Couples with differing views on religion

[dylan's alias]

Plus, there is plenty about religion which is more about family and traditions than it is about god. It would make me very sad to see my family's traditions die. God has very little to do with it.

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
God has very little to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least we can all agree on that.

Doesn't it bother you that if you take something arbitrary like religion out of your family's structure you would think less of the collective?

Tuco.

[dylan's alias]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God has very little to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least we can all agree on that.

Doesn't it bother you that if you take something arbitrary like religion out of your family's structure you would think less of the collective?

Tuco.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are twisting my meaning there. Tradition is very important to me and to my family. Our religion is a big part of our traditions. If those same traditions existed without mention of a god, I would want my children to continue them just as much. The fact that they are centered around a god (which you may or may not believe in) is a crappy reason to dump thousands of years of tradition.

[TripSearching]

I plan to teach my children about facts such as dinosaurs and evolution as opposed to imaginary reincarnations and an all knowing being who can not be seen or physically touched.

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
I plan to teach my children about facts such as dinosaurs and evolution as opposed to imaginary reincarnations and an all knowing being who can not be seen or physically touched.

[/ QUOTE ]

evolution is not a "fact."

I'm not arguing for or against it here, simply stating that it is a "theory."

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I plan to teach my children about facts such as dinosaurs and evolution as opposed to imaginary reincarnations and an all knowing being who can not be seen or physically touched.

[/ QUOTE ]

evolution is not a "fact."

I'm not arguing for or against it here, simply stating that it is a "theory."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's a fact. Microevolution is proven, macroevolution is at a stage where it's about as close as scientists get to fact in this field.

[RustedCorpse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I plan to teach my children about facts such as dinosaurs and evolution as opposed to imaginary reincarnations and an all knowing being who can not be seen or physically touched.

[/ QUOTE ]

evolution is not a "fact."

I'm not arguing for or against it here, simply stating that it is a "theory."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's a fact. Microevolution is proven, macroevolution is at a stage where it's about as close as scientists get to fact in this field.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both of you are mis-using terms.

Read: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...437/theory.htm

That explains why most ignorant people like to say evolution is "just a theory"

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I plan to teach my children about facts such as dinosaurs and evolution as opposed to imaginary reincarnations and an all knowing being who can not be seen or physically touched.

[/ QUOTE ]

evolution is not a "fact."

I'm not arguing for or against it here, simply stating that it is a "theory."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's a fact. Microevolution is proven, macroevolution is at a stage where it's about as close as scientists get to fact in this field.

[/ QUOTE ]


In general the term "evolution" is used in place of macroevolution which you state is not a fact. There is a large amount of evidence that is interpreted to support it, but it is still a theory and not an absolute proven fact.

On Microevolution I agree that it is proven that a species can make changes to survive.

My point was simply that dinosaurs existed is a fact. That evolution occured is not a fact.

~FishNChips