It depends on your definition. If your definition of atheism is an active denial of God, then children are not atheists. If your definition is a lack of belief in god, then children are atheists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism for an in-depth explanation.

Theists call atheism a denial of a god because they beleive there is one (or more). Atheists call it a lack of belief in a god or gods because they say there isn't one to deny the existence of.

My take on this whole situation:

If someone doesn't want to take a class with "Intelligent Design" being taught, they should be able to opt out, like with the "Abstinence Until Marriage" unit in health class (what a load of s*** that is ) No sense in making international news about it Same goes for the pledge of alleigance; you don't like it, skip over all parts with the reference of 'God', or just don't recite it.

The thing is that ID proponents are fighting for ID to be put where it shouldn't be: in a science class. I could care less if they want it to be taught in school, but not in a mandatory class such as biology. Well, it's mandatory in most schools that I know of at least.

ID is for people who want to boost their ego because they refuse to accept evidence pointing to human evolution from primates. Thinking that some intelligent superbeing created everythink allows them to keep their pride and promote ID as a "religious belief" that other people can't make much fuss about. Problem is, that "religious belief" is just that, a belief, and forcing beliefs on other people is wrong.

Yes, that is just one of the many (many many many many...) problems with ID. Here are some more distasteful things it promotes:
*fundamentalist Christian ideals.
*religious/racial/ethnic bigotry.
*ignorance over knowledge/science/reason.
*"that which is, is right" philosophy.

*Narcissism
*Religion's precedence in everyday matters
*Decisions based on religion and beliefs rather than on facts

This is pretty interesting. I'd like to point out that you have not cited any evidence for the above listed items. These are assumptions that you have made...and you are dissing so-called "assumptions" in the process.


Not really. It says that Congress shall not pass a law respecting (in the context this seems to mean "regarding") an establishment of religion (an official religion) or prohibiting the practice thereof.


-Generally accepted does not mean it should be the only theory taught in the classrooms.
-Both sides have the same evidence; we both live on the same Earth, do we not? The differences in the theories comes from different interpretations of the evidence.
-As for evolution being compatible w/ Christianity it is not. (yes, some pastors and even the late pope would tell you otherwise, but I'll show you why they're wrong). First of all, the Big Bang Theory (perhaps not technically a part of the General Theory of Evolution (GTE) but usually considered as a supplement to it) says that the Sun came before the Earth, while the Bible says that the Earth came on Day 1 and the Sun on Day 4. (light came before the sun, by the way; God didn't need the sun to do that; he's cool like that) Also, evolution would say that thousands of fossils (fossils = dead things) were formed before man ever came into existence. The Bible says that death came into the world when man sinned. If man did not exist yet, they could not have sinned, and these animals could not have died yet.


Evolution meaning "a change over time" clearly happens. No one is arguing with that. The problem comes when this evolution is cited as proof for the General Theory of Evolution, which states that life came from non-living matter (defying the Law of Biogenesis) and that life gradually grew more and more complex (order from disorder; defying the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Entropy). Saying that these two definitions of evolution are the same is a fallicy known as equivocation. Interestingly enough, this is usually how most evolutionists come to the conclusion that they have "proved" evolution (i.e. Darwin's finches, dog breeds, Galapagos tortoises, etc.) They have proved natural selection and artificial selection, but not the GTE.


I'd like to point out here that in the original Greek, this text says "Thou shalt not murder," something entirely different from "thou shalt not kill." This should change your assessment.


Read John Locke's "Two Treatises on Civil Government." Every signer of the Constitution said that the Constitution was in essence a copy of this essay by Locke. This essay contains hundreds of references to the Bible supporting Locke's proposed form of government.


??? Regardless of when Christ was born, Christmas is a celebration of his birth. If I celebrate my birthday a day late, does that mean I'm not celebrating my birthday?


-"Some creationist friends"...sure sounds like qualified people to prove that ID isn't true. Just because you have friends that say it's not true, doesn't mean it's not.
-No way scientific. Really? The definition of science, according to Dictionary.com is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Kansas didn't change any of this. Arguing against evolution is not unscientific. Facts and studies were cited as proof. (I won't waste your time filling the entire forum memory banks with the cited evidence, just check out the links at the bottom of this post, especially the ones about the Kansas school board decision)
-Okay, now I'd like to discuss the idea that Religion and Science are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a religion. Creationism is a scientific theory. Isaac Newton, often considered one of the greatest scientists of all time, was a devout creationist. Science has often been construed to mean "the study of everything except that which remotely touches on God," or sometimes as blatantly as "everything that supports evolution and only that which supports evolution," but the very study of science began as a study of God's orderly universe. The very premise of science is that order exists and can be found in the world around us.

Many credible, scientific claims have been raised against the General Theory of Evolution, and that is why it is being questioned. Science is supposed to be objective, is it not? So, true science would take these claims into consideration, as the Kansas School Board has done.

Just because something cannot be seen, heard, smelt, touched, or tasted does not mean it does not exist. You cannot see the wind, yet you know it exists because you can see its effects. In the same way, you cannot see God, but you can know he exists by his effects...and through the paper trail of evidence that he has left all over the Earth.

-for more info, and EVIDENCE (gasp!), check out www.answersingenesis.org
-for info specifically on religion vs. science, check out: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter1.asp
-for info on the Kansas school board's decision, check out: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4110.asp
http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestd.html (click on the introduction link)
-----

I've already discussed how these items are assumptions, and that you have not supported them with evidence, but I thought I'd prove them wrong anyways.
-If Christianity is true, its ideals are good.
-Christianity has always taught "love thy neighbor as thyself." You may cite the Crusades as an example of Christian ideals, but I can also cite Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust as an example of evolutionist ideals. (Atheist scholars such as Sir Arthur Keith would agree that he was an evolutionist. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes/hitler_keith.asp)
-Racial/ethnic bigotry? This idea is clearly not taken from the Bible. The Bible says that we are all descended from one man, Noah; thus, there is only one race. The Human Genome Project has also said this.
-Ignorance is ignoring the knowledge/science/reason that scientists have used in questioning evolution.

-Narcissism is "Excessive love or admiration of oneself." (Dictionary.com) Chiristianity, on the contrary, places the love and admiration on God, not ourselves.
-God's here everyday. Why ignore him?
-Christianity has never been meant to be taken as a "blind faith." God has left pleny of evidence for people to realize that he exists and that he loves them.
Life is like a road and we're driving down it. If we're too busy fumbling with the radio, talking on the cell phone, or munching our super cheesy beef nachos, we might miss the speed limit signs. When the policeman pulls you over, you might say "I didn't see the sign!" but you will still get a ticket nonetheless. Look for the signs, for God has left plenty of them all over the Earth.

I've already discussed how these items are assumptions, and that you have not supported them with evidence, but I thought I'd prove them wrong anyways.
-If Christianity is true, its ideals are good.
-Christianity has always taught "love thy neighbor as thyself." You may cite the Crusades as an example of Christian ideals, but I can also cite Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust as an example of evolutionist ideals. (Atheist scholars such as Sir Arthur Keith would agree that he was an evolutionist. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes/hitler_keith.asp)
-Racial/ethnic bigotry? This idea is clearly not taken from the Bible. The Bible says that we are all descended from one man, Noah; thus, there is only one race. The Human Genome Project has also said this.
-Ignorance is ignoring the knowledge/science/reason that scientists have used in questioning evolution.

-Narcissism is "Excessive love or admiration of oneself." (Dictionary.com) Chiristianity, on the contrary, places the love and admiration on God, not ourselves.
-God's here everyday. Why ignore him?
-Christianity has never been meant to be taken as a "blind faith." God has left pleny of evidence for people to realize that he exists and that he loves them.
Life is like a road and we're driving down it. If we're too busy fumbling with the radio, talking on the cell phone, or munching our super cheesy beef nachos, we might miss the speed limit signs. When the policeman pulls you over, you might say "I didn't see the sign!" but you will still get a ticket nonetheless. Look for the signs, for God has left plenty of them all over the Earth.

The assumption that the Bible is absolutely correct in all things whatsoever is an assumption that you have made, and you are dissing scientific evidence in the process.

No, the idea that living things today evolved from similar creatures in the past is not compatible with creationism, which is apparently equivalent to Christianity (It's not).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html

The second law of thermodynamics states that in any cyclic process, the amount of entropy will either decrease or remain the same, and that energy is required to maintain order. Therefore, a disorderly system can be put into order, but energy must be expended to do so. However, you are partially correct in that an orderly system cannot spontaneously arise from a disorderly one.

"In essence" does not mean "exactly." It was a copy of that essay because the governmental principles outlined in it were sufficient to run the country, not because it referred to the Bible.

Just because you say it's true doesn't mean it is.

Many of those "scientific" claims are based solely on Biblical passages, which are NOT scientific evidence. Science is supposed to be objecive when investigating a problem, not when vacillating over political dilemmas.

According to Dictionary.com, ignorance is "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." I don't see anything about evolution in there. however, many IDists know nothing about science and so are uninformed and scientifically uneducated, and may be unaware of the evidence behind evolution, so they are ignorant.

Where does that quote say anything about ignoring God? It is only saying that religious ideals should not be the sole basis for making decisions.

Given the fact that the majority of your post derives its support solely from the Bible, it sure seems like it is. And if it's not, then why are we arguing about evolution at all? If Christianity is not supposed to be a blind faith as you say, then would it be possible for Christians to believe in evolution, since non-blindness would require that all aspects of an issue be examined and then the best one believed? Or does the fact that one is a Christian automatically dictate that that person is not allowed to believe evolution? Going back to the Bible, you will find that God gave mankind the gift of free will, to believe and do what we decide. Consequently, there is no reason why Christianity would prevent someone from believing in evolution.

Until something comes along that explains it better than evolution, it will be taught.

Using the "you can't explain it and neither can we, so we must be right" thought process falls through in all hopes of proving anything.

Which chapter in Genesis to you favor? 1 or 2? They contradict each other. One says Eve was made at the same time as Adam, the other that Adam's rib was used. Obviously both can't be true.

If one instance of abiogenesis exists, the Law of Biogenesis is a moot point. Laws are only true while completely true, i.e., one instance of gravity not existing between two objects destroys the Law of Gravity. Plus, evolution does not cover abiogenesis, it only covers how things evolve over time, not how it started.

Chickens eat seeds for food and make an egg. Is the egg not more ordered than the seed? The Second Law of Thermodynamics only works with a closed system. Earth is certainly not a closed system.

Just because they used Christian principles does not mean that they founded America on Christianity.

I was showing that just because they are creationist doesn't mean they throw their heart and soul into ID.

Kansas changed their definition of science from only natural events to including supernatural events.

Yes, but using religion to argue against evolution is unscientific, however. And use a real source for news, not biased stuff.

Source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9967813/

How, exactly, do you plan on testing creationism? Since you can't, it is not science, by definition. And how is atheism a religion? It is the non-belief of something, lack of faith. Religion involves faith and belief in the supernatural.

Oh, so because Newton believed it, I should too?

Since when has it been defined that? Just because someone misconstrues a definition doesn't mean you should listen to them. If there comes along a theory that better explains the world than any existing theory, I'll take that as an explanation. There has yet to be a better explanation for what evolution covers than evolution itself.

You also have yet to prove that this is your god's universe.

Such as? Please elaborate. If you can come up with scientific arguments, I will listen.

I can feel the wind take my body heat away every morning. If it cannot be observed, what reason do have to believe it is real?

What paper trail? If you are referring to the Bible, your god would have a lot of explaining to do.

Using a fallacious text for evidence is not the way science goes.

Christianity teaches good morals, but is not true in its current state because it contradicts itself immensely.

Social Darwinism is not evolution. It is misinterpreted and used to justify their actions, which it does not.

Are you trying to equate atheism to evolution? One does not invoke the other.

The Human Genome Project does not say that Noah existed though, it only agrees with the conclusion, not how it got there.

Again, please provide examples, I would love to hear them.

I place my love and admiration towards mankind, something I know exists and can help. You however place it in something that has yet to show its face.

I would like to have a little talk with how he screwed up this world so much if he's so powerful and all. I think he's a little scared to face me, personally.

Such as?

Such as?

Man, this is a lot of stuff to answer. Here we go...

This is true, I haven't needed to cite evidence thus far. But if evidence is what you want, then evidence you shall have.

Any school can teach religion, but not if it's a public school that wants funding from the government.

There are millions of "interpretations of the evidence." You're saying that we should teach all interpretations as science (nevermind that they're not - only the scientific one is); by that reasoning we should also be teaching Native American Creation myths, African Creation myths, and just about any bit of folklore that explains the origin of life. Why isn't it that creationists, I mean, IDists are also pushing for these to be taught? I wonder.

Let's set one thing straight - ID is not scientific. Here's a widely accepted definition of science: ID has no testable predictions, and therefore it does not rely on a system involving empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. We cannot "test" for design any more than we can test the sound that the color purple makes. A good litmus test to tell whether something is science is peer-review in scientific journals. This means that you perform a study and submit it to a journal for peers in the scientific community to review. If they are able to obtain similar results using your methodology, then there will be concensus that what you're doing is good science. ID is not even a controversial scientific theory, because no one has ever submitted a valid paper that shows ID. Instead, ID is being taken directly to the public. This is often the case with bogus "science" - you might recall the big scandal involving cold fusion about 20 years ago.

So your argument is that the Bible is right because it's right? Or wait, you're saying sin causes death, ok. Yeah, I'd agree with that. Like babies who die during birth, it's their fault. People don't age, they simply physically manifest the wages of sin. That's a major hole in evolution.

You obviously don't know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics - it's for closed systems only. Earth is not a closed system. Energy from the sun pours energy onto the Earth, meaning that Earth does not have to trend one way or another. Evolution does not state the origins of life, merely how it evolved. The Law of Biogenesis is an actual scientific controversy. Credible, valid scientific experiments have suggested both that the law is true and that it is not true. I have my own personal beliefs regarding this matter, but there is not enough room to discuss them here.

There's no such thing as "General Theory of Evolution." I believe you are talking about microevolution vs. macroevolution. Genetics accounts for microevolution - random variation from a given set of allelles. Mutation accounts for macroevolution, or speciation. Of course, most mutations are bad ones, and so speciation takes a long time to occur in most species.

Ah, but the Ten Commandments as they have been interpreted since they were translated into English has always been Kill, so it doesn't matter what the original Greek says. Besides, my other 8 points still stand.

I've never heard that before, and I have difficulty believing it's true, since the Constitution does not reference the Bible.

This has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

Isaac Newton proved calculus, not creationism. In the same way that we wear socks even though Albert Einstein believed that wearing socks was bad, we don't acknowledge personal beliefs of great scientists as being true. It is unwise to bastardize their true work and twist these figures to fit your agenda.

By acknowledging that we can see design in life, you simultaneously acknowledge that you can distinguish that there is not design in non-life, and therefore that God did not create non-life, therefore defeating your own argument. Your argument is based purely on logic and reason. As the ancient Greeks demonstrated, logic and reason can only get us so far. For 2,000 years, Ptolemy's well reasoned-out map of the world stood as the best piece of cartography the world had, yet it turned out to be not true because we found that when we tested the map, it was false. For thousands of years, we thought that the sun revolved around the earth because we applied logic and saw that since the sun appeared to revolve around the earth, it was the most logical and therefore correct explanation. Yet through empirical evidence, we have found that that is obviously not true. I would continue, but I must leave. Have fun digesting my arguments.

Man in the bible is reffered to as males commanly, not females.

What the heck does that have to do with what you quoted?!

nvm, I was reading too fast in that, but it neve does say that Eve was made at the same time as Adam

If you read it carefully, Eve is actually created twice. In fact, many of the events in Genesis occur twice.

Which one is right?
Source:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis.htm

They're not mutally exclusive. One's just more detailed than the other.

That's the problem with genesis (and the bible in general). It conflicts with itself. That's why I find it hard to take people seriously when they quote passages from the bible as "evidence" or "proof" for things. After all it isn't the work of "God," but rather passages that man has written; probably meant to give moral guidance a long time ago. But of course, people like to interpret everything literally... I wonder what a christian or jewish zealot would say in response to saying that eve was created both at the same time as adam and right after

Also in response to Kuro's link (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA040.html). I was looking through some of the other creation theories that would have to be taught and couldn't help but laugh. I had always thought about "Last Thursdayism," but never thought that others would bother to believe that. It brought up some other cool reality questions that can't really be proven true or false. Forgive me if none of these are interesting to anyone else, but I like to ponder these

-Last Thursdayism - The belief that everything was created last week and the past is an illusion
-Retarted syndrome - You are actually retarted or something of the like and the world around you seems normal, but to everyone else you are a mentally challeneged individual (yes I was going to say retard but...)
-Matrix - A belief that the world is really something like the matrix. Basically the world is not what we think it is.
-Robotism - everyone else in the world is a robot or an alien. Think about it, you never know
-Color discreapancy - Sure you know what red looks like to you, but is it not possible that red to me is actually seen differently?
-Unseen Dimensions - It bothers me that we have mathematically theorized higher dimensions (mostly to acount for mathematical inaccuracies in nature), yet we cannot see them. Think about it! We look like lines to these higher dimensional objects/beings!
-Switching bodies - hey every night when you go to sleep, you could switch bodies and acquire the entire memories of others and never know the difference. Of course that would imply that you have a soul...
-Mainstream Religion - There is a higher power that creates and governs all. It's unfalsifiable like the others.

Hope those inspire some thought Feel free to add if you want. Notice how religion is on the same level as those for me. Personally, I see no difference. All of those can't be proven false, deal with the unkown, and were formulated by humans (Even if we didn't create the universe how else would we know what did? We obviously had to come up with something ourselves and thus...GOD or GODs became the most mainstream).

Edit: How could I have forgotten the HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy theory:
-The universe was sneeze out of nostril, and we await the coming of the hankercheif.

Heh, those are pretty clever.