• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evolution losing popularity?

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This excerpt is from Apologetics Press http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2756
Is Creationism winning the debate?
The Smell of Fear is in the Air
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.


Printer version | Email this article



They are dreadfully scared! For over twenty-five years, everything has gone “their way,” and they have been able to fill textbooks with their own beliefs and speculations. But “the times, they are a changing”! Evolutionists all around the country realize that the stronghold they once held over science departments and the public-in-general is slowly losing its grip.

The March 23, 2005 issue of USA Today featured a piece titled “ ‘Call to Arms’ on Evolution” (see Vergano and Toppo, 2005). The article informed readers that just days earlier, Bruce Alberts, head of the National Academy of Science [NAS], had written to all academy members, urging them to alert him if they detected any threats to evolution. He called on academy members to “confront the increasing challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools” (Vergano and Toppo). In his letter to academy members, he wrote:

I write to you now because of a growing threat to the teaching of science through the inclusion of non-scientifically based “alternatives” in science courses throughout the country. A recent article in the Washington Post pointed out that there are challenges to the teaching of evolution in 40 states or local school districts around the country today.... If these challenges have not yet reached where you live or work, they are likely to do so in time.... These challenges continue unabated across our nation (Alberts).
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
alienken said:
This excerpt is from Apologetics Press http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2756
Is Creationism winning the debate?
The Smell of Fear is in the Air
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

They are dreadfully scared! For over twenty-five years, everything has gone “their way,” and they have been able to fill textbooks with their own beliefs and speculations. But “the times, they are a changing”! Evolutionists all around the country realize that the stronghold they once held over science departments and the public-in-general is slowly losing its grip.
With all due respect, how is this news? You're citing a site that is without apology anti-evolution. To set the record straight this is taken directly from the link to the site that your post provided:
What We Believe

The following principles of truth are accepted by those who actively participate in this work:

1. God is, and man can know that God is, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.
2. The entire material Universe was specially created by this Almighty God in 6 days of approximately 24-hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.
3. Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.
4. Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earth’s features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (to wit: the Noachian deluge as expressed in Genesis 6-8).
5. All compromising theories such as theistic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, the gap theory, the modified gap theory, the day-age theory, the non-world view, etc., shall be denied and opposed as patently false.
6. Jesus Christ is the only divine Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, miracle-working, resurrected Lord and Savior of all who lovingly obey Him.
7. The 66 books of the Bible are fully and verbally inspired of God; hence, they are inerrant and authoritative, and a complete guide for moral and religious conduct.
8. Salvation is by means of obedience to the Gospel system, involving faith in God and Christ, repentance from sin, confession of faith, and immersion in water for remission of past sins, coupled with a life of growing consecration and dedication.
9. Those enjoying salvation are members of the one true church, which is the body of Christ.
Source: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apinfo/aboutap

What makes a story from a rapture right site's obvious view of evolution news? It would be news if they believed in evolution!
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I must say, Champs has a point here.

Personally, I wish I could get my mind around this Jesus is my savior thing or the load of crap evolutionists believe. If you ask me, they’re both religions.

I’m a bit more humble but cursed with a mind that shreds both ideologies to bits. Perhaps I’m going to hell for doubting that which can’t be proven but I sure as hell can’t make the connections these evolutionists consider proven science.

Both sides of this argument are full of crap and both of you know it.
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
26 X World Champs said:
With all due respect, how is this news? You're citing a site that is without apology anti-evolution. To set the record straight this is taken directly from the link to the site that your post provided:

Source: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apinfo/aboutap

What makes a story from a rapture right site's obvious view of evolution news? It would be news if they believed in evolution!
Sure, always consider the source, no problem with that, but that doesn't mean that automatically it isn't true. There are so many holes in the evolution and big bang theory that it requires more faith to fallow it than creationism.
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GPS_Flex said:
I must say, Champs has a point here.

