Letters: Atheists interfere with others' beliefs

Feb 28, 2012 Full story: WisInfo 253

Massachusetts parents are suing their school district because their children's rights to be atheists is being violated because they have to say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Full Story
First Prev
of 13
Next Last
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#246 Jun 25, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> Isn't the breeding of fancy dogs and horses somewhat of a man-made imitation of evolution, by picking out the ones with the characteristics they want to emphasize?
Selective breeding in a form of man-made evolution but there is a massive difference. Natural selection does not 'care' what a particular species looks like or what attributes it has. It is simply a process where beneficial mutations naturally mean those populations with the mutation produce more offspring than those that don't have it. Selective breeding involves choosing desirable characteristics that have nothing to do with enhancing reproduction.
havent forgotten wrote:
< I think who breeds with whom - whether in the animal or human kingdom - is a better way to "evolve" than through accidents, potentially, but not necessarily. Hitler's methods proving how evil that could be in the wrong hands.
Obviously if there were a way to ensure that mutations were designed to enhance the quality of life of animals and reduce their suffering it would be hard to argue that the 'natural way is better'. But would we have the beauty and diversity we now see?

Since: Mar 11

United States

#247 Jun 25, 2012
Lol what did I say about believing in God is akin to believing in the loch ness monster? Now theists in louisiana schools are using the loch ness monster to attempt to disprove evolution!!!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!!!

Since: Dec 09

Falls of Rough, Kentucky

#248 Jun 27, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> Hi - I do not know if this qualifies as evolution happening. I saw a report on an experiment with foxes. Many of them were put in cages, and handlers went by with good stury gloves on and put their gloved hands near the cages. If the foxes cowered in a corner, nor attacked, they were left in the cages - and presumably released into the wild later one hopes. But the foxes that came up with a friendly interest were kept and bred to each other. The resulting offspring were much like little dogs, in personality, but also in other ways. I think it was a Russian experiment.
Now let me tell you my wild experiment I want someone to do. I want a simple language of a few pictures to be devised and taught to great apes, children, dolphins, and border collies,- things like water and food (probably including multiple items, as much edible in common as possible) and maybe hotter or colder. and see if they would talk to each other.
Yes they stayed the same family of animals, nothing really changed here.

Since: Dec 09

Falls of Rough, Kentucky

#249 Jun 27, 2012
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
Selective breeding in a form of man-made evolution but there is a massive difference. Natural selection does not 'care' what a particular species looks like or what attributes it has. It is simply a process where beneficial mutations naturally mean those populations with the mutation produce more offspring than those that don't have it. Selective breeding involves choosing desirable characteristics that have nothing to do with enhancing reproduction.
<quoted text>
Obviously if there were a way to ensure that mutations were designed to enhance the quality of life of animals and reduce their suffering it would be hard to argue that the 'natural way is better'. But would we have the beauty and diversity we now see?
Most mutations are not beneficial, no mutations have turned an animal or plant into something different, a fruit fly stays a fruit fly for example. The only time real change has happened is when man manipulates or combines two different genomes. Frog genes into wheat sort of thing, so that they can use more poisonous pesticides and herbicides or the plant itself become poisonous, is it really beneficial are we in the end poisoning ourselves the jury is still out on that one.

Even mutations that tend to allow survival for mankind in certain areas of the world, Sickle-cell anemia for example allows certain people not to get malaria and live to the age to reproduce. But the downside is they still die at a very early age, sickle cell anemia does not change them in any way to a different species nor tend toward anything like that.

What we see is plainly just adaption to the environment around us nothing more. Also the fossil record is witness to this, no gradual change anywhere. The fossil record just shows appearance and disappearance of species much of it to do with change in environment.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#250 Jun 27, 2012
"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money." -Everett Dirksen

Genetic changes can be like that--even pennies can mount up when accumulated over hundreds of thousands or millions or even billions of years. as such, creationism and ID make sense only within the framework of a young earth. Grant that Earth and the life on it are billions of years old and evolution makes so much sense that it seems inevitable.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#251 Jun 27, 2012
I frankly think that God, nature, and man mostly do not give a damn about whether animals suffer. To suffer for beauty is a concept invented either by sadists or folks with no feelings - or is a justification after the fact when someone has already suffered and has had to make lemonade out of lemons.
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
Selective breeding in a form of man-made evolution but there is a massive difference. Natural selection does not 'care' what a particular species looks like or what attributes it has. It is simply a process where beneficial mutations naturally mean those populations with the mutation produce more offspring than those that don't have it. Selective breeding involves choosing desirable characteristics that have nothing to do with enhancing reproduction.
<quoted text>
Obviously if there were a way to ensure that mutations were designed to enhance the quality of life of animals and reduce their suffering it would be hard to argue that the 'natural way is better'. But would we have the beauty and diversity we now see?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#252 Jun 27, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money." -Everett Dirksen
Genetic changes can be like that--even pennies can mount up when accumulated over hundreds of thousands or millions or even billions of years. as such, creationism and ID make sense only within the framework of a young earth. Grant that Earth and the life on it are billions of years old and evolution makes so much sense that it seems inevitable.
Even if it is factual, in general outline, there is nothing in it that seems to imply any moral value. The whole scheme of nature is riddled with pain and suffering. I never understand why nonbelievers who do not like a nasty Biblical God think that nature is somehow a worthy thing to respect. It just is - but it isn't "nice" or "good." We just like the pretty parts of it, and the parts that provide our necessities. Even me - I love my own dogs, but I am not naive about the nature of animals, including human beings.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#253 Jun 27, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Lol what did I say about believing in God is akin to believing in the loch ness monster? Now theists in louisiana schools are using the loch ness monster to attempt to disprove evolution!!!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!!!
be careful when you use nessie and flying santa's reindeer and unicorns to mock traditional religion. I can tolerate the abandonment of the easter bunny and tooth fairy, and God and Jesus, and all that stuff, but I hate loosing nessie and comet and cupid and dancer and prancer and vixen and the other ones. I know Rudolph is not real. have you ever seen the Charlie the unicorn cartoons on youtube? fantasy is fun when there is no other nonsense attached to it.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#254 Jun 27, 2012
deray wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they stayed the same family of animals, nothing really changed here.
it changed if they did not bite, but were more slavishly adoring, like dogs! that is a very practical change.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#255 Jun 27, 2012
It's fine to enjoy these myths and legends for purely entertainment reasons. Now if you believed magical flying deer were reality and started a religion based on them there would be issues lol.

Science says magical deer toting around a fat man can't deliver gifts all over the world in one night! Oh ya prove it! Until you can prove this isn't true Intelligent gift placing must be taught alongside economic classes! Teach the controversy!!
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> be careful when you use nessie and flying santa's reindeer and unicorns to mock traditional religion. I can tolerate the abandonment of the easter bunny and tooth fairy, and God and Jesus, and all that stuff, but I hate loosing nessie and comet and cupid and dancer and prancer and vixen and the other ones. I know Rudolph is not real. have you ever seen the Charlie the unicorn cartoons on youtube? fantasy is fun when there is no other nonsense attached to it.
Benjamin Frankly

Long Eaton, UK

#256 Jul 4, 2012
deray I wont you to ask my any thing about evolution, here I will give you a freebie and define it for you.
Darwinian evolution through natural selection, is the non-random selection of randomly generated mutations based upon fitness of the organism/species.
Please note whenever you use a term I think you don't understand, or have the faintest clue of what the term actually is, I will call you out by asking you to do Define it.
Also I can always guarantee you're going to disagree, with my definition of evolution so give me one article or one piece of literature, not made by creationists/ID proponent that defines Darwinian evolution differently, quotes don't count due to the large amount of quote miners, who played a little too much minecraft. Have fun I will anyway.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#258 Jul 5, 2012
With plants before the sun lol You guys crack me up!
deray wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you say that, the bible says the earth was here before the first day of creation began? Notice it says the spirit was going to and fro over the earth.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Long Eaton, UK

#259 Jul 6, 2012
deray wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you say that, the bible says the earth was here before the first day of creation began? Notice it says the spirit was going to and fro over the earth.
Sometimes people quote the Bible at the start saying “the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” instead of “in the beginning God created heaven and the earth. Now the earth was famous and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters”
My philosophy teacher actually misquoted that to.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Patrick 1,024
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Patrick 228,601
Is Religion Childish? 2 hr nOgOd 4
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Eman 22,934
Heaven 5 hr Patrick 7
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 5 hr Patrick 5,938
Our world came from nothing? 5 hr _Bad Company 724

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE