₦airaland Forum

Uyi Iredia: I doubt that was the case in the Piltdown man and the Nebraska man. And tooths tell you nothing about a SUPPOSED ancestral organism. And of course there isn't zero tolerance for conjecture or else the wild extrapolation of an organism wouldn't have been made from a tooth.

Good examples.

The Nebraska man was a peccary tooth that was misidentified as human by the people who discovered it. Most of the scientific world never accepted that it was human and it was eventually proven not to be so by other scientists within 4 years. In that case, the system worked beautifully.

The Piltdown man was a very clever hoax that fooled a lot of people and wasn't fully debunked for 4 decades. Despite that, most authorities in the field were suspicious of it because it contradicted what we knew about human evolution from other fossils. Eventually though, it was still scientists, not creationists, or pastors that proved it was fake, and the scientific community immediately threw it away. That's how science works, everybody's work constantly gets checked by others and the rubbish gets thrown out.

Thanks for helping to illustrate my point

That is ideal but human beings are social beings. Group think could allow unsupported claims go unheeded. How else would Freud's or Darwin's notions have been accepted.

You must be joking if you're suggesting that groupthink had anything to do with Darwin's theory gaining acceptance. Do you know how much opposition Darwin faced when Origin of the Species got published? His ideas got accepted because they made too much sense to be dismissed and they made testable predictions which turned out to be correct. Go and read a history book or something.

I can't say anything about Freud. Even today, psychology is barely a science.

It is the fault of the scientists, who give free hand to the artist's to publish such drawings and fail to notify the public of the imaginary nature of such drawings.

Except that the artists work for the media, and the scientists have no control over them. Scientists are constantly complaining about how their work is being dumbed down and misrepresented by the press, but nobody ever listens to them. Like when your Nebraska man tooth was mistakenly identified as human, the newspapers included a drawing of a cave man in their reports, giving the impression that scientists knew what Nebraska man looked like. Henry Osborn, the scientist who misidentified the tooth called the picture a "figment of the imagination of no scientific value". Note that this was the guy who "discovered" Nebraska man, and even he admitted that he had no idea what it looked like.

The media is far more interested in sensationalism and selling papers than scientific accuracy. And the journalists who report on science often don't have a clue about what they are writing about. Its ridiculous to blame honest scientists for someone else's mistakes.

The neo-Darwinian theory is mostly stories covered up in science-speak. If you wish to argue this further you can resurrect a past thread that debated evolution. I won't reply to a new thread.

Rest assured that I have no intention to start a thread just to argue with you. Clearly, you are too far gone in your creationist delusions for me to help you. I'm sure that whenever you are ready to stop fooling yourself and face reality you'll find your own way to the truth.

Cheers

Oahray: tell me more. Recreating full organisms by evolutionists from just teeth fossil (which makes up more than 90% of the fossil record) is what? You are right, it's not faith, it's stupidity.

You would be amazed at the amount of information you can extract from a single fossilized tooth or even a bone fragment. If you'd bothered to read any of the original papers describing such fossils, you'd know that scientists go to extreme lengths to support every little detail of their claims with evidence. Whenever they make guesses, they always clearly indicate so. There is zero tolerance for any form of hidden conjecture in the scientific world.

Any scientific paper that makes unsupported claims will get torn apart during the peer review process. Or another scientist will try and make a name for himself by debunking the paper and humiliating the authors.

The only time anything resembling faith comes in is when artists (who are almost always not scientists) try and create images of extinct animals for pubic consumption. When they do they usually use their artistic license to fill in the gaps in scientific knowledge, to make their pictures prettier and to dumb things down so that ordinary people can understand. When they do this, they usually don't bother to tell the public which aspects of the image are supported by evidence and which aspects they just made up. This is not the fault of the scientists though.

Of course, the situation is not ideal, but its far better than what happens in the religion industry where people just cook up stories and claim that an invisible man with wings told them.

Back on topic.

[img]http://tnvalleytalks.hoop.la/fileSendAction/fcType/0/fcOid/308805058295804546/filePointer/308945795795191236/fodoid/308945795795191232/imageType/LARGE/inlineImage/true/Piechart.jpg[/img]

turnstoner: Hey, @evil,
why do you suffer fools so gladly?!

Sorry!

I'm trying to stop but bad habits die hard.

maclatunji: You know the Nile and Amazon are now salty after you mixed them with salt water. #LOL

Keep telling yourself you are special. #Hehehe

Gaddemmit!!! The Nile and Amazon flow into the gaddem ocean. And then the water mixes, inside the gaddem ocean. The river water doesnt get salty because no ocean water is entering the river. The water is flowing in the opposite gaddem direction.

If someone was to pour some ocean water into the river, then the waters will mix and the river will get saltier as the salt is diluted through the whole body of water. This happens because there is no gaddem barrier.

I edited my last post. Please read it and stop posting this nonsense here. It is morally wrong, and very annoying.

I'm tired of talking to you. You make me fear for the future of Nigeria. I'm going to do something else for a while.

Good bye.

theutopianex: a true christian understands the terms and conditions of his faith!! he needs not be forced, he choses just like every other choice you make in life... a true christian looks forward to HEAVEN, he is not moved by the things of this world because he understands eternal life, he understands that everything gained on earth remains on earth.. steve jobs left everything he worked for all his life, there is a new head and the company has moved on, they will achieve bigger feats even without him, the question is, is that all?? if that is all i have come to do and there is no afterlife then why dont i just end my life right now and get it over with!

So why do you people pray for god to protect your children? why do you pay tithe and "sow miracle seed" in church? Why are you so interested in blessings on earth?

Why does the bible suggest that Christians can perform spectacular feats of magic like raising the dead? Why protect your children from death if all you're looking forward to is heaven? Whats the point of raising people from the dead if you're just taking them away from their eternal reward?

If your manner of thinking is correct, we should actually be looking for ways to make people die faster so that we can all go to heaven on time.

maclatunji: Of course, people don't know how to breastfeed even up till now. If they did WHO would not have this http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/ . The point is not whether several types of baby food exist or not, it is about which is best and for how long should it be given? Islam categorically answered it.

The best available research shows that 6 months is the minimum required for a child to gain the maximum benefits from breastfeeding. While theres nothing wrong with doing it for longer, its not really necessary as long as the child is getting and adequate and well balanced food. You seem to believe that the 2 years stated by the koran is some kind of perfect magic number, and its not. The koran could have said anything between between 6 months and 3 years and it wouldn't be any more or less wrong. And there's no big deal about it getting a figure in the correct ballpark since women have been breastfeeding for that long (give or take a few months) for thousands of years. If that's your evidence that the koran contains revealed knowledge, then it is extremely weak.

I post evidence that the Quran encourages research, you say if I follow it and hadith totally I won't be able to be objective. Your deduction is poor.

The verse you quoted doesn't even encourage searching for knowledge. What it says is that rain and clouds, and winds, the sailing of ships, and animals et-cetera are "signs for those that are wise". That's like the bible saying rainbows are a sign of god's love. There is nothing there that says go and study nature to find out how it works and what it means. Instead, the koran is just telling us what it means: that it's all a sign from allah. That's pretty much the opposite of encouraging scientific enquiry.

As for fresh and salt water not mixing, you fail again. Which fresh water river do you see becoming salty after mixing with the sea or ocean?

I wish you could step outside of Islam for a minute so you could see how ridiculous the above statement looks to an unbrainwashed mind. I wish, I wish, I wish.

Edit: I just clicked on your link. There is no gaddem barrier between salt and fresh water when the meet in the ocean. That anybody with a secondary school education can actually believe this is a true miracle of islam (and not in a good way).
Let me give you and assignment.
1. Go to the nearest ocean and get some sea water in a container e.g. a small jerrycan.
2. Get some fresh water from your tap in another container.
3. Mix two waters in a third container.
4. Record your findings.
5. Post the results of your experiment on this thread.

I'll do the same experiment here and if the waters don't mix, I swear on my atheist honour that I will convert to islam. If the waters do mix, I hope you will consider no longer posting this kind of pseudo-scientific bullshiat in public forums where impressionable minds can see it.

If not for me, then do it for your country. You are lowering the average national IQ.

Misunderstood_G: I don't wanna bring my personal experiences with God into this.. Or what I've seen
Job 21:7-8 Why do the wicked live, become old, yes, are mighty in power? 8 Their seed is established in their sight with them, and their offspring before their eyes. …
Job 12:6 The tents of marauders are undisturbed, and those who provoke God are secure-- those God has in his hand.
Ecclesiastes 8:14 There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: the righteous who get what the wicked deserve, and the wicked who get what the righteous deserve. This too, I say, is meaningless.
And so on

So what you're saying is that Christians are no better off than atheists and followers of other religions because the bible says that bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.

Maybe you should tell all the millions of Christians praying daily for their children's health and safety that that they are wasting their time and that they will all "get what the wicked deserve".

Maybe you should tell all the pastors who are conning people out of their hard earned money with the promise of riches, health and favour on earth. After all, it is the wicked that will become mighty in power, and the offspring of the wicked will be established in the earth.

What's the point of Christianity if it doesn't do you or your children any tangible good? And what kind of fraudulent religion only offers post-mortem rewards?

Kinetic nwafor: 1-the popularized church of satan.

The Church of Satan is not popular. It was briefly during the late 70s to early 90s, but faded away following the death of its founder, Anton LaVey. Also, they aren't real Satanists because they don't believe in or worship Satan. They are actually just atheists with a weird sense of humour.

2-various natural disaster.

Natural disasters aren't more common now than they were in the past. Its just that technology has allowed CNN and co to bring us bad news from every corner of the globe and make it seem like the world is falling apart. 100 years ago you wouldn't know or care if there was a tornado in Oklahoma. Plus technology has also made natural disasters much more survivable than in the past.

3-making of sin a law.gay marriage.

Gays have been pairing up since the dawn of time. Also there are plenty of other sins (according to the bible) that have been legal for decades. E.g. Mixing different fibres in one garmet, planting different crops on the same field, shaving the sides of your head, tattoos, and women holding authority over men.

4-mysterious birth and ozone layer depletion.

The hole in the ozone layer is closing thanks to the CFC ban. Didn't anybody tell you?
http://www.livescience.com/27049-ozone-hole-shrinks-record-low.html

God is coming on the last day when the trumpet sounds to take who are his.be prepared

No he's not. Stop being paranoid and find something productive to do.

Misunderstood_G: atheism
The religion devoted to one's own smug sense of superiority.

Atheism is not a religion, just like abstinence is not a shex position. That we have a "smug sense of superiority" is your opinion, which I happen to disagree with.

As there is no way to use logic to prove or disprove the existence of God,

If the judeo-christian god actually existed, it would be extremely easy to prove he existed. 1 Kings ch. 18 shows us one way to go about it (doesn't work). A less spectacular, but no less effective way to do it would be to show using publicly available demographic data, that Christians have lower infant mortality, lower disease prevalence, higher life expectancy, lower cancer incidence, higher cancer survival or lower overall death rates. If even just one of these were true it would be strong evidence that some unexplained force was stopping bad things from happening to Christians. Of course, This doesn't work either, because despite all the time and energy Christians devote to prayers, there is absolutely no evidence that they are in any way better off than non Christians or atheists when you adjust for age, country of residence and income.

Now I agree that you can't really prove that god doesn't exist using logic. But you can show that his existence is very, very unlikely. And the total absence of any evidence of his existence or any sign of his activities in the natural world does that very nicely.

atheism is, in fact, based completely on theory and faith.

No its not. Atheists believe in what we have evidence for. There is no evidence of your god's existence, so we dont believe in it. Simple.

Also its followers tend to be no less educated, dogmatic, and fanatical about their chosen spiritual path than they claim to be

I suspect that you meant this as an insult and typed something different from what you intended, but if this is truly your opinion, then I agree with you.

theutopianex: EVIL BRAIN..... NICE WALLPAPER.... I HAVE A VERY VAST KNOWLEDGE ABOUT EVERYTHING LISTED IN THAT PHOTO, I AM A SCIENCE STUDENT, A GENUINE ONE, NOT ACCIDENTAL SO MY CURIOUSITY IS QUITE HEALTHY.. ALL IN MY QUEST TO FIND ANSWERS.. I WANT TO BELEIVE YOU KNOW ALL THAT, OR YOU JUST GOOGLED IT AND PUT IT UP HERE SO YOU CAN LOOK SMART LIKE SOME OF YOU DO.. LMAO!!!

A science student?!? Are you in secondary school?

Unlike you, I wouldn't claim to have VAST KNOWLEDGE about everything in my pic. But I do know a little bit. Well actually, more than a little. Maybe you should have a look at some of my previous posts to see whether I'm up to your intellectual level.

[url]www.nairaland.com/evil%20brain/posts[/url]

theutopianex: I DID NOT SAY MUSKEETO WAS PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGED O! ITS A QUESTION THAT YOU DNT NEED TO ANSWER, DNT YOU GET IT? RHETORICS? IM ONLY TRYING TO GET HIM TO SHOW WHY HE IS AN ATHEIST... PLEASE READ CAREFULLY AND DONT START A WAR HERE... AND THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO DONT TAKE THEIR TIME TO UNDERSTAND THINGS BEFORE COMING INTO CONCLUSSIONS...

By asking the question, you inferred that he waspsychologically damaged. If I asked "are you a retard", you wouldn't see it a rhetorical question, you'd take it as an insult. And you'd be right.

In any case, nobody is starting a war anywhere. Aside from the above insult which was used for example purposes only, I think I've been fairly civil and polite. You shouldn't attribute malign motives to people without clear evidence. Are you paranoid?

BTW, my question still stands. What weird stuff have you seen?

theutopianex: muskeeto it surprises me when i meet nigerians who are atheist, it strikes me that they live in this part of the world and have nt seen weird stuff.. have you tried to hunt for the truth have traveled around the country in search of answers were you born an atheist?? did your folks damage you psychologically im sitting here typing this words and i can tell you that i havent stepped into a church for over 3yrs but its not because my beleif is shakky, im just trying to see the world from another point of view, outside the church and you know what, its the same! there is evil everywhere... i am not the type who will easily attach problems to spiritual meanings as i am quite a bit of a science minded person, that has helped me to classify the things that ive experienced... you should go out and search, when you see evil, you will at least be sure that theres a good somewhere if this world is not awesome enough for you to see that there are forces behind its existence.....

What weird stuff have you seen? If feel you have some evidence of supernatural occurrences, show us and lets discuss it.

And why would you think muskeeto was "psychologically" damaged just because he has rejected superstition and embraced logic?

How can an all knowing god forget?

Your religion don't make no sense.

Uyi Iredia: Whilst the religious motivation can't be ignored it's likely there are cogent arguments as to why they believe these things.

Maybe you could do us all a favour and go to conservapedia.com, Answers in Genesis, and any of the other dark corners of the internet where creationists lurk, to discover these "cogent arguments" and post them here for us.

I'd like to hear a cogent argument about how the animals on Noah's ark were able to breathe at 8,800 metres altitude and how come they didnt freeze to death since the flood waters were high enough to cover the highest mountains including Everest.

I'd like to hear a cogent argument explaining how the Loch Ness monster is real.

Normally, I would go conservapedia.com myself to find those cogent arguments, but the last time I visited that site, the rubbish I read there shook my faith in humanity to its core. I'm not brave enough to enter there again.

But you, Uyi Iredia, you can be the hero we need. You can boldly go where others won't. Only you can bring us. the cogent arguments!

Will you accept this mission?

maclatunji: Yeah, like science gave you infant formula, only for science to realise later that breastfeeding human babies by their mothers is best as prescribed in the Qur'an 1400
years ago.

God be he blessed and exalted says: (The
mothers shall give suck to their children
for two whole years, (that is) for those
(parents) who desire to complete the term
of suckling) [Surat al-Baqarah, verse: 233].

Right! Because people didn't. know that they were supposed to breastfeed babies until the Koran told them. FYI, breast milk substitutes have existed in one form or the other since prehistoric times. All science did was to make the stuff safer and more similar to real breast milk.

It is a fallacy to think that science is the exclusive preserve of Atheists.

Correct. And thats why no sane atheist believes or says that.

The Qur'an calls upon Muslims to observe
around them and study the physical world, so
that they might appreciate the majesty of
Allah's creation. "Behold! In the creation of
the heavens and the earth; in the
alternation of the night and the day; in
the sailing of the ships through the ocean
for the benefit of mankind; in the rain
which Allah Sends down from the skies,
and the life which He gives therewith to
an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all
kinds that He scatters through the earth;
in the change of the winds, and the clouds
which they trail like their slaves between
the sky and the earth -- (Here) indeed are
Signs for a people that are wise." (Surah Al-
Baqarah, 2:164)

The koran also tell us that salt water and fresh water don't mix. And Muslim teachers have been teaching children this obvious rubbish in spite of the fact that its demonstrably false. Because it has to be true because the Koran says so, even though it isnt.

A good Muslim should be a researcher, inherently a scientist.

I totally agree. The problem is that the "true" Muslims; i.e. those who believe and obey the Koran and hadith completely and entirely; are always irrational fanatics. The good Muslim scientists are the ones who are able to ignore the crazy parts of the scriptures and willing to pursue the truth even when it contradicts their faith. Muslims like that are far too rare these days.

Uyi Iredia: No. Just debunking the insinuation that religion hampers science.

Maybe you should help us tell those crazy people in America that teach children young earth creationism as science in their Christian private schools.

Your fellow Christians are lying to kids that the loch ness monster is real (its a dinosaur!) and that the earth is only 6000 years old. They are actively dumbing down the next generation of physicists, biologists, engineers and doctors with their bronze age myths. They are doing their very best to return the world to the dark ages where superstition ruled society and critical thinking was strongly discouraged.

But that's not hampering science at all. Religion doesn't hamper science. Uyi Iredia said so, therefore it must be true.

dridowu: Science seems to have an answer to some natural thing but sha Religion will surely supercede science

Wishful thinking? Every single time in history that religion and science have disagreed, religion has always lost. So I'd like to know what makes you think religion is ever going to supercede anything.

Rwligious statues are constantly being hit by lightning because they are often the highest points in the area, and they commonly dont include basic safety precautions like lightning rods.

From the Washington Post

Ohio's Jesus statue is just the latest religious statue to be struck by lightning.

It appears God has sacrificed his only son. Again.
A bolt struck a 62-foot-tall statue of Jesus Christ on Monday outside a church in Monroe, Ohio, and the statue erupted in flames. All that remains is a charred steel skeleton, its spindly arms stretched toward heaven, a gesture that once earned it the nickname "Touchdown Jesus." Darlene Bishop, co-pastor of Solid Rock Church, says she's simply relieved that the lightning hit Jesus and not the home for at-risk women next door. "I told them, 'It looks like Jesus took a hit for you last night,' " she says. Act of God? Act of nature? In 2008, lightning singed the fingers and eyebrows of Christ the Redeemer, the 130-foot Jesus statue that stands over Rio de Janeiro. In 2007, a bolt blasted the 33-foot Jesus statue at Mother Cabrini Shrine in Golden, Colo. One of Jesus's arms fell off. The saints and angels are not safe either. The Notre Dame de Chicago's Virgin Mary burst into flames from her perch atop the church's dome in 1978; the Engineering News Record covered the construction of a new, lightning resistant statue with the headline: "Burned once, dome reMaryed." A bolt that struck St. Joan of Arc's statue in New Orleans sliced her brandished staff in half. Statues of the Angel Moroni, which frequently top Mormon churches, have been hit by lightning with such frequency -- Moroni's horn is particularly
susceptible -- that the Salt Lake Tribune once fretted over their safety in a front-page story.
(Side note: Actor James Caviezel was struck by lightning in 2003 while filming Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." He was playing Jesus.) Believer or not, we can always count on lightning to energize the what-does-it-mean lobes of our brain.
Ancient Romans equated statues being struck by lightning with bad omens, such as chickens beginning to talk and blood raining from the sky. Presumably, the latter two were less-frequent events.
To find some modern-day meaning in Touchdown Jesus, we turned to Pat Robertson, host of "The 700 Club," who has divined meaning from Hurricane Katrina (abortionists?) and the Haitian earthquake (historic pact with the Devil?). Alas, he declined through a publicist to interpret the significance of the lightning strike.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505135.html

In June 2010, giant 6 storey tall statue of Jesus in the US was struck by lightning and burnt to the ground. A Hustler video store selling pôrnographic materials right across the street was completely undamaged.
https://i.guim.co.uk/n/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/6/16/1276680110544/The-King-of-Kings-statue--005.jpg

[url]m.guardiannews.com/world/2010/jun/16/touchdown-jesus-statue-burns-down[/url]

Reality is no respecter of religion.

The idea of god being evil is not new. Its actually a central belief of gnosticism and many other ancient religions. The idea is not even new to christianity. In fact, early Christians were split into several sects, many of which believed that the God of the old testament and creator of the world (whom they called the Demiurge) was actually pure evil.

The largest of these sects, called the Marcionites, was actually big enough to rival the eventual mainstream Christians in size by the fourth century CE.

Unfortunately, around that time, the emperor of Rome decided to join the other side and the Christians immediately started using their newfound political power to suppress all other rival faiths. The Christians devoted themselves to burning all the marcionite books and all the marcionite people they could find, and they eventually managed to completely wipe them out by the 6th century.

If emperor Constantine had picked a different side, most Nairaland Christians would now believe what OP believes. That YHWH is evil.

Deleted.

Double post.

Make no mistake about it, religious intolerance against atheists and religious minorities is widespread among Nigerians. You may not be beaten up or killed, but expect to be harassed and discriminated against often if you chose to be open about your beliefs.

This discrimination happens openly and is considered perfectly normal by most people here. You may find it difficult to get a job, rent a house or make friends. Your children will be indoctrinated in school, even if they attend a public school. You may be asked to lead prayers at work, especially when people notice that you're not as religious as you should be. Your neighbours will give you wierd looks if if you don't dress up and go out on Sunday mornings.

And you will be lectured and preached to constantly. Christians in particular seem to think it is their right to pester and nag people into converting. Churches have been becoming more and more fundamentalist and intolerant in the last few years. And then you have the rise of the fundie islamists like Boko Haram to worry about.

I'm so happy to see a scientologist in the religion section. I wish we had more of them. Those guys are an infinite source of high quality lols.

I can't speak for other atheists, but I'm sick and tired of repeating the same arguments with the mustians every week. I'd much rather talk about Xenu, the thetans and whether or not John Travolta is gay.

Stop making fun of them abeg. You're scaring them away.

striktlymi: Do you even understand the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law?

Apparently I don't.

Would you please enlighten us? What is the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law?

striktlymi: Howdy EvilB,

For starters the attempt, by some, at using evolution as a means of explaining the origin of man, while presenting same as fact is a gross misuse of what is factual...

Evolution is correct and has proven to be very useful in some regard but in my opinion it would only make sense when it is combined with the theory of creation as far as the origin and development of man are concerned.

Guy, you're being silly. You can't say that evolution is correct and useful, but please don't apply it to human beings because I don't like it.

The theory of evolution applies to all living things including humans. You can't just expect people to pretend that humans are somehow exempt from the laws of nature when we clearly aren't.

We have fossil evidence evolution of other living things, and we have fossil evidence of human evolution. We have seen genetic drift and natural selection happening among other living things, and we have tons of evidence of them among humans. Human beings are animals, mammals and apes taxonomically. All the other animals mammals and apes evolve; and so do we.

Tough luck that the theory undermines the basis of your religion. But if my religion said that 1+1=3, it would be silly to expect the whole world to pretend that it was true just to spare my feelings.

Evolution, including human evolution from primitive life forms, is a fact. Deal with it.

*edited for clarity

striktlymi: Evening boss,

Okay, cool!

I don't know if there is anyone who denies that dinosaurs once walked the face of the Earth...the evidence is too glaring.

Though I accept every bit of the theory of evolution that is backed by scientific evidence but c'mon man, you know that not everything about evolution is factual...

As it stands, some individuals have garnished the facts with what they think and hence I won't be surprised if some Christians reject it based on this...

Specifically what parts of the theory do you think are not factual? Or is it that you accept the theory, but object to its inevitable conclusions?

[url=imgur.com/gallery/pPJmj]This is the actual science test[/url] OP was referring to. It was administered to a 4th grade (primary 4) class in a christian private school in the US. Look at it and judge for yourselves if it is moral to teach this to children as science.

https://i.imgur.com/TYpLJpO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/5DdXi8z.jpg

Ubenedictus: i believe science should be taught in science class and religion in religion class. If biblical approach to dinosaurs was a science topic then i think there is a poblem, if not then what are the complains about, let the religious people give their approach to dinosaurs.
To the question of what catholicism teach, we teach God created the universe, these and like principles are doctrinal with a lot of room for the posibilities, so theistic evolution may be valid for a catholic. On the otherhand raw evolution is taught in science classes in catholic school.

The bolded is exactly what OP was complaining about. They want to teach their crazy religious stories in schools as science. They want totell children that god created the world in 6 literal days. They want to teach children that Noah's flood actually happened and that was what killed the dinosaurs a mere 4000 years ago. They demand that this nonsense should be taught in place of real science, or at least given equal status in classrooms and textbooks.

Christian fundamentalists in america and elsewhere have created a whole cottage industry out of trying to rationalize christianstories, myths and fables. They have creation "science" museums. They have christian textbooks so that children who are unfortunate enough to be home schooled by fundamentalist parents never have to read a real science book. And there is a huge legal campaign aimed at smuggling creationism and its twin brother intelligent design into science classes.

But don't take my word for it, go over to [url=conservapedia.com/Dinosaur]Conservapedia.com[/url] and experience the madness yourself.

Christians are merely fighting for their god given right to tell lies to children. How dare atheists complain when Christians tell kids that a dinosaur like Tyranosaurus Rex with its razor sharp teeth and deadly claws was really a harmless plant eater?

Schools are there to teach children, but there's no reason why what is taught there should be true. Each religion should be able to teach whatever nonsense they want in science classrooms. Christians have the right to teach that the earth is 6000 years old. Muslims should be able to tell their kids that saltwater and fresh water can't mix (its in the Koran). And Guru maraji followers have the right to teach that 2+2=5.

Atheists should stop trying to force everybody to properly educate their children.

Let's all respect each others right to fill our kids heads with nonsense.

Emusan: How many prove has evolutionist provided?

There is more evidence showing that evolution is real than there is that germs cause disease. The theory of evolution is better supported than both Newton's Theory of Gravitation and Einstein's relativity.

Go and read a biology textbook, you ignoramus.