Personally, I wish I could get my mind around this Jesus is my savior thing or the load of crap evolutionists believe. If you ask me, they’re both religions.

I’m a bit more humble but cursed with a mind that shreds both ideologies to bits. Perhaps I’m going to hell for doubting that which can’t be proven but I sure as hell can’t make the connections these evolutionists consider proven science.

Both sides of this argument are full of crap and both of you know it.
I can help you understand the Jesus thing but please don't make light of going to hell. It's a terrible place, with alot of pain, for a very long time. Science does not disprove the existence of God. e-mail me, alienken182@yahoo.com I can tell why Jesus is my savior without any hardcore recruitment pressure. I don't have all of the answers but know smart people that I can ask.
 

walrus

Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
191
Reaction score
15
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
GPS_Flex said:
I must say, Champs has a point here.
Well, the sun even shines on a dog's ass once a day.

GPS said:
Personally, I wish I could get my mind around this Jesus is my savior thing or the load of crap evolutionists believe. If you ask me, they’re both religions.
So, the fundamentalist creation story is a load of crap, but the science based evolution theory is also a load of crap. What does that leave? The world balanced on an infinite stack of turtles? I would really like to know your alternate theory, having discarded both science and faith based ideas.

GPS said:
I’m a bit more humble but cursed with a mind that shreds both ideologies to bits. Perhaps I’m going to hell for doubting that which can’t be proven but I sure as hell can’t make the connections these evolutionists consider proven science.
Aw, now you're being modest. You aren't humble at all. You just informed us that your mind is insightful enough to shred to pieces two issues which have stumped the greatest minds of both theology and science. I personally am not sure one way or the other, and I consider myself a well-educated, well-read, fairly bright and insightful person. Therefore for you to glibly state that you have, through your own contemplation and research, determined the origins of the universe is anything but humble.

I don't believe that creationism should be taught in school. There is virtually no scientific evidence to back it up, and school is not a place for religious studies. If there was a curriculum that included scientific evidence for a six day creation, I would possibly reconsider. Please however, don't start showering me with information from creation scientists. Most of what I have seen on shows such as "Creation Network" does more harm to the cause of creation than good by distorting and ignoring large sections of science in order to focus on one or two minor points which when viewed at an angle seem to support their premise. The only theories which should be taught in a public school science class are those which can be at least partially verified through observation and experimentation.
 

Bigbird

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
walrus said:
The only theories which should be taught in a public school science class are those which can be at least partially verified through observation and experimentation.
I agree. I thought Evolution was evident in bacteria already? like bacteria becoming more resistant to anti biotics etc.....
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
galenrox said:
Yeah, I don't see how being a faithful believer in Jesus leads to creationism. If you look at how Jesus taught, he taught through telling stories with metaphors in it, so wouldn't that imply that a large portion of the bible would be stories to teach us through metaphors? Wouldn't that be how christ would want it? And thus wouldn't Christian fundamentalism be an oxymoron, because it would mean people who take the primary book on which a religion based on metaphors is based word for word?
Well said! I agree that the bible is a metaphor, stories meant to teach about life, not to be taken literally.

The literal translation of the bible is impossible to believe as fact, including the 6 day creation thing.

None of us in our lifetime will ever know for sure how we got here. People can believe whatever makes them happy. Creationism becomes a problem when it is taught in a science class because it has virtually no scientific value. If it's a class on religion then it should be taught.
 

edb19

Member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Location
Sylvania, Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Bigbird said:
I agree. I thought Evolution was evident in bacteria already? like bacteria becoming more resistant to anti biotics etc.....

That's accommodation and/or mutation, not evolution. The bacteria, say staph aureus is still staph aureus.

Great story on one of the world's leading atheists, Anthony Flew, has recently come to believe in intelligent design - because 'that's where the evidence leads.'


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

The consider some of the math involved in evolution:


http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleid.17077/article_detail.asp
 

walrus

Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
191
Reaction score
15
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
First, to those of you who do not capitalize the words Bible or Christians - There are only two possibilities for this that I can see. a) this is your little slight against the book or the group. If this is the case it is quite petty and really not worthy of a reasoned argument or b) you consistently do not capitalize the names of books or the proper names of groups of people, in which case you either do not know or do not choose to use correct English. I really don't care either way, I would just be curious to know which it is. I'm generally not picky about grammar in a site such as this, but I have a feeling some of the same people who do not capitalize Bible have no problem capitalizing Newsweek.

26 X World Champs said:
Well said! I agree that the bible is a metaphor, stories meant to teach about life, not to be taken literally. The literal translation of the bible is impossible to believe as fact, including the 6 day creation thing.
It seems you have extended what he was saying to include the entire Bible. I believe that there are parts of the Bible meant to be taken figuratively, but there are also some that are meant to be taken quite literally. I know the immediate response to this is, "oh, so you just pick and choose what you want to take literally and what you don't". The answer is yes, to some extent. The Bible must be examined as a conglomeration of works by many authors. Some was compiled by eyewitnesses (or their followers) such as the Gospels. The Gospels contain an historical account of the life of Jesus (meant to be taken literally) as well as the parables (fables meant to teach a moral truth). The Gospels were written in Greek and there are nearly original manuscripts. The creation story in Genesis was handed down as oral tradition for generations before the Hebrews even developed a written alphabet. I personally believe the creation story is a parable. It is a simple story that teaches the moral lesson that God created all things. It was never meant as a scientific account of the origins of the universe. The mistake lies in those (on both sides) who think that in admitting that one part of the Bible is not literal truth they have invalidated the entire book. This seems to me akin to finding a factual error in a biography of George Washington and then claiming that George Washington never actually existed.
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Maybe it’s the way I was raised, being the son of one of the most honest, God fearing, dedicated to Christ ministers I’ve ever seen. I envy my father with every fiber of my being because he has an inner a peace I wish I had.

Yet I’ve tried it and failed miserably every time because I’ve been taught, “If one word in the bible is false, the whole thing is false”.

I will defend nearly every political issue that involves creationism being taught in schools, the ass-monkeys who think the constitution says anything about separation of church and state and want to tear down every religious symbol that offends them.

I defend those who are religious because I know they are better, more tolerant people than those of you on the left are but it ends there.

I’ve prayed, I mean really prayed as hard as I know how, for God to just send me some undeniable sign that he’s out there. “Just put a shooting star in the sky my eyes are looking at and I’ll never question your existence again”. If I’m going to hell, it’s because God doesn’t care enough to do such a little thing to save my soul from eternal torture. Don’t give me the “he sent Jesus” crap either because I asked him for a sign that he was real too.

You evolutionists can’t prove jack either. If you can’t produce even one proven example of a species evolving into a totally different species, you are full of crap too. Adaptations by species can be proven but they don’t exactly qualify as cross species evolution do they? How do you account for “the missing link”?

I don’t like the idea that I’m so aware of my inevitable death and the total blank that accompanies it. I find no peace because I love being alive so much. I don’t want to die but I know it will eventually happen. How can this be so different from hell?
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
GPS_Flex said:
I defend those who are religious because I know they are better, more tolerant people than those of you on the left are but it ends there.
Ah yes, those lovely people like Queertol, Fantasea, Sebastiansdreams etc etc who are sooooooo tolerant. Not to mention the Pope and all of his paedophile priests!
 

edb19

Member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Location
Sylvania, Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
GPS_Flex said:
Maybe it’s the way I was raised, being the son of one of the most honest, God fearing, dedicated to Christ ministers I’ve ever seen. I envy my father with every fiber of my being because he has an inner a peace I wish I had. . . . . .

I’ve prayed, I mean really prayed as hard as I know how, for God to just send me some undeniable sign that he’s out there. “Just put a shooting star in the sky my eyes are looking at and I’ll never question your existence again”. If I’m going to hell, it’s because God doesn’t care enough to do such a little thing to save my soul from eternal torture. Don’t give me the “he sent Jesus” crap either because I asked him for a sign that he was real too.

I do believe the Bible authenticates itself, but that's another topic.

Suggested reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Lewis was an agnostic whose intention was to disprove Christianity. His research had the opposite effect and he became on the the greatest Christian apologists of the 20th century. Another wonderful book (one of the best out there) "Knowing God" by J.I. Packer.
 

Windy

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
226
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
26 X World Champs said:
Well said! I agree that the bible is a metaphor, stories meant to teach about life, not to be taken literally.

The literal translation of the bible is impossible to believe as fact, including the 6 day creation thing.

None of us in our lifetime will ever know for sure how we got here. People can believe whatever makes them happy. Creationism becomes a problem when it is taught in a science class because it has virtually no scientific value. If it's a class on religion then it should be taught.
If evolutionist are correct we have got nothing to worry about..
If creationist are right we have.... :cool:
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
walrus said:
I don't believe that creationism should be taught in school. There is virtually no scientific evidence to back it up, and school is not a place for religious studies. If there was a curriculum that included scientific evidence for a six day creation, I would possibly reconsider. Please however, don't start showering me with information from creation scientists. Most of what I have seen on shows such as "Creation Network" does more harm to the cause of creation than good by distorting and ignoring large sections of science in order to focus on one or two minor points which when viewed at an angle seem to support their premise. The only theories which should be taught in a public school science class are those which can be at least partially verified through observation and experimentation.
There is a whole section of science that supports intelligent design but I agree with you. Creationism should not be taught in school. I don't want a school teacher teaching my kid about God or how to pray, that's my job and they will probably mess it up. It worked out good when I was in school. They taught evolution as a theory and mentioned creationism but said go ask your parents or preacher about it. i think most Christians don't mind evolution as a theory, it's when they try to pass it off as factual science is when there is a problem........... It all comes back to this - science has never disproved the existence of God. An impartial scientist that has no preconceived agenda ( if there are any out there) will side on creationism.
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
Yeah, I don't see how being a faithful believer in Jesus leads to creationism. If you look at how Jesus taught, he taught through telling stories with metaphors in it, so wouldn't that imply that a large portion of the bible would be stories to teach us through metaphors? Wouldn't that be how christ would want it? And thus wouldn't Christian fundamentalism be an oxymoron, because it would mean people who take the primary book on which a religion based on metaphors is based word for word?
1). Jesus leads to creationism? Well yes of course, He's the son of God. He was with God when everything was created...How could you be a faithful believer in Jesus and NOT be a creationist? talk about oxymoron. 2).Not all of the stories in the Bible are made up parables. Jesus points out when it is a parable, and He told them to demonstrate how we should live our lives. The chronicling of the life of Jesus,Paul,Moses,Abraham,Noah,etc and all of the miracles where certainly not stories that are meant for our entertainment.
 

walrus

Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
191
Reaction score
15
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
galenrox said:
Alright, well answer me this. Would you say the bible is or isn't the way christ wants it to be? Because if it is the way christ wants it to be, then wouldn't it all be in a metaphors, just one big book of parables? When you go to church every reading has a message, a moral if you will. Wouldn't that imply that it is in fact a book of metaphors?
And if it is not the way Christ would want, wouldn't that take away from its credibility as the doctrine of our faith?
To be honest, I am not sure I understand the question. I believe the Bible was inspired by God - but written, edited, translated, re-written, compiled, re-translated, re-compiled and finally printed by fallible man. I am not a person who believes God preserved every word of the Bible inviolate through the last several thousand years. I believe the Bible contains historical inaccuracies and other types of human mistakes. I do not believe any of this subtracts from the moral or spiritual lesson of Christ. I believe that one should study the Bible with an open heart and mind, and the chief message will shine though despite rather trivial errors and omissions.

galenrox said:
I do believe in the importance of faith, but believing the world was created in 6 days 10,000 years ago isn't faith, that's just outright gullibility.
I do not believe in a literal six-day creation either. However, I also do not think that believing that the world is only 6,000 years old harms anyone. Depsite what some people in here have said, even teaching your child that the Earth is 6,000 years old is harmless. How many times in your own life has your knowledge of the approximate age of the Earth been vitally useful?

galenrox said:
So, coming from a logical person's point of view, wouldn't that imply that the story of creation is a parable, teaching the importance of faith, and of God's great powers, and wouldn't you assume that it would be dumbed down for us?
I believe that is exactly what I said in the last post.

galenrox said:
I mean, when this section of the bible was written they were millenia away from discovering that the world wasn't flat, is it really so hard to believe that they weren't told about evolution because they couldn't understand it?
Forget the world being flat - when this story was first told the Hebrews hadn't even discovered agriculture. To the Hebrews at that time, animal husbandry was hi-tech. Therefore, it is no surprise to me that their creation account is a simple story. How would the Hebrews have reacted to this:

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. At first, the heavens and the Earth were compressed into a infinitely dense singularity which contained all matter and energy. And then God said, "let there be Light!", and there was light, and God saw that it was catastrophically filling the void of the pre-universe as well as being good. Then God said, "let immense clouds of hydrogen begin to form, due to individual atoms attraction for one another". And hydrogen did coalesce, and God saw that it was good. And then God said, "let the hydrogen separate from the heavy elements, and let the hydrogen collapse into a critical mass - and let also the heavy elements accreate into a big ball of molten matter". And God saw that he still had a lot of work to do...
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
walrus said:
I do not believe in a literal six-day creation either. However, I also do not think that believing that the world is only 6,000 years old harms anyone. Depsite what some people in here have said, even teaching your child that the Earth is 6,000 years old is harmless. How many times in your own life has your knowledge of the approximate age of the Earth been vitally useful?
I was just at the Science Museum of Minnesota last night and I guess what I saw were Jesus Horses, although they looked like dinosaurs from older than 6000 years ago. But if 6000 years ago is when the earth was created, how could the dinosaurs exist? And if this exhibit is wrong, then what about that exhibit on the human body and diseases? And that exhibit about the ecosystems?
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
How do you know that it's not a book of parables. Really, tell me, how do you know, for a fact, that I am wrong?
When you say "parables" do you mean made up stories that never happened? Because if you do, I would say no way. If it was, I would be wasting my time as a Christian. Jesus pointed out when he was telling parables. Those were parables, them and only them. Look at the 4 Gospels- Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. These are 4 testimonies of the life and death of Jesus Christ from 4 people.
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
walrus said:
To be honest, I am not sure I understand the question. I believe the Bible was inspired by God - but written, edited, translated, re-written, compiled, re-translated, re-compiled and finally printed by fallible man. I am not a person who believes God preserved every word of the Bible inviolate through the last several thousand years. I believe the Bible contains historical inaccuracies and other types of human mistakes. I do not believe any of this subtracts from the moral or spiritual lesson of Christ. I believe that one should study the Bible with an open heart and mind, and the chief message will shine though despite rather trivial errors and omissions.



I do not believe in a literal six-day creation either. However, I also do not think that believing that the world is only 6,000 years old harms anyone. Depsite what some people in here have said, even teaching your child that the Earth is 6,000 years old is harmless. How many times in your own life has your knowledge of the approximate age of the Earth been vitally useful?



I believe that is exactly what I said in the last post.



Forget the world being flat - when this story was first told the Hebrews hadn't even discovered agriculture. To the Hebrews at that time, animal husbandry was hi-tech. Therefore, it is no surprise to me that their creation account is a simple story. How would the Hebrews have reacted to this:

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. At first, the heavens and the Earth were compressed into a infinitely dense singularity which contained all matter and energy. And then God said, "let there be Light!", and there was light, and God saw that it was catastrophically filling the void of the pre-universe as well as being good. Then God said, "let immense clouds of hydrogen begin to form, due to individual atoms attraction for one another". And hydrogen did coalesce, and God saw that it was good. And then God said, "let the hydrogen separate from the heavy elements, and let the hydrogen collapse into a critical mass - and let also the heavy elements accreate into a big ball of molten matter". And God saw that he still had a lot of work to do...
1). I agree. There can problems in the various translations. I have recently discovered many major discrepancies in the New International Version. The King James Version has problems also but is as close as it gets. Like one of the 10 commandments - thou shalt not kill. The Hebrew word for kill actually translates murder. This is why just reading the Bible is sometimes not enough, you have to study. A good preacher that has a degree in a Bible College helps. 2). I believe in the literal 6 day creation. In Genesis 1:5 ..."and there was evening, and there was morning- the first day." this is mentioned after each day and it points out that we are talking about actual 24 hour days. By the way check out Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image...'" Who do you think "us" and "our" are?
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
GPS_Flex said:
Naughty Nurse said:
I defend those who are religious because I know they are better, more tolerant people than those of you on the left are but it ends there.
Ah yes, those lovely people like Queertol, Fantasea, Sebastiansdreams etc etc who are sooooooo tolerant. Not to mention the Pope and all of his paedophile priests!
I could have worded that statement a bit better but I think the crux of my point was conveyed.

While I won’t discount the fact that there have been priests or other people of Christian faith who are pedophiles, I think the media reports, as a nation wide news story, every accusation against priests they can get their hands on.

Don’t throw a few priests who have been accused of pedophilia at me as though it were proof of anything that discounts my opinion Naughty Nurse. A few bad priest can’t be compared to NAMBLA or the gay community or any other number of secular groups when it comes down to statistics and percentages involving pedophilia.

What a foolish assumption on your part.
 
Last edited:

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
GPS_Flex said:
A few bad priest can’t be compared to NAMBLA or the gay community or any other number of secular groups when it comes down to statistics and percentages involving pedophilia.

What a foolish assumption on your part.
And your statistics to back up that statement?
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GPS_Flex said:
I could have worded that statement a bit better but I think the crux of my point was conveyed.

While I won’t discount the fact that there have been priests or other people of Christian faith who are pedophiles, I think the media reports, as a nation wide news story, every accusation against priests they can get their hands on.

Don’t throw a few priests who have been accused of pedophilia at me as though it were proof of anything that discounts my opinion Naughty Nurse. A few bad priest can’t be compared to NAMBLA or the gay community or any other number of secular groups when it comes down to statistics and percentages involving pedophilia.

What a foolish assumption on your part.
Yes, the media will go after christians any chance they get. To put any story in purspective get a number on the child molesting priest and also the total number of priest. This shows how uncommon the abuses were. Listen to the news and it sounds like they are all molesters. (DISCLAIMER - I in no way belittle the atrocities these sick priest commited nor the Catholic Church's inaction of dealing with the problem. The Catholic church had a huge setback of attendance and donations and deserve it. end disclamer)
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GPX Flex Don't pay any attention to naughty nurse. He is one of those people that lurk around and wait for the right time to **** someone off, and believe me it's a waste of typing trying to deal with them.
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Naughty Nurse said:
And your statistics to back up that statement?
I don’t need to provide statistics to back that statement up. Some things are so self evident they require no further analyisis.

The gay community already did it’s best to try and prove heterosexuals were more likely to have sex with under aged children than homosexuals were but they couldn’t get around the facts.

You’re the one who singles out priests so, by all means, feel free to show the discrepancy in my position.

Do you support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and woman? Why do you think pedophilia is wrong? Why do you think murder is wrong? How can “wrong” really be defined without some sort of a definition of "morality"?

If we are all just a bunch of chemical reactions, the law is whatever those with the most power say it is but that isn’t the same as morality is it?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom