bidemi12:

@huxley My answer is, do you believe in the bible and the teaching on paying tithe and offering? if you do not then do not bother replying.

How does it matter whether I believe. You are dumbskulledly being sucked dry by a corrupt institution and then you turn round and ask me if I believe in the institution? C'mon, man use your head, or have all your brain cells being wiped out by the bible too?

bidemi12:

I am a christian and i believe in God and that Jesus is the son of God and through him will i see the kingdom. I also believe in the bible and it's teachings and part of the teachings is that we must make offerings and pay our tithe. But these so called pastors are testing me seriously. God also gave me free will to make up my own mind and make my own decisions. I have come to the conclusion that most of these pastors are crooks and are preying on people. But that will not stop me from paying my tithe and offerings because ultimately it is God i am giving and since i believe in him and his devine justice, surely their time will come. Can you imagine, buying jets that their flock cannot use. Building schools that the congregation cannot afford. The message is no longer salvation but the aqcuisiton of wealth. Well God de.

Have you bothered to ask yourself why it is that God's institution is so easily corruptible?  Have you bother to ask what happens to the tithes you "pay"?  How is this money being put to God's work?  If you really wanted to do God's work with your money, why don't you give it directly to some needy kid or begger?

Enjoy this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suhJzyhNtT8&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suhJzyhNtT8&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

Tudór:

Huxley, Nigeria are now a net exporter of religion. . . . Look at the likes of Ashimolowo and that other crook in ukraine (can't remember his name. Infact, every european country you go you find a nigerian peddling the fraudulent "prosperity gospel". . . .what a shame!

True - in fact, down my street here in Manchester, there are two Nigerian Pastors within 100m of each other. Each time I walk in down town Manchester, in areas with high African population I get given tracks, leaflets, fliers of churches, ministries, healing this, miracle that, by Nigerians.

banom:

Are you saying that Nigerians are not the only suppliers in this dubious holy market ?

Proportionately, Nigerians are overwhelmingly subscribed to this "business" compared to other nations. Yes, there are dumb people in all nations, but Nigeria is over-supplied with these dumbtards.

There is a simple answer for this:   Most Nigerians are dumb, credulous, gullible people.  In fact, most people the world over are like that too.

the_seeker:

evolution! A theory in crisis
they found ardi and are all so excited. They think we have forgotten what happened to lucy, piltdown man and nebraska man.

The skull of piltdown man was hailed as one of those ever evasive missing links to human ancesotrs. It sat in the british museum of natural history 50 yrs and over 500 PHD thesis was written about. We saw lots of beautiful diagrams of how these 'ancestors' must have lived even up to details of their likely diet. Finally a shocker came! This was another hoax by evolutionist to strengthen their religion. I was discoverd this skull was a forgery built from remains of an oranguntang and a man. Can u imagine?

[size=18pt]Another creationist who wears his briming ignorance on his sleeves.  Are you also a Big Fat Christian Liar 4 Jesus (BFCL4J)?  I shall wait until all the evidence comes in, then I shall pronounce a verdict.
[/size]

Now, let's see what you said.  Science is a human enterprise and progresses essentially by trial & error, several steps forward, a few steps backs, make corrections, some more steps forward, etc, etc.  And as a humans exercise, there are bound to be some cheats in the process, who for selfish reasons will want to pervert the scientific process.  These cheats are usually found out BY THE GENERALITY OF GOOD AND HONEST SCIENTIST, who are generally kicked out and shamed and have their reputation forever damaged.

Piltdown Man was found to be a case of a fraudulent scientist seeking to pervert the scientific process.  Guess who found out that this was fraud?  Was it the creationists?  I doubt it.   In fact, you are mistaken (or lying for Jesus) in saying that over 500 PhD were based on Piltdown Man.  This 500 PhDs business has been exposed as a myth perpetuated by creationist to discredit the scientific process.  Take a look at this, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html:


[size=14pt]
500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown man[/size]

This claim appears in creationist sources. Gary Parker's pamphlet "Origin of Mankind", Impact series #101, Creation-Life Publishers (1981) makes the claim without qualification or source. Lubenow's Bones of Contention (1992) remarks that it is said that there were 500 doctoral dissertations but does not give a source.

This claim is clearly in error. When one considers the small number of PhD's in paleontology being granted currently and the even smaller number 80 years ago and the diversity of topics chosen for PhD theses a figure of half a dozen seems generous; in all probability there were none whatsoever. John Rice Cole notes that in the 20s there were about 2 dissertations per year in physical anthropology in the entire US on ANY topic.

Robert Parson made a systematic search of the bibliographies of The Piltdown Forgery by Weiner, The Piltdown Inquest by Blinderman, Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery and The Piltdown Papers by Spencer, The Antiquity of Man (1925) and New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man (1931) by Sir Arthur Keith. Spencer and Keith's works have extensive references and bibliographies of the primary research literature. There are no references to any doctoral dissertations. Likewise Millar's bibliography contains no references to any doctoral dissertation.

It is not clear whether this claim is a simple fabrication or whether it is an erroneous transcription from another source. In the introduction to The Piltdown Men (1972), Millar says "it is estimated that some five hundred essays were written about [Piltdown man]". This estimate is credible, the 1920 edition of H.G. Wells' The Outline of History remarks "more than a hundred books, pamphlets, and papers have been written [about Piltdown Man]". W. & A. Quenstedt listed over 300 references in 1936 in Hominidae fossiles. Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia, 74: 191-197.

Millar gives no source, evidently not considering the matter to be important enough to document. However it probably was the editorial in the 10 July 1954 issue of Nature (vol. 274, # 4419, pp. 61-62) which describes a meeting of the Geological Society (30 June 1954) devoted to the exposure of the hoax. The editorial (unsigned) says:

   "It is agreed that the skull fragments are human and not of great antiquity; that the jawbone is ape; that they have no important evolutionary significance. More than five hundred articles and memoirs are said to have been written about Piltdown man. His rise and fall are a salutary example of human motives, mischief and mistake."

By coincidence, Spencer's The Piltdown Papers (1990) contains 500 letters, i.e. 500 items of correspondence between Piltdown principals. However this cannot be the source of the number 500 since The Piltdown Papers appeared well after Parker's pamphlet and Millar's book.

The most plausible explanation for this myth is that Millar and Parker both used the same source, the Nature editorial, and that Parker assumed that papers and memoirs were dissertations. In turn Lubenow's source was probably the Parker pamphlet. The truth, however, is unknown.

[size=14pt]
This is a good example of Science correcting itself[/size]

It has been argued that this is a good example of science correcting its errors. This argument is a bit roseate. As the Daily Sketch wrote:

   Anthropologists refer to the hoax as 'another instance of desire for fame leading a scholar into dishonesty' and boast that the unmasking of the deception is 'a tribute to the persistence and skill of modern research'. Persistence and skill indeed! When they have taken over forty years to discover the difference between an ancient fossil and a modern chimpanzee! A chimpanzee could have done it quicker.

Far from being a triumph of Science the hoax points to common and dangerous faults. The hoax succeeded in large part because of the slipshod nature of the testing applied to it; careful examination using the methods available at the time would have immediately revealed the hoax. This failure to adquately examine the fossils went unmarked and unnoticed at the time - in large part because the hoax admirably satisfied the theoretical expectations of the time.

The hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining and challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further reconsideration.

 Taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

the_seeker:

The fossil of nebraska  man was actually a single  'molar' and an entire story of early human ancestors was built on this similar to piltdown man. Guess what? It was later discoverd to be the tooth of a pig!

There is no doubt that neanderthals. Cromagnon. And the likes were just diff races of humans. This will make more sense to you if you compare the skeletons of a negroid an inuit, a caucasiod and a pgymy from africa to realize that the differences are more stark than those of modern humans and their alleged ancestors.

Recent discoveries of serious ovelaps in time of 'modern humans' and their alleged ancestors is beginning to cause serious headaches for evolutionist.

What do you mean RACES OF HUMANS?  Have you been blind to ALL the recent DNA studies that have shown that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are completely different species of Homos?  Over the last three t0 five years there has been plenty of DNA studies comparing the DNA of both species and the results COMPLETELY bears out the classification arrived at by paleontologists using comparative anatomy.  This is a complete vindication of the power of comparative anatomy, which while not being an exact science, is more or less on the right path.

What are these recent discoveries you allude to?   Who are making these discoveries?  Are they creationist scientists?   References please, otherwise, I shall accuse you of lying for Jesus and thus a BFCL4J.   Show us some scientific references.

the_seeker:

this is a big lie. Darwin hoped that these missing links would be found to validate his theory. When paleontologists could not find these fossils they claimed the fossils recods were incomplete.
Although  not all creatures that lived are fossilized but geologist have concluded that the records are in fact complete at least for the purpose of creating an evolutionary lineage. To solve the problem of missing fossils a prominent american paleotologists steven gay gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrum. Acoding to this theory oorganisms evolve by phyletic evolution and not microevolution (this requires many intermediate fossils) as propsed by darwin. The mechanics is that a fish goes to bed, suffers a huge mutation and wakes up as an amphibian (this analogy is jst for the purpose of explanation).

Another LIE from you.  Transitional fossils are being found all the time.  In Darwin's time, the science of paleontology was still in its infancy, but since then many many transitional fossils.  Did you not hear of these:

1)  Tiktaalik
2) Archaeopteryx
3) Anchiornis, only reported last month, See here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8273938.stm
4) ALL the whales transitions;

In fact, let me deal with the whale with this one question:


[size=18pt]WHY is it that some whales (about 5%) are born with fully formed hindlimbs, limbs much like those of a cow?   How would you account for this anomaly under a immutable theory of species?
[/size]


You seem to have no understanding of some scientific theory, yet you feel capable if critiquing it.  Is this not the height of lunacy.  The theory of punctuated equilibrium is not a refutation of the evolution.  It is simply a theory that aims to address the SPEED of evolution.  Look at what you say:

Acoding (sic)  to this theory oorganisms evolve by phyletic evolution and not microevolution (this requires many intermediate fossils) as propsed by darwin. The mechanics is that a fish goes to bed, suffers a huge mutation and wakes up as an amphibian (this analogy is jst for the purpose of explanation).

This is total rubbish and nowhere is anything like this supported in The Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection.

the_seeker:

This initially was welcomed by all scientist as a solution. Further analysis by biologist reveaalsed a seroius flaw. A small mutation is baad enough for an organism but a huge mutation is very distatrous and that the small populations required for this theory to work would lead to inbreeding and spread of disease. This theory has failed and brought down the entire evolution theory with it. Stephen jay unintentionally exposed the flaw in a theory he was trying to save. He had made scientist to honestly admit the fact that fossils records was complete leaving them high and dry with his failed theory.

This is similar to what Goberchev did with communism in russia. In an attempt to fix communism he exposed the flaws that finally collapsed it

If you think the theory of evolution has failed,  Why is it that fossils of mammals or birds or dinosaurs are NEVER found in the pre-cambrian period?   Why do they only come much much later?

the_seeker:

another liar. Darwin did say 'if organs of irreducible complexity can be found to exist, my theory would definately fail'. The eye. kindey are only a few. These organs and a host of others are practicaly useless if a single part is mising. How then could such organs have evolved. Evolution is just sensless fairytales

Here again, you are the liar  and it show you lack of comprehension of literary material.   Below, I shall present the full paragraph from Darwins Origin of Species:

[size=14pt]Organs of extreme perfection and complication.[/size]

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected.
 Source http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html

Does the above suggest that Darwin admitted that the eye could NOT be produced by Natural Selection?

Deep Sight:

Huxley - No i dont beleve that evolution is false.

But there are still many grave and serious gaps in the fossil record which suggest to my mind that there is something more that we are missing.

Come on, you know better than this: natural selection is the answer to this question, i see no reason why that is not still "a guided process".

Point of correction: I have no "dogma", and my perspective does not come from the teachings of any progenitor, but is grounded in the cosmological argument and my personal expatiation of its essentials based on a study and observation of the Universe.

The gap in the fossil record does not present a serious challenge to evolution nowadays. There will always be gaps because only a very very small fraction of animals fossilise, less than 0.05%.

If you think that this is a real problem, what explains the fact that a great deal of prediction about ancient species are being found daily, yearly all over the world? The scientists who study these things make specific prediction about which species and where to find them - and lo & below, when they go there and look long and hard enough, they find them.



If you insist on saying that it could be a guided process, then I suggest your defintion of the word "guided" has no meaning. I would accept the proposition that god started it all off and retire from the scene, never to be involved again - but not guided. Anything that is guided should show strong directionality, purpose, intent and design. But there is no evidence that any of these are present in evolution. Unless, of course you want to accept that the guider is an incompetent bubbling fart.

Tonye-t:

My own question here to all ya athiests is this, how does the so-called researchers truely know that those fossils found where the skeletons of our ancestors and not the ancestors of monkeys and gorillas. May God help me, researches in futility!

Comparative anatomy, anthropology and archeology. Exactly the same techniques the forensic scientist use to tell the difference between the bones of cats, humans and dogs. Have you ever watched a Forensic Detectives or read a crime novel?

Deep Sight:

ANY brand. Is it not conceivable that a deity could have put in motion the evolutionary process and guided it towards a purpose?

Because even Darwin had to admit that the something like the human eye defies explanation.

You can conceive of anything you want but is it possible.  Is there any evidence that evolution has direction and purpose?  If it is a guided process, why are there so many dead-ends; why so many extinction; why so many bad designs?

Darwin made no such admission.  Theists never actually quote the full paragraphy.  Darwin actually only raise the question, only to provide the answer in the next paragraphy.  It is really intellectual dishonesty when I see people make this point.

If even if it were true that Darwin really doubted the possibility of the evolution of the eye, it does not falsify the theory.  Scientific theories are not like your metaphsysical dogma whose validity is based on the teachings of the progenitor.  Even if Darwin would have rejected Evolution later, it does not mean that evolution is false.

banom:

who says it is ardi, no this is tpia , TPIA

Yes, their brains would be totally indistinguishable one from the other.

Deep Sight:

Huxley -

Explain why the theories of evolution and creation [/b]must be mutually exclusive.

Can you explain to me what [b]brand of creationism you mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0uaRW4G0Lc&feature=related

Tonye-t:

4.4 million years, hmmm i see, so did ardi's generations give them the date of their ancestor?

nonesense, and by the way how did they get the actual diagram of this mr.ardi if not from their corrupt and reprobate minds, take a look at the legs, causes laughter

before opening this topic, something just told me HUXLEY must comment. Professor Athiest

On what scientific basis do you question this evidence, erhm? Or are you just interested in propagating lies for Jesus,, you BFCL4J (Big Fat Christian Liars 4 Jesus)?

tpia.:

looks like a regular ape imo.

Exactly what the Theory of Evolutions predicts would be there. Another blow to the creationists liars for Jesus!

Deep Sight,

In practical terms, what is the difference between you and an atheist? Do you have any being that you worship and spend a lot of time venerating?

buda atum:

Bloody atheists! It was not about justice, but about what they deemed right at the time. In those days people were promiscuously fornicating. Sexually transmitted diseases were rife amongst the people and children were being born without fathers. This law is simply the equivalent of well, to be banal, a condom. Though it was really to enforce abstention.

The second was, marriage arrangement. You take a woman, you take her virginity and she was yours. Sounds equivalent to what barbarians did, except that you paid for the taking.

Still, to those who claim God gave the law, well this is two of them. What say?

To my knowledge, ONLY one child has ever been born fatherless. So you are talking out of your arse,

wirinet:

Do you consider sexual fidelity as defined by Marriage to a single partner a Natural law or a positive law?

Great question, Wirinet. Wish I had thought of that.

Deep Sight:

Huxley, it has come to it that I have school you -

Your reasoning capacity, is well er. . .  very very suspect. . .

Let me put you through. . .

Here was your initial statement:

Understand your statement carefully - you said -

Sin is meaningless. You also added:

Which suggests to the rational mind that you do not believe in wrong acts INDEPENDENT of secular laws made by humankind. Since it is difficult for you to understand basic word sequences, I will rephrase it for you: Since you allude to the absence of an external reference point for wrong acts, and state that the only reference point is CRIME, which you state to be a secular concept of humankind, then it is clear that you deny the existence of independent reference points for right and wrong, other than that which is expressly stated to be so by humankind.

You went further to state:

Inherent in the above statement is a shocking self-contradiction. Listen carefully - you stated "Suppose the society were to decide. . ."

Do you fail to realise that this still holds the society as the only reference point because you have expressly stated -  "suppose the society were to decide. . ."

Thus, you are still refering to decisions of the society!

Let me ask you: suppose the society were to decide otherwise? Suppose the society were to decide that it is not wrong to take actions on people without their consent? Aha, do you see now where you have gone wrong?

Because human history is replete with instances where the society has decided otherwise. Indeed, mornachical, dictatorial and oligarchical regimes have been around much longer than regimes that guarantee individual rights.

Thus, under your reasoning, the societies (e.g: communists regimes, military regimes) decided that it was right to oppress people, to take actions on them without their personal consent. These were human laws, (E.g: Press Limitation Laws) just like the aztec human sacrifices were human laws, in which the society decided.

So when i asked you to go and study natural law and positive law, it was not an insult, Huxley, it was a genuine perception that you do not yet understand those concepts.

Because you need to appreciate that natural law refers to natural dictates of what is right and wrong independent of anything stated in human laws.

Positive Law, refers to the laws made by men.

Thus, once you state, as you did, "Suppose the society were to decide. . ." you are still refering to positive law, and still justifying your assertion that only human beings determine what is right and wrong.

And i asked you: Human Beings decided that human sacrifices were right.

Societies decided that the guillontine was right.

Communists decided that inidividual liberty was rubbish.

Did that make these right? The fact that societies decided (in your words) - did that justify these things?

This flies in the face of your assertion supposing that societies would decide that no actions should be taken without individual consents.

You failed to see that that was still an assertion of positive law.

You failed to see the reverse supposition, namely - "Suppose the society were to decide. . . that Huxley should be beheaded as a sacrifice to the gods. . .

Would that make it right?

Give it up man - it is clear that there are things that are inherently wrong regardless of human laws. That's why Fela stated: "Human Rights na my property. . . you cant dash me my property". He was refering to natural law, and the fact that no human law could take away or give his natural rights.

Therefore your statement "Supposing the society were to decide. . ." is a violent contradiction which shows that you are yet to grasp the principles of natural law.


Get it?

You have totally misunderstood me here.  Let me make a number of points clear first.  I do not think there is some sort of absolute standards by which to judge morality.


You are calling contradictions all over the place, but I don't see where you have pointed them out.  For instance, se what you say:

Which suggests to the rational mind that you do not believe in wrong acts INDEPENDENT of secular laws made by humankind. Since it is difficult for you to understand basic word sequences, I will rephrase it for you: Since you allude to the absence of an external reference point for wrong acts, and state that the only reference point is CRIME, which you state to be a secular concept of humankind, then it is clear that you deny the existence of independent reference points for right and wrong, other than that which is expressly stated to be so by humankind.

How did I even so much as suggest this?    Some acts can be wrong in themselves, for example slavery.  Although slavery was legal in most country, it is a morally wrong act.   How do I know this?

                                                                           Because it violates the principle of concent


Apatheid was equally wrong because it also violates this principle.

Interestingly enough,  this principle of consent is only recently being adopted into the moral system of many societies.  Why was it not present in many primitive societies?  For instance, why is it nowhere elaborated upon in the bible, for example?

I never said anywhere that anything that is universally decided and adopted by a society is right.  You are strawmaning here.

Deep Sight:

^^^ So in summary within a nomadic group that has no formal laws, all of the following would be right in your world view:

   1. Murder

   2. Rape

   3. Theft

   5. Random beheading based on a muderous sexual urge

I am sure you are aware that the ancient aztecs practised human sacrifice under their formalized laws.

The rituals were perforced in public at the terrace of a temple and the victim would have a slit made by a sharp knife in his chest, the priest would then reach out and rip the heart out of the body while the victim watched on. The still beating heart would then be squeezed and and held up in the direction of the sun.

This was a legal and legitimate practice under their human laws.

Go ahead Huxley, tell me that it was right, since the human laws permitted it.

Tell me you see no objective, naturally stated evil in such (sin).

You can never win this one.

Did you read my post at all?  Did you read this

Suppose the society were to decide that it be grave wrong for someone to engage in any activities liable to affect others parties WITHOUT the active consent of the other parties and WITHOUT the other parties being brought under duress.  And that the other parties are fully cognisant of the activities they are engaging in.


How could you have read this and ask the questions you did?  Are these activities consentual activities, done with the full cognisance of the "victims", without duress?

Let me repeat again:

[size=18pt]
Anything done to anyone without their explicit consent and under duress is a violation of their rights and is therefore morally wