Is 'The Theory of Evolution' corrupting INNOCENT Children?

1. 60

   Simone1984posted 12 years ago

   Are we teaching kids that Man came from Monkeys? Is that healthy? Evolution is still a theory. Hint...

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Melissa A Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I find the understanding of evolution very enlightening. I'm not sure why you would find it to be 'corrupting' in a negative sense. I would want my children to be well-versed in scientific knowledge.

      replyreport
   2. 58

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No, we are teaching kids that men and monkeys shared a common ancestor.
      
      
      
      Is what healthy?
      
      
      
      It's also a fact. Hint...

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "Evolution is still a theory". What does the medical field, electronics, machine tool technology, and countless others, have in common? They all work with theories. Why? Because theories are based on facts and they work. So no, teaching evolution to children is healthy. What else are you going to teach them, some BS story that life started in a Garden of Eden inhabited by a talking snake? Get real.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            @paul i have 400 holy books to back god created humans , u have only theory...

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               400 holy books = waste of paper.

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  it was sincere efforts of our ancestors dude...we must atleast respect the effort...obviously all holy books are flawed in most places...

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Very true. What I'm getting at is that these ancient philosephers resorted to creation stories to explain their surroundings at the time. Theres stories are not to be taught in todays world as historical fact or modern science.

                     replyreport
   3. 69

      Comrade Joeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The fact you think Men came from monkeys proves you know nothing about evolution.  We share a common ancestor! That is a huge difference.  As your premise is clearly false, so is your conclusion.
      
      It seems someone has been corrupted by religious dogma.

      replyreport
   4. 87

      jenb0128posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Gravity is still a theory. Should we stop teaching that?
      
      By the way, the definition of "theory" is:  a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
      
      That means theories have data to back them up. They aren't just dreamed up in a scientist's head.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Sorry to bust your bubble, but there's no proof that humans have apelike ancestors;  never has been any such proof during all the supposed-quadrillion years of life on earth.
         
         If you really belief there's valid data to back up a THEORY like that, then please go make all the zoos in the world release their human-to-be prisoners.    MY!   Those monstrous zoo-keepers may have the next generation of humans imprisoned behind bars within our very eyesight under our very noses!  Such an atrocity!  OH THE HUMANITY! 

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Melissa A Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            MANY people believe animals to be imprisoned humans. I of all people should know that best.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I hope you're kidding.
               
               Whatever.

               replyreport
         2. 87

            jenb0128posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Next generation humans? Are you serious? Do you not understand the concept of "common ancestor?" Common ancestor does not equal "next generation humans."
            
            Wow.

            replyreport
         3. 87

            jenb0128posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            This might help.
            
            

            replyreport
         4. 59

            Praetorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I love it when ignorant, backwards ass, religious zealots- who obviously know nothing about evolution or what it proposes; start denouncing it.
            
            It's idiots like you that lead to the dark ages. If you feel the need to believe in fairy tales that's your business, but keep your ignorance to yourself and stop trying to force your idiotic beliefs on others.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I'm gonna break my long-standing rule to never report anyone.   I don't need to listen to your verbal assault.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  My Great Grandma Knew how to deal with Christians who refuse to love their neighbor and turn the other cheek.
                  
                  "Divorced women preachers are the worst," is what she always told me. "They will burn extra hot for all eternity,"
                  
                  I didn't believe her - but now I understand.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You seem to have the assumption that I have more cheeks than the average human has been endowed with.
                     I didn't evolve into a species that developed cheeks all over their body with no dignity nor knowledge of human rights;   I'm still a human being just like the first humans were, and just like humans are now.   Nope, no ape ancestors for me.
                     
                     
                     
                     Well, good for you Mark, if you've come to some kind of understanding about....anything!

                     replyreport
                     1. 57

                        Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Wow - you think you get to choose whether or not you evolved?
                        
                        This is not like religious nonsense. LOL You evolved - you are a great ape.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           I didn't say I "get to choose" where I came from.
                           I did say I know my human rights, and I know right from wrong.
                           
                           You said I evolved?
                           If you want to call "evolving" changing into a person who actually has the guts to stick up  for her human rights instead of being a naive little girl, then I suppose you could say I "evolved" since young adulthood.  LOL.   But no, not from an ape.    I'm not "a great ape";  but I am a great person if anyone wants to take the time to get to know me instead of attacking me,  but whatever.
                           
                           Mark,  if you're so interesting in "evolving",  maybe you could tell that person who verbally assaulted me that he/she is totally "unevolved" as evidenced by their savagely hateful words.     Reckon they just haven't "evolved" enough  to know how to treat people with dignity and respect?   Or have you not "evolved" enough yet that you simply think it's okay to personally attack someone that way?   Hmmmm...

                           replyreport
                           1. 57

                              Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              lol
                              
                              Savagefully hatefull? What does that have to do with millions of years of evolution? Here are some of your cousins:
                              
                              
                              
                              You are a great ape. It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not.

                              replyreport
                              1. 57

                                 Taurus2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Why are you on a mission of teasing people? Does that make you feel better?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 57

                                    Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    This is your third incarnation.
                                    
                                    Perhaps you could explain though. How does offering proven scientific facts constitute "teasing."
                                    
                                    Hurry - before you get banned again.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 57

                                       Taurus2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       How do you know who I am? Incarnation? Your profile picture doesn't go well with your mature (or otherwise) tempo. I had a sister named Maita. She loved wearing masks. Old, fat masks.
                                       
                                       Check this - "Wow - This is not like religious nonsense. LOL You evolved - you are a great ape." Do you use this type of language in your personal life too? Do you call people, who are not in conformity with you, 'a great ape'?

                                       report
                                       1. 57

                                          Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          What is wrong with being a great ape?

                                          report
                                          1. 77

                                             Lwelchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                             Nothing, ask Ishmael.

                                             report
                              2. 57

                                 Taurus2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 What is wrong in calling Brenda Durham ' a great ape'? Well, Mark Knowles, the moderators will soon find that out for you.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 57

                                    Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    The moderators will find out that they are great apes as well.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 57

                                       Taurus2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       What's quaint is that you're not seeking any temporary harassment. Good luck getting permanently banned, brother!!

                                       report
                                       1. 57

                                          Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          LOL Is that your goal? Three personas - 2 already permanently banned? Just to try and get me banned?

                                          report
                                    2. 57

                                       Taurus2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Well, Mark Knowles, you're going there yourself. Oops! Maybe, already gone!!

                                       report
                           2. 58

                              A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              It is astounding that no matter how times it is repeated that we did not evolve from monkeys or apes, believers still use that line of reasoning.

                              replyreport
                              1. 57

                                 autumn18posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 I agree. It's frustrating debating something with someone when they are using incorrect information to back up their claim. The funny thing is, in this situation I don't even see why it would even matter or be such a horrible thing if we did evolve from apes. Would that fact make us less special?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Like repels like.

                                    replyreport
                        2. 57

                           Taurus2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Indecent.

                           replyreport
               2. 59

                  Praetorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  If only there was a segment in the flagging process for "Just-plain-stupid", you've been gone a wile ago.
                  
                  I've had it with your sanctimonious BS. Trolls and Socks are bad enough, but you're worse than both of them; you actually believe the idiotic crap you post. Do society a favor and join a convent, that way you can commune with your invisible man without bothering the rest of us.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Brenda is not a sockpuppet, she is the way she is Second Lives on the other hand ...

                     replyreport
   5. 83

      kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The theory of evolution does not state that man came from monkey. It states that man and monkey have a common ancestor, somewhere down the line.
      
      As far as kids being taught this, I don't know if this has changed, but I did not learn about this theory until about 7th grade. In 7th grade (one would hope) you are able to think for yourself, and draw your own conclusions from the information given to you. Also, I was taught this as a theory, not a fact.

      replyreport
   6. 77

      thisisoliposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You misunderstand the meaning of a theory, there is the atomic theory too, try telling Japan that doesn't exist - hint.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Taurus2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Try to find a law of evolution, dude!

         replyreport
2. 60

   Simone1984posted 12 years ago

   

   replyreport
3. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   If information, data and theories are corruption, bring it on.

   replyreport
4. 0

   Motown2Chitownposted 12 years ago

   Another new sock puppet.
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If people stopped answering the puppet and taking his ridiculous topics seriously he would go away...

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Melissa A Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         They are banned...

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I don't think so.
         
         Reminds me of the movie The Perfect Storm, I think it was.  There, the bad guy stole the innocent child because the townspeople wouldn't stand up against him.   These days, the "freedom of speech" right has become so tolerant of crap that anyone can get by with saying anything even if it's totally wrong.  Ergo, in answer to the original poster's question----yes, the theory of evolution is corrupting innocent children, especially in this day of liberalism.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            jenb0128posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            This is completely reminding me of a scene from The Big Bang Theory.
            
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL5yplRHE9g

            replyreport
         2. 83

            kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I thought "The Perfect Storm" was about a giant hurricane which encompassed the entire Atlantic Ocean?
            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0177971/
            
            Funny that you speak of people "getting away with saying stuff that is completely wrong." Perhaps, people actually make mistakes? Maybe they don't know they are wrong? Maybe if they knew they were wrong they wouldn't say wrong things? ...see where I'm going with this?

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Lwelchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Yep - we are wrong time to time and science changes.  I believe a great science teacher makes sure that the students know that!  My biology teachers in college were great that way.  I learned that birds are now considered reptiles, t-rex walked like a chicken, and mice don't self replicate under a pile of clothing.... all things that were used to have different theories about.
               
               What is different between evolution and creationism is that the second can't be a theory.  That being said, there may be some truth to it.  It isn't a scientific theory though.  So, where does it fit.  Well... religion class is one answer, but, I do wonder if it is good for kids to know some people hold that belief but that it isn't a scientific theory as at this point in our existence we have no way to test it.
               
               Does that make sense?  I am on the fence a bit on it, but I can see why it isn't a theory.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  jenb0128posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  There's actually still quite a bit of debate about the bird/reptile thing. Biologists are working on restructuring the taxonomy system (it's not going to be as simple as "Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species" anymore). There are some scientists who want to put birds and reptiles in the same category because they share an evolutionary line, but others disagree. As somebody who has owned and worked with both birds and reptiles, I have to say that I'm one of the people who disagrees. Sure, birds and reptiles may be related, but birds are warm blooded , reptiles are cold blooded. Birds' brains are also much more developed than reptiles' brains. Birds raise their young, most reptiles do not (alligators do, but they're a rare exception). Birds have beaks and feathers. Reptiles do not. This may sound silly, but when I look at my bird, I can sometimes see a hint of a reptile family resemblance, but he's warm, snuggly, and he interacts and communicates with me, unlike the turtles I've had in the past. The same goes for the birds and reptiles I've helped rehabilitate. They're just so... different that I can't understand how they can all be classified as reptiles. Sure, have the new taxonomy show the common ancestor, but keep birds as Aves.
                  
                  Anyway, I did some digging and came across this blog post that explains the whole debate better than I could:
                  http://reptilis.net/2008/07/17/crocodil … thinks-so/

                  replyreport
               2. 87

                  jenb0128posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh my gosh... I'm sorry to have gone all science nerd!!

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Second Livesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Despite all your science(s), you can't explain this simple fact why a mother loves her child.

                     replyreport
                     1. 87

                        jenb0128posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Erm... what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
                        
                        But I'll play. There actually has been scientific research on that topic. Here you go:
                        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 100717.htm

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Second Livesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           The kid that is loved by her mother will take tea when he is adult. It's relevant!
                           
                           Anyway, so, in the end, you're saying that you're all in your head??!!!

                           replyreport
                           1. 87

                              jenb0128posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Just because science is identifying how the brain works doesn't make love or other emotions any less real.
                              
                              I'm afraid you're going to have to find someone else to play with. It's nearly 3am here and I should have been in bed awhile ago. Have a good night.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Second Livesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Then please admit that you haven't got all the answers. You can't even fully explain that what you're witnessing in front you, experiencing yourself - let alone that where mankind will never reach, possibly.

                                 replyreport
                     2. 58

                        A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Strawman fallacy. Would the explanation of why a mother loves her child somehow refute or validate the postulates of evolution?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Second Livesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Nope, but you can't explain that love through evolution as well.

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              Lwelchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              There is a lot I can't explain.  There is a lot that many scientists can't explain.  We keep asking questions and looking and finding possible answers.  As for love.... elephants have shown love for each other, cats, many monkeys and apes... Love is not just humans.
                              
                              Animals mourn their dead.
                              
                              Chimps have been known to rape, have war, love, use tools....
                              
                              There is no scientist that will say that evolution means we are derived from apes for sure.  What we do know:
                              1. We share mitochondrial DNA with bacteria
                              2. Parts of our cells have 2 cell layers.  This and the mitochondria ring DNA suggests that one unicellular critter ate another one and became a critter in a critter.  Our mitochondria are likely due to endosymbiosis.
                              3.  We have a lot of excess DNA that codes for things that don't show up on a human.
                              4. Survival of the fittest does occur.  We have seen species adapt this way in our lifetime.  It has been observed.
                              5. Plants have the same thing with endosymbiosis that we have but with the organelles that create chlorophyl
                              
                              A lot of weird stuff.  It hurts my brain sometimes.
                              
                              What I think is weird is that life accidentally created itself.  Elements accidentally connected in the right order to create DNA, RNA, a cell wall, and etc and that 2 cells ran into each other and their DNA accidentally was coded to replicate.  If we want to discuss evolution, this is really where it is more interesting - not evolution of man but creation of life.
                              
                              We have replicated the random formation of amino acid chains in a tank with an atmosphere similar to what earth is believed to have.  It is still hard to wrap my brain around the what happened next that led to life with brains.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Second Livesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Have you ever seen a DNA yourself? Just asking...

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 87

                                    jenb0128posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    I've seen DNA! We studied chromosomes (which are made of DNA) a lot in my intro biology lab. It was pretty cool.
                                    
                                    The way DNA works is quite fascinating. The way the cell works is fascinating. It's much more complex than one might think.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Second Livesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Hi again! Would you allow me to make a little experiment here? If so, then let's start.
                                       
                                       Scientific thinking means that a person must not believe anything unless they see the evidence.
                                       
                                       You say you have seen DNA. It's so very obvious to you. You have met people who day and night work on that stuff. If I, who have never been to that lab, or any other like such, just hear you that you have seen DNA, should I believe that DNA really exists? Is this the method to know truth?
                                       
                                       It's nothing serious. Just an experiment. You may refuse to participate!

                                       report
                                       1. 77

                                          Lwelchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          I believe we have agreed that there is no truth in science.
                                          
                                          We have established that there are theories that are backed by repeated experiments done by different people.
                                          
                                          The experiments are described and documented in such a way that other people could reproduce the experiment and should get the same results.
                                          
                                          Now... for love.  I never said don't teach love.  I think love is irrelevant to if creatures evolve or not.  I also think that teaching a child to love or to question evolution are not mutually exclusive.  Unless that explains why you can't participate in this conversation in a sane way.  Maybe you were only taught to love...
                                          
                                          There my dear toll, you have gotten me to be snarky. 
                                          
                                          Score 1 for the troll.

                                          report
                                    2. 60

                                       Second Livesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       @Lwelch - If I am a troll, then a A Troubled Man is also a troll, and he/she has been here for years without ever writing any hub, and all you reputed scholars day and night respond to him/her. Anyway, good luck getting banned, dude!
                                       
                                       Just to make you a little more frustrated - you still can't explain that love between a mother and her child, through the theory of evolution.

                                       report
                                       1. 77

                                          Lwelchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          Okay - I laughed and am no longer frustrated.
                                          
                                          You are right.  Evolution does not explain love.
                                          
                                          Evolution does not explain the following:
                                          1. Love
                                          2. Magnetism
                                          3. Gravity
                                          4. Why Mars is not a primary planet
                                          
                                          So as this list is long... I will not list all the things that evolution does not explain.
                                          
                                          Socrates was mortal,
                                          all men are mortal,
                                          therefore all men are Socrates.

                                          report
                                          1. 77

                                             Lwelchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                             Thinking on love...
                                             
                                             survival of the fittest and why love may be explainable...
                                             
                                             The current theories on evolution center on survival of the fittest.  This means that some trait happens that causes one group of organisms to have an advantage over another.  Loving causes one to protect their young to a greater extent and for their young to bond with the parent so that they can be protected.  This mutual relationship means that the young are more likely to survive.  Children who are neglected have less chance of survival therefore the act of loving often (not always) contributes to survival.  The higher percentage of children from lovers vs non-lovers will pass on the trait of loving one's child.  Those with the trait are more likely to survive and reproduce.  I hate to break love down to something that mundane, but there it is.

                                             report
                                       2. 58

                                          A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          Sorry, but that is a logical fallacy.

                                          report
                                          1. 77

                                             Lwelchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                             But are you Socrates?

                                             report
                                             1. 77

                                                Lwelchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                And yes, Second Lives was banned.... taaa dahhhh magic!

                                                report
                                             2. 58

                                                A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                It doesn't take Socrates to point out an obvious fallacy.

                                                report
                                    3. 77

                                       Lwelchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       It is cool to see DNA.  We looked at it two different ways in biology.  One set we extracted from a plant and the other was a basic gene sequencing with electrophoresis.  The second explained a lot about how my genetic mutation in blood clotting was identified.

                                       report
                              2. 60

                                 Second Livesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 What you are saying maybe true. But, again, it doesn't explain that love between a mother and her child. The problem of teaching the theory of evolution is, that it makes little kids (who haven't developed critical thinking) too focused on a very narrow field of reality that we experience.
                                 
                                 It's better to teach them Evolution and stuff when they are older. Above 20 or so.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 58

                              A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Perhaps, we can. In fact, it would probably yield the best explanations. Have you  bothered to check before claiming it can't be explained?

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Second Livesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Yes, I did. There is no explanation for that love.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 58

                                    A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    And yet, I found plenty of articles and papers dealing with love, children, parents and evolution.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 57

                                       Taurus2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       ...and they all explain that love between a mother and her child?

                                       report
                                       1. 58

                                          A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          They make very good theories based on evidence.
                                          
                                          Sorry, that all the answers to the universe are not readily available for you to critique. Perhaps, it's best to pick up the Bible at this point for that explanation.

                                          report
                                    2. 58

                                       Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       So, Trouble, you can't explain that love?

                                       report
                                       1. 58

                                          A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          Sure, I could, if I spent the time to read those papers and any other information I could get my hands on. That's the difference between you and I, you don't bother to read anything.

                                          report
               3. 83

                  kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You are correct, in that it is not a theory.
                  
                  Theories, you observe or find something, and and make conclusions based on the evidence you find.
                  
                  Creationism seems opposite; people are ever searching for proof that that one idea is truth, even though the evidence they find could mean something completely different.
                  
                  That's not to say that isn't truth. To seek the truth in what you believe, you need to look within yourself for answers to that. No amount of evidence, or lack thereof, corrupt what you truly feel in your own heart. I also don't think that scientific theories necessarily dispute creationism, either. Too many people are feeling threatened by the evolution theory; if there is an all-knowing god, then it is up to him to decide the truth.

                  replyreport
            2. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You've made a comparison that doesn't fit, I think.   But if not, then I would ask you just WHEN do you think they'll realize they're wrong and try to correct it?    After our Nation's children have already bought into the nonsense?
               
               By the way, yes, I mentioned to wrong movie.   It's actually The Storm of The Century.
               My mistake is tiny compared to teaching children the theory that we came from apes.

               replyreport
         3. 61

            f_hruzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You are right, ignorance will not go away on it's own ... not right away!
            
            You speak out against evolution even though you obviously have no idea how all of nature really works because you have made up your mind that a super natural god created everything ... so you and your 400+ hub followers can perpetuate religious BS and spread christian right wing, reactionary political propaganda ... and feel happy doing it.
            
            ... but what's in this to be so proud of when it's so easy to check and see that you'r just trying to spread nothing more than obvious ignorance and a total lack of reality?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               LOL
               Funny.
               But sad too, that so many people who believe in "evolution" seem to get sooo personally defensive when a Christian or other conservative takes part in a conversation.   And sooo personally offensive toward that conservative person.    It's become typical, actually;  and I don't quite understand it except to perhaps believe that sooo many people aren't secure in their beliefs, so they instantly go to a corner and take swipes at anyone who doesn't blindly confirm their opinions.
               
               Wow, thanks for checking out my profile.   I checked yours out a few mins ago.   Yeah buddy I am indeed one of those "religious types" that your profile talks about.    I guess we're a popular subject of discussion from your corner.   Your way of writing sounds sooo familiar too.   Are you sure we haven't "met" around here before under different circumstances (like...you under another screen name...?)
               
               By the way, before you get set on the idea that I "don't know how nature really works",  you might wanna take notice of at least one little fact-----I've given birth to children.    Any woman who's ever given birth to a baby can sure claim knowledge of "how nature works"! LOL.     And anyone who's ever fathered a baby should also know!   It doesn't take rocket science to figure it out!
               And if you're talking about nature as in trees and other plant life and all that, well, honestly, I know as much about that as most people, because it's common knowledge how "nature works".   It sure doesn't take a scientist to tell us!    And if you mean how things work in outer space, etc., then you should remember that people are fallible and so are the machines they create, so it's best to not take anyone's word at face value when it comes to subjects that are unproven, where conjecture often gets labeled as "fact".
               
               
               By the way, I corrected my error as to the movie title.  It's The Storm of The Century.

               replyreport
5. 79

   ptosisposted 12 years ago

   Children are innocent?
   
   Children are guilty of the worst cruelty.
   

   replyreport
6. 54

   ftclickposted 12 years ago

   I agree it was a theory. Now, there is scientific evidence man could not have evolved from monkey, ape.
   do a search for Lloyd Pye, this site explains the impossibility of Darwin's Evolution and Human's DNA - s8int.com/dna8.html
   do this search - "man did not evolve from apes says leading anthropologist"
   
   It becomes clear that it would've been impossible. Please red it first before dismissing. I will als keep an open mind and read arguments for Darwinism against these claims

   replyreport
   1. 58

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That's the clown who found an elongated skull and considered it proof positive it was an alien-human hybrid and that we're all descendants of aliens. Of course, everyone else understands the skull shape was a result of hydrocephalus.
      
      What Pye fails to explain is where the aliens originated.
      
      Turtles upon turtles.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Taurus2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You still can't explain how did the life of earth originate. No need to seek further.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Then, invoke invisible magical super beings to explain it, if that's the explanation you're looking for. No need to think.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               Taurus2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               So goes the phobia for magical beings.

               replyreport
      2. 54

         ftclickposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         actually the result of hydrocephalus was ruled out of the equation too.
         
         I don't necessarily believe him but there are others too who side with us not evolving from ape, chimpanzee, hominoid, etc. SO, if 70% of the scholarly scientists believe it one way it is factual proof and therefore absolute. No! If we can't get explain everything on earth yet, why are they 100% correct. BTW, I do talk with JPL scientists and you'd be surprised to find out what you don't know regarding space.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, sure you do.

            replyreport
7. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   All science is theory, even gravity (but good luck swimming to the moon).  It is only religion that declares itself infallible.

   replyreport
8. 55

   dannyclarkeposted 12 years ago

   Another new sock puppet.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Taurus2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Like you?

      replyreport
9. 89

   wildernessposted 12 years ago

   I would certainly hope not!  Everyone knows that although we share a common ancestor it wasn't a monkey (or an ape, either, for that matter).
   
   That ridiculous claim comes only from the rabid radical right wing of religion, that tries to use it as an emotional appeal "proving" that everyone else is ignorant of reality. Any teacher using such muddy thinking or promoting their religious beliefs like that in school needs a quick pink slip.

   replyreport
10. 77

    Lwelchposted 12 years ago

    Everything is still a theory in science.  While some theories are adopted as likely to be true, none are ever considered absolute.  A theory that has been tested multiple times with multiple ways points towards the probability that we are correct.
    
    Interestingly, our mitochondria has different DNA than the rest of our bodies.  It is a ring rather than a double helix.
    
    Also, all evolution means is change.  Creatures change over time due to environmental stress.  Even if you don't think humans got here from something common, you may believe in small scale evolution like what we see when we create dog breeds.

    replyreport
11. 67

    Meg Davisposted 12 years ago

    What's dangerous to children is to teach them to ignore facts.  All life evolves.  Presumably, those who believe in God also believe that God gave them the ability to think critically.  Refusing to use that ability would be a slap in the face to God.  Remember the parable about the man who buried his gold instead of using it wisely.

    replyreport
12. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 12 years ago

    Well, I guess the sock puppet was banned because they were a sock puppet........
    That's good.
    But also bad because they asked a very valid question.   
    The problem was that the responders who posted such theoretical outlandish replies ...well.....posted such theoretical outlandish replies! lol

    replyreport
13. 62

    pisean282311posted 12 years ago

    @ts let us assume that two people come to you...one says some x whom no one has seen created humans in present form from nowhere...now u asked him , what is proof?...he says there is a book which says that...u asked who wrote that book?...he says some four authors...
    
    now second man comes and says well human evolved to present form...you ask what is proof...he says well there r fossil proofs...u look at that and ask for missing links...he says we are uncovering but here is what we have as of now...
    
    Now who is more reliable ?...first person or second person?...Who is more honest?...First person or second person?....
    
    Religion has corrupted humans since long without any proof...now its time we face less exciting but proof based theory than totally imaginary theory of religions...

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Second Livesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       If someone is from India, that explains a lot.

       replyreport
       1. 62

          pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          @second that doesnot answer my question...whom would u believe first person who claims lot but provides no proof or second person who claims , shows tangible proof and is open to correct himself if proven wrong?....

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Second Livesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Don't complicate the issue. A theory being disregarded doesn't mean that a 'holy' book must be true then. It's not interconnected.

             replyreport
             1. 62

                pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                @second proof?...out of 400 holy books has any book given proof...original point is who is corrupting....400 odd holy which are based on claims without proof or scientific theory which backs with proof...whom would any thinking human being back?...

                replyreport
14. 88

    Sherry Hewinsposted 12 years ago

    I would be horrified, and would think the school was not providing even a basic education for my kids, if they did not teach about evolution in science class.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       @sherry true...

       replyreport
15. 67

    2uesdayposted 12 years ago

    Or maybe on the other foot
    
    Tomorrow may bring yet another evolution of the forum womble.

    replyreport
16. 80

    austinhealyposted 12 years ago

    Children are, by definition, innocent. Whatever they learn in life will be most likely influenced by their parents or guardian. How would you react if someone posted a question : Is the theory of religion corrupting innocent children ? Sounds offensive doesn't it ? This being said, people choose to believe whatever they want. Whether children will be "corrupted" or not is a matter of perception, what is seen by some as education will be seen by others as corruption. In my opinion, what should be done with children is to make them aware objectively of the options available to them, that's education, and let them decide for themselves where they want to go as they grow up. I was raised that way, so was my son, and I believe it works well without claiming to be right. The difficulty in life is not to believe whatever one decides to be right, it's the ability to recognise and accept that someone else may have a different point of view

    replyreport
17. 60

    Artistic visionposted 12 years ago

    And telling they came from some god isn't? Hint "dog" has been proven fiction and evolution is more than a theory it is the truth. I say teach evolution and religion and let them decide and not us for them.

    replyreport
18. 60

    mandy71394posted 12 years ago

    No because who created the monkeys? God. Religion can still be used even with the theory of evolution.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Who created god, Monkeys or supergod?

       replyreport
19. 60

    mandy71394posted 12 years ago

    I can see that a lot of people on here are worried about religion fading and faith being lost. They are wondering...why is our country losing its religion? I can tell you why? Its because of Obama and the liberals. They want to get rid of religion. They even tried taking about "God" from our pledge. Obama is not for religion. I am Cuban and I have experienced communism and socialism. Obama is a spitting image. He says spread the wealth.... Cuba spread the wealth... now everyone is equally poor. Obama wants to add more Welfare programs because it causes more dependency on government and makes less people want to start making money because then they wont have all the free handouts the government gives. He supressed freedom of speech in front of any agents which is rading the constitution. and come one... Obamacare? really? Cuba also got rid of religion so that the country could worship Fidel as their God. Spread the wealth, no religion, restricted freedom of speech, messing with the constituion? ALL SIGNS OF SOCIALISM!!!! DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN WHO HAS TIES WITH ALL OUR ENEMIES AND TERRORISTS!!! He even stated that Capitalism does not work!!! What kind of president is this? Oh and not letting the soldiers vote early when eveyone else can? how is that fair? He has put us more in debt and weakened our country's faith, ROMNEY RYAN 2012 all the way!!! Its the smart choice!

    replyreport
    1. 70

       getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Why NOT get rid of religion?  Religion promotes racism, sexism, child abuse, war, dishonesty, etc.
       
       
       
       I wish "GOD" was removed from the pledge.  since God is only a character in a fairytale, it makes American grownups look like perpetual prepubescent children.
       
       
       
       GOOD!!!

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Thumbs up! Believing in an imaginary friend should of went away with the Easter Bunny and Santa!

          replyreport
20. 60

    mandy71394posted 12 years ago

    I can see that a lot of people on here are worried about religion fading and faith being lost. They are wondering...why is our country losing its religion? I can tell you why? Its because of Obama and the liberals. They want to get rid of religion. They even tried taking about "God" from our pledge. Obama is not for religion. I am Cuban and I have experienced communism and socialism. Obama is a spitting image. He says spread the wealth.... Cuba spread the wealth... now everyone is equally poor. Obama wants to add more Welfare programs because it causes more dependency on government and makes less people want to start making money because then they wont have all the free handouts the government gives. He supressed freedom of speech in front of any agents which is rading the constitution. and come one... Obamacare? really? Cuba also got rid of religion so that the country could worship Fidel as their God. Spread the wealth, no religion, restricted freedom of speech, messing with the constituion? ALL SIGNS OF SOCIALISM!!!! DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN WHO HAS TIES WITH ALL OUR ENEMIES AND TERRORISTS!!! He even stated that Capitalism does not work!!! What kind of president is this? Oh and not letting the soldiers vote early when eveyone else can? how is that fair? He has put us more in debt and weakened our country's faith, ROMNEY RYAN 2012 all the way!!! Its the smart choice!

    replyreport
    1. 76

       Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       From Wikipedia:
       
       "Cuba has traditionally been a Catholic country. In some instances Catholicism is much modified and influenced through syncretism. A common syncretic religion is Santería, which combined the Yoruban religion of the African slaves with Catholicism and some Native American strands; it shows similarities to Brazilian Umbanda and has been receiving a degree of official support.
       The Roman Catholic Church estimates that 60 percent of the population is Catholic,[1] but that only 5% of that 60% attends mass regularly,[2] while independent sources estimate that as few 1.5% of the population does so.[3]"
       
       You lost me when you started yelling and parroting tea party rhetoric.

       replyreport
    2. 62

       pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       @mandy if that is so...usa must thank obama...

       replyreport
21. 60

    heatherleexposted 12 years ago

    How is it corrupting innocent children to teach them science?  Yet there is nothing wrong with brainwashing children to believe in religion?
    
    I don't know why religion and science cannot coexist?  Why should you turn your back on science to make your religion make more sense?
    
    Maybe some balance is in order.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       The big difference in teaching a child religion and science, there's no death threat if the child questions or doesn't believe in science.

       replyreport
22. 60

    mandy71394posted 12 years ago

    Why would I thank Obama??

    replyreport
23. 77

    psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

    Innocence is just ignorance without malice.  You can fix the former and keep the latter.

    replyreport
24. 59

    Praetorposted 12 years ago

    Guess which one of these the church claims is "harmful to children"...
    
    

    replyreport
25. 77

    psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

    Common knowledge is very often wrong.  That's why humans get into so much trouble.

    replyreport
26. 81

    karthikkashposted 12 years ago

    Honestly, this is my viewpoint.. "Theory of evolution" is as much a theory as "theory of intelligent design" or "theory of creation". Some of my fellow scientists here have told that theories are drawn from facts. No denying that. However, the problem occurs when we start accepting the "theory" itself as "law". In my 8th standard, I learnt that a "law" is called so because it has been proven beyond doubt. Newton's "laws of gravity" are laws.. Theory is just a conclusion based on mathematical findings.. It does not become a law until it is proved beyond doubt for ages to come.. Einstein's "theory of relativity" is a theory.. I can theorize tomorrow that earth is a square or rectangle or some random geometric figure.. It remains a theory unless proved. I think that my fellow scientists here must understand that first.
    
    Coming to the actual answer.. Teaching either of these theories as theories is the best way to teach a student, instead of teaching either of them as a law. Teaching any of these as laws becomes detrimental to a child's reasoning power. Children should be encouraged to learn to reason and not blindly accept some theory as law.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Sorry to say, wrong in so many aspects.
       1)"Theory of evolution" is as much a theory as "theory of intelligent design" or "theory of creation"
       
       But evolution is a rational theory, that is a theory with no (inherent) contradiction, while the other two has contradictions.
       2)learnt that a "law" is called so because
       A law is a description based on (usually)observation, while a theory is an objective explanation based on a hypothesis.
       3) Theory is just a conclusion based on mathematical findings
       Mathematics has nothing to do with theory, maths is a description.
       4)Teaching either of these theories
       Teaching a student bachelors are unmarried people and teaching them there is someone called married bachelors are the same thing?

       replyreport
       1. 81

          karthikkashposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          meu desculpe for some of the errors A slight correction for "no contradictions" though.. Scientists and evolutionists still haven't found the "missing link". So, where is that missing link??
          
          However irrational or rational a theory is.. It is still a theory. Whether you want it or not, students will eventually learn from the internet that there are multiple theories.. Also, multiple theories which supposedly become facts are proven wrong many times. Take Einstein's theory of relativity. Science is already trying to prove it wrong. that objects can move faster than light.
          
          I wouldn't be actually surprised if a millennium later humans recreate the same "theory of creation" or intelligent design on another planet.. Impossible or improbable?? I wouldn't say that considering that we are already finding frozen ice caps on Mars and we are already finding planets in other solar systems that possibly contain earth like atmosphere.
          
          My contention is this. The best thing to teach a kid is to place the reasons and facts behind a theory.. Why is "theory of evolution" or "theory of creation" called so? What are the facts and reasons behind it? Guide them to come at their own reasoning and correct them if their reason doesn't hold good.. That is how scientists like Einstein are created. Not putting a blanket response that one theory is BS while you are not even allowing them to reason. Let them see what is logically correct and makes sense and draw their own conclusion.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Missing link??
             I am not stating the entire evolution, the 'links'through which each organism went through like that, nor am I stating evolution is the only theory. What I said is that, among the three you povided only evolution is rational, that is might have happened. The other two has inherent contradiction in it, so can never happen.
             Theories are not proven, proofs, experiments are all in the hypothesis stage. A theory is a mere exlanation of a past event, how it might have happened, considering all available data.
             Humans cannot increase their own fertility for their survival, so forget about the rest. Again this has no bearing on how humans originated. We are producing here own earth with only emotion, no intelligence
             For the kids to reason, first tell them how to reason. If you want to teach them contradictions, they should be able to identify the contradiction. The creation theory is taught for centuaries, but how many can identify the contradiction in it?

             replyreport
             1. 58

                Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                "What I said is that, among the three you povided only evolution is rational, that is might have happened. "
                
                -Sorry to say, but you have no idea of the subject.

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   Which subject?

                   replyreport
                   1. 58

                      Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         Expect nothing else from a believer, they only know how to shout!

                         replyreport
                         1. 58

                            Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            

                            replyreport
                            1. 0

                               jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                               Spot the difference
                               
                                                

                               replyreport
                               1. 58

                                  Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                  Well, you had a dog's mugshot as your profile picture, a few days ago. Sure there has been a difference.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 0

                                     jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                     Two snarls now, typical.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 58

                                        Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                        

                                        report
                                        1. 0

                                           jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                           Why only one? Decided not to be a believer?

                                           report
                                     2. 58

                                        Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                        

                                        report
27. 70

    getitriteposted 12 years ago

    Agreed,
    
    Creationism is not a scientific theory, but is nothing but a mere silly, primitive myth, based upon an ancient fairy tale.  Why should any child be taught this outright fraud right along with a working scientific theory?
    
    The Theory of Evolution has mountains of evidence.  Creationism:  NONE!  Why contaminate the thinking of otherwise normal pupils with a psychotic belief that's harder to kick than dangerous street drugs?

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       That is how YOU think about it. The reality is quite opposite of what you prattled there.

       replyreport
       1. 70

          getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Rather than posting vacuous, absurd rebuttals, please supply evidence that prove your assertion, or...I suggest you stop with this  attempt at debating.

          replyreport
          1. 58

             Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

             What evidence you have? Quit junior, you can't hang.

             replyreport
             1. 70

                getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence
                
                The fact that one chooses to throw childish insults instead of engaging in honest debate speaks volumes about the level of intellect, morality and maturity of that individual.
                
                Let us please proceed with reason.

                replyreport
                1. 58

                   Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   Reason?
                   
                   They have some quotes from people who have belief in the theory of evolution, and they have written down there some childlike explanations for the mugs.
                   
                   There is nothing else there, except the ghost of an unclad superman

                   replyreport
                   1. 70

                      getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      So Chip6, do you have anything else to say beyond your total rebuke of the veracity of Evolution?  It is fine that you find inconsistencies in the theory, however, what is your position?  Do you have a better theory, or do you choose to remain neutral until a better theory presents itself?
                      
                      If you have a more workable theory, can you please show proof of this theory, and we can, by preponderance, see which is more probable.
                      
                      Thank you

                      replyreport
                      1. 59

                         Praetorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         

                         replyreport
                         1. 70

                            getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            Sound advice.  I'm done with this one.

                            replyreport
                            1. 58

                               Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                               Done?

                               replyreport
                         2. 58

                            Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            Yes, we won't feed you!

                            replyreport
                      2. 58

                         Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         Nicely put, Samaritan.
                         
                         Here is one theory for you, which advocates that Life on Earth came from other planets - http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology1.html
                         
                         Interestingly, an abnormal human skull was found in Mexico. Paranormal researcher Lloyd Pye, the owner of the skull, says he obtained the skull from Ray and Melanie Young of El Paso, Texas, in February 1999.
                         
                         Pye claims that the skull is the skull of a hybrid offspring of an extraterrestrial and a human female. There have been DNA tests to prove that claim. Here is the report of the most recent DNA analysis-
                         
                         1999 and 2003 DNA TEST RESULTS
                         
                         "In 1999 the Starchild Skull was tested by the BOLD forensic teaching lab in Canada. They thought they had recovered human nuclear DNA from the "Y" chromosome, proving that the Starchild was a normal human male. This result was later determined to be a contamination.
                         
                         In 2003 the Starchild Project was able to arrange another DNA test, this time by Trace Genetics, the ancient DNA lab that had tested the Kennewick Man. They were able to recover mitochondrial DNA, but not nuclear DNA. This left two options--either the nuclear DNA was too degraded to recover, or the DNA was too different from that of a human to be detected by the human primers they were using to test it."
                         
                         http://www.starchildproject.com/dna1999-2003.htm
                         
                         
                         

                         replyreport
                         1. 58

                            Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            But more interestingly, I found all these informations in Google Scholar. Here is the 'terms of use' of that product from Google...
                            
                            "Disclaimer:  Legal opinions in Google Scholar are provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied on as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed lawyer. Google does not warrant that the information is complete or accurate."   

                            replyreport
28. 61

    Paul Wingertposted 12 years ago

    

    replyreport
    1. 65

       Livehappy89posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       hahahah awesome quote!!

       replyreport
29. 58

    Chip6posted 12 years ago

    

    replyreport
    1. 58

       A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Where exactly did Dawkins say that? Or, is that just another poster from the liars for Jesus camp?

       replyreport
       1. 58

          Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          That quote from Dawkins have some legitimate question. Why do you suspect that picture?

          replyreport
    2. 59

       Praetorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Anyone can generate a fake image, we get it, you know how to use MS Paint.
       
       What does Dawkins really think and say on the subject:
       
       "What you cannot really logically do is to say, well I believe that there's some kind of intelligence, some kind of divine physicist who designed the laws of physics, therefore Jesus is my lord and savior who died for my sins. That's an impermissible illogicality that unfortunately many people resort to."
       
       "You can't even begin to understand biology, you can't understand life, unless you understand what it's all there for, how it arose - and that means evolution. So I would teach evolution very early in childhood. I don't think it's all that difficult to do. It's a very simple idea. One could do it with the aid of computer games and things like that."
       
       
       
       By the way, let me introduce you to a novel concept, it's called "citing your sources":
       Dawkins: Evolution is 'not a controversial issue'
       
       
       http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09 … ial-issue/

       replyreport
       1. 58

          Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          How are you so sure what another human being really thinks? Did you sink into his head and saw what his thought are, dear Samaritan?
          
          That quote belongs to Richard Dawkins, the man who is quite different in his private than what he is in public.
          
          Do you know what job he has, his employment? Do you have any idea? It's because of his career ( Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford) that he had to defend Darwinian ideas, which he knows are utterly bullshit. Added to that, he wrote books denouncing all monotheistic religions (I have no idea why he spared Buddhism) which made his wallet thicker.
          
          Quit worshiping the theory of evolution. Your religion is ridiculous.

          replyreport
          1. 58

             Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

             "Notwithstanding these disproofs, Darwinism continues to be mainstream science because of the Priority of the Paradigm: there is simply no scientific alternative theory. Above that the Darwinian worldview satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all embracing explanation for the origin of the world, which has also motivated all cosmogenic myth makers of the past!"
             
             http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho18.htm
             
             (I don't endorse that article. But as you all think that only YOU have those links, I thought it would be satisfying to the bootleggers.)

             replyreport
          2. 59

             Praetorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Enough troll,
             
             I may disagree with the religious community (Christians in particular), but at least they actually believe what they're talking about. You on the other hand created a bogus account and you've been going around trolling the religion forums (playing both sides of the argument).
             
             If you're going to try and troll the forums here, you might want to spend some time on 4chan or reddit first and at least learn how, because as it stands now, you suck at it.

             replyreport
             1. 58

                Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                So, brother Charley, anyone who doesn't believe your bullshit belief system must be labeled a troll?
                
                You are behaving just like a faithhead! You can't hang, Samaritan. Go troll a whinne Christian to get a relief. You're hurt

                replyreport
    3. 65

       Livehappy89posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Read Dawkin's "The God Dellusion" and figure out if he would ever say something like that....

       replyreport
       1. 58

          Chip6posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          That's your belief.

          replyreport
30. 60

    EGAD Callposted 12 years ago

    It should probably look more like this.
    
    

    replyreport