasmuch they are so unpatriotic.

pleasureforHim



< Message edited by pleasureforHim -- 7/6/2005 3:42:42 AM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/6/2005 12:17:05 AM   
onceburned


Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pleasureforHim
The purpose of the "separation of church and state" clause of the first amendment is primarily to prevent government from becoming a theocracy.


Your post is so well written and thought out, I figure you might appreciate a gentle correction.

"Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any of the amendments to the Consitution. It is a legal tradition, based upon 200 years of judicial rulings.

Here is the entire text of the First Amendment:
quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


But yes, I think the legal tradition of "separation of Church and State" is intended to protect religions and to protect the people from any one religion.

(in reply to pleasureforHim)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/6/2005 2:03:30 AM   
Raphael


Posts: 263
Joined: 5/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned

"Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any of the amendments to the Consitution. It is a legal tradition, based upon 200 years of judicial rulings.


It actually comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote, in which he described the establishment clause as creating a 'wall of separation between church and state.'


(in reply to onceburned)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/6/2005 3:47:57 AM   
pleasureforHim


Posts: 171
Joined: 7/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

"Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any of the amendments to the Consitution. It is a legal tradition, based upon 200 years of judicial rulings.


onceburned; yr so kind..and where the hell were ya when i was actively practicing law?

note to self: do not rely on memory. Look shit up.

pleasureforHim




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Raphael)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/6/2005 3:08:44 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline 		Today, I was reading an article on CNN.com about the current debate of teaching evolution and other, alternative views in schools (including creationism). The article quotes teacher's and other official's views from all over the country. It reminded me of something I haven't brought up about the whole problem of accepting the idea we evolved.

The ego. People as individuals and people as a living community have egos (or a collective ego so to speak). The ego is our identity, who we think we are...literally. It's extremely powerful and very adept at preserving itself. A friend once told me, "The ego is such a bastard, it would rather die than change" and when you think about it, that's exactly what happens in many cases. People often sabotage opportunities for change to preserve the status quo, even if it's inside their own head. Everything from going into denial to committing suicide. Communities do something similar. It's not hard to draw a parallel here with the witch hunts of the past or the current insurgency in Iraq.

So, my thought is perhaps the resistance many display has something to do with this...as individuals and as groups. It's obvious if you were raised to believe something and it becomes an intrical part of your identity and someone comes along and introduces something that violates that identity, you're going to fight it tooth and nail. People welcome information that supports their perspective (which includes how they see themselves) and resist or outright reject anything contrary. Only when the information is so strong that it shatters the hard shell around them do they experience an epiphany. Otherwise, it's a slow and often painful process of adjustment.

My ephiphany occurred near the end of my years in college. One day, it spontaneously occurred to me that everything is a story. Our life is a story, history is a story, our explanations from looking at data through science...that's a story and so is religion. We need stories to tell others (and ourselves) who we are, where we're going, and what it's all about. We describe what we think through a story because nobody can directly experience another's thoughts. Science seeks accuracy by finding more and more information but has learned that in doing so, it finds more and more questions. This is not a sign of failure but the mark of a process that really never ends.

The difference between science and religion is that religion isn't actively looking for any new information and that's why they come to being at odds with each other. Science keeps pulling the rug out from under itself through discovery and in the process, takes religion down with it. The story of science keeps rewriting itself while the story set forth by religion does not. People who want to stay with the religious story claim that because science keeps rewriting itself that it's false but they overlook why it happened in the first place (new discoveries).

Ironically, it was a monk (Mendel) that started us down the path of learning about inheritance and eventually the role DNA plays in it (Genetics). Now we know that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their DNA. For some, it's a wonderful thing to believe you were created by a god instead experiencing being at the wave crest of millions of years of change. Like Lady Angelika says, I've learned too much for that to work for me.

anthrosub

< Message edited by anthrosub -- 7/6/2005 9:20:33 PM >

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to pleasureforHim)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/6/2005 8:52:36 PM   
theKrunk


Posts: 2
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline 		They cannot actually disprove evolution so their only methods are distort modern science and the processes used to come up with such theories.

Creationism is a "wannabe" science. Nowhere in science have we used supernatural "unexplainable" beliefs to form a idea on how things are created or done.

(in reply to anthrosub)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/6/2005 8:55:56 PM   
theKrunk


Posts: 2
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline 		It's what we call a "Constitutional Principle". It's grouped right in with the Right to Privacy. There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?


You see, the misconception is that we are a secularist government, when in actuality we are a godless government. Which what the forefathers intended. Because religion is power and can be used to manipulate the voting masses.

(in reply to pleasureforHim)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/7/2005 12:02:47 AM   
knees2you


Posts: 2336
Joined: 3/15/2004
Status: offline 		Why are we not evoling into something else~

My picture of Bush here~ Now that's evolution~


Sincerely, Ant




Attachment (1)

(in reply to theKrunk)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/7/2005 1:08:51 AM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

You see, the misconception is that we are a secularist government, when in actuality we are a godless government. Which what the forefathers intended. Because religion is power and can be used to manipulate the voting masses.


huh?

The government uses religion to manipulate the voting masses ALL THE TIME - they also use religion as a tool to uphold some of the WORST laws and situations - like gay marriage, war on terror etc - please don't start on a 'godless government' stance like that and misuse the term. A godless government causes pain, misinformation, manipulation of the masses, hate, war, famine and misjustice. But thats another thread - see -

Make Poverty History

A Nation out of control

Same sex Marriage

Yet another political rant
Peace and Love

_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to theKrunk)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/7/2005 8:57:21 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		I think Krunk meant "godless" as a neutral term, and was saying that the government of the Founders was godless. That is, after all, the impression that comes of reading things like the Federalist Papers. In other words, the fact that our government uses religion for political purposes doesn't really disprove what he's saying. I don't agree that a godless government has to be one that causes pain. God governments have caused more than their share.

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/7/2005 9:00:06 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Nowhere in science have we used supernatural "unexplainable" beliefs to form a idea on how things are created or done.


I'd argue the "Big Bang" is a "supernatural unexplainable" belief.

Life from nothing or a combination of inanimate or pre-animate chemicals has a large magical "poof" factor.

Mc2 is a "theory", contradicted btw, by observable sub atomic particles that "appear" to be traveling at speeds greater than the speed of light.

The Hubble telescope "observed" objects whose age was estimated as older than the universe.

If analyzed under the same microscope much of Science is just as much a religion as Christianity. It requires "faith" and belief.

Something as basic as fire is not defined scientifically. We know what causes it, what factors are needed to create and sustain it, but there is no scientific absolute definition of what it is.

No - I am NOT a creationist, I just want to point out that "religion" can take many forms.

(in reply to theKrunk)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/7/2005 9:08:44 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		See, there's a fundamental difference between the Big Bang and creationism. The Big Bang is not a belief--it's a THEORY, a CONSTRUCTION, one that can be cast aside at any moment if new evidence throws it into doubt. (In fact, there are new theories of the beginning of the universe that do not propose a Big Bang.) Physicists don't pretend to know what caused the Big Bang, but they recognize that the theory (which, incidentally, was refined countless times in the twentieth century) explains many observed phenomena in the universe, including many bizarre ones that other theories tend not to account for.

Creationists, on the other hand, don't have a theory; they have a BELIEF, to which they'll continue to cling regardless of what empirical evidence anyone shows them. And that's what's so repugnant about proposing creationism as an alternative to evolution. It's not an alternative. It's something in a totally different epistemological category, and it's radically anti-scientific. People can believe whatever they want in their homes and churches, but fundamentalists have no right to dictate a public-school curriculum that happens to coincide with their beliefs. I am shocked and dismayed that our nation even takes this discussion seriously.

Lam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

I'd argue the "Big Bang" is a "supernatural unexplainable" belief.


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/7/2005 9:11:31 AM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
I don't think there is such a thing as a godless government - whilst I respect the reason behind such a label - all governments at some time - will use religion as a tool of manipulation - to scare it's people to make a choice they may not otherwise have made.

Peace and Love

_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/7/2005 10:10:12 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

People can believe whatever they want in their homes and churches, but fundamentalists have no right to dictate a public-school curriculum that happens to coincide with their beliefs. I am shocked and dismayed that our nation even takes this discussion seriously.


Lam,
Yes, interestingly enough "back in the day" for my 16 years of Catholic education I don't remember evolution ever talked about except in the religion classes where it was part of the nun's "story time". Yet I remember the "Big Bang", evolution, and the problems incurred by Galileo with the church covered in detail. My parents were paying for my religious education (wonder if they can get a refund?) The idea of this creation being taught on an equal footing in public schools today is amazing. That's the function parochial schools serve.

Getting back to your differential between science and religion; it appears your point is that the quick adaption of science to new theories based upon observable and duplicated results, as well as the openness to completely new theories is what differentiates itself from religion. I don't think that process is as clear cut. The religion's would argue that they too have adapted, Vatican II, the Christian schisms, the different Jewish sects from orthodox to reform all are examples of adaption. Maybe slower than science, but that distinction can't be assigned to science alone.

What is the difference between a "belief" and a "theory"? I've heard evolution referred to as a theory. In fact it's the common argument of those wanting it taught in school. Their claim is that it is as much of a theory as Darwin's evolution and therefor deserves coverage. You'd give in to their argument by simply using the theoretical label. Debating the topic you must have to have strong belief in your theory. This doesn't include those that define the age of the earth as less than 10,000 years or argue that dinosaurs never existed. They fall into the category of people who can "scientifically" prove that the US never sent and returned a maned mission to the moon. But the debate is not as easy as you would expect with a creationist who pragmatically argues his theory against science.

Admitting that evolution is a theory actually wins the argument for creation being taught. I think the argument needs to remove that and say that the source document is the reason that he shouldn't be taught. Since the Bible is, by definition, a religious book; none of it's content should be included in a secular school curriculum. I guess the creationists car argue that the Bible is also a history book. But I think that is a weaker argument.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/7/2005 10:37:35 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		The fact that creationism relies on the Bible (more precisely, on one particular type of Biblical interpretation) is enough to show that it's not a scientific theory. Unlike most opponents of creationism, I have nothing against teaching religion in school--as long as it's being taught as RELIGION (and also being taught alongside a representative cross-section of other religions). I think the more people know about different religions, the better their education and the more freely they can think.

But it's unacceptable to teach creationism as SCIENCE because it's fundamentally inimical to all scientific epistemology. Relying on a canonical body of wisdom, written or otherwise, is the antithesis of science. Science is about formulating theories that explain as much as possible while assuming as little as possible, and observing the world so as to gather evidence that strengthens or weakens those theories. If you have to assume that God intoned the following eternal truths to Moses at Mount Sinai, you're not following a scientific paradigm. That way of thinking doesn't recognize any counter-evidence--which is why it's a belief, not a theory.

You know, the reaction of real scientists (I know many, though I'm not a scientist myself) to this whole debate ranges from bemused to outraged. Some of them are still at the point that they can't imagine people taking creationism seriously as a scientific theory. To others, the reality has sunk in, and those are the ones who are outraged. Round up a hundred scientists with university credentials: I doubt ten of them will believe in anything like a Judeo-Christian God, and I doubt one of them will believe in creationism.

Lam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

What is the difference between a "belief" and a "theory"? I've heard evolution referred to as a theory. In fact it's the common argument of those wanting it taught in school. Their claim is that it is as much of a theory as Darwin's evolution and therefor deserves coverage. You'd give in to their argument by simply using the theoretical label. Debating the topic you must have to have strong belief in your theory. This doesn't include those that define the age of the earth as less than 10,000 years or argue that dinosaurs never existed. They fall into the category of people who can "scientifically" prove that the US never sent and returned a maned mission to the moon. But the debate is not as easy as you would expect with a creationist who pragmatically argues his theory against science.

Admitting that evolution is a theory actually wins the argument for creation being taught. I think the argument needs to remove that and say that the source document is the reason that he shouldn't be taught. Since the Bible is, by definition, a religious book; none of it's content should be included in a secular school curriculum. I guess the creationists car argue that the Bible is also a history book. But I think that is a weaker argument.


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/7/2005 11:21:45 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Round up a hundred scientists with university credentials: I doubt ten of them will believe in anything like a Judeo-Christian God, and I doubt one of them will believe in creationism.


I'll could take up your challenge to quote 10 historically significant as scientists with "university credential, but I only use one who, if alive, would be near the head of his class, and spoke of god often:

God always takes the simplest way. Albert Einstein

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically. Albert Einstein

These should always be quoted together:
POINT: God does not play dice. Albert Einstein
COUNTERPOINT: Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen. Stephen Hawking
(Now that would have been a debate worth any price to see!)

God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.
Albert Einstein

All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
Albert Einstein

When the solution is simple, God is answering.
Albert Einstein

Having the ability to draw on his wit as well as his intelligence, my favorite quote of his is;"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein

I also remember a scientist saying the more he learned about the nature of things the more he saw the presence of the divine.

Sometimes I wish I wasn't so jaded, cynical, disbelieving, and morally corrupt to have a similar "faith". But the events around me, whether the bombing of London, or the previously convicted and released John Edward Duncan who stands currently accused murdering a family in Idaho and the kidnapping two of the children; serve as illustrations and proof that any faith would be misplaced. Too many of these instances disprove any divine plan. There are no guardian angels, no gentile bearded man looking down and "caring for his children". A child's belief in Santa Claus makes more sense.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/7/2005 11:38:19 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		Of course there have been scientists who have believed in God, but most of them, like Einstein, are dead. (Your quote about not playing dice, by the way, comes from Einstein's objection to quantum physics, which is generally regarded as his greatest folly.) Living scientists are overwhelmingly atheist. Of course it doesn't matter what most scientists believe: appealing to the authority of scientists is no more scientific than appealing to the authority of the Bible. But I've noticed that most ordinary people don't realize how unified scientists are when it comes to rejecting nonsense like creationism. Creationists always trumpet the few scientists who have favored some kind of "intelligent-design" theory; but against those isolated figures, there are the thousands of scientists who ridicule it.

Lam

< Message edited by Lordandmaster -- 7/7/2005 11:39:32 AM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/7/2005 3:15:29 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline 		When I was in college, my physics professor was also the head of the department and was educated in Catholic schools as a boy. We spent the entire semester studying the properties of light which culminated in a detailed look at Einstein's relativity theories, particularly those that dealt with time and space and how the speed of light distorts them. He was great and at times would recount the answers he got from the sisters teaching him years earlier. For example:

"Why is the sky blue?" Answer: "It's the color of Mary's clothes."
"Why is grass green?" Answer: "Because it's restful."

(shudder)

Anyway, on to the big bang theory. I've contemplated this many times and here's where it plays with my head. If there was a big bang, then at some point the entire universe was compressed into a single, solitary object. It reached critical mass and exploded. So, my mind then starts asking...

What surrounded it at that point? A total vacuum? A vacuum needs a context in order to be a vacuum.

Where did the object come from? If it's the source of all the matter in the universe today, what was its source before the big bang?

At this point I can't think of anything plausible that my mind can comprehend. But as a compromise on this (and since cycles seem to be found everywhere in nature), I think maybe the universe we see today is one in a long series. In other words, a big bang...universe...contraction...another big bang...another universe...contraction...and so on. Like the "universe" is breathing in and out if you get my drift.

This is not my belief or theory...it's just an idea.

anthrosub

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/7/2005 4:43:07 PM   
pleasureforHim


Posts: 171
Joined: 7/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Of course there have been scientists who have believed in God, but most of them, like Einstein, are dead. (Your quote about not playing dice, by the way, comes from Einstein's objection to quantum physics, which is generally regarded as his greatest folly.) Living scientists are overwhelmingly atheist. Of course it doesn't matter what most scientists believe: appealing to the authority of scientists is no more scientific than appealing to the authority of the Bible. But I've noticed that most ordinary people don't realize how unified scientists are when it comes to rejecting nonsense like creationism. Creationists always trumpet the few scientists who have favored some kind of "intelligent-design" theory; but against those isolated figures, there are the thousands of scientists who ridicule it.

Lam


The "weight" to be given an argument is not generally measured by the number of people who are marshalled in favor of or against. There are two exceptions: voting (and please do not run around yelling "electorate college") and the Fry Test, under which scientific evidence may be introduced in court if it has been accepted by the general scientific community. In this way, fingerprinting and DNA evidence were slowly treated as admissible in US courts. No defendant could use "creationism" as part of his defense, because it is not generally accepted and does not pass the Fry Test.

Once again, i repeat myself. Creationists do not really care about creationism. What they care about is peddling "christian values" in public schools -- something they have not been successful in doing after a 30 year battle, due to the First Amendment. They frame "creationism" as an alternative scientific theory because if they admit it is bible-based and only bible-based, game over. Christians cannot take over any portion of the public school circullculum, period. It interests me that while christians have extablished schools of their own and received very generous support from government and an unspoken "hands off" treatment from the IRS, this does not satisfy them. Christians involved in pushing "creationism" are not satisfied teaching christianity to other christians; they want to teach it ALL children -- athetists, hindus, buddists, catholics, whomever.

Scratch a proponent of "creationism" and generally what you find is a member of the religious right; and a cluster of values that is both irrational and inconsistent. No gun control. No welfare, ever. No abortion, ever. No sex education, ever. No federal government interference in states' rights -- unless we're talking about liberal states. More death penalty states. A duality of court systems, criminal and civil, to speed up executions. Tort reform so stringent as to constitute diplomatic immunity. Etc.

So, debating "creationism" misses the point entirely. The point really is, do we want the religious right to control any portion of public school curicullums? i say no; the courts have said no. i wish these nutters would just emigrate to somplace where they do have a state religion.

pleasureforHim

< Message edited by pleasureforHim -- 7/7/2005 5:08:31 PM >

(in reply to anthrosub)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Evolution is a Lie? - 7/7/2005 6:05:06 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline 		Your post reminded me of something I've always wondered about with the Christian Children's Fund. I wonder if all the kids they help with the donations they get end up getting introduced, schooled, or otherwise indoctrinated into a Christian based program. I know that sounds cynical but considering Christianity is the only evangelical religion that I know of, it makes you wonder if they don't have a hidden agenda.

anthrosub

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to pleasureforHim)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Evolution is a Lie? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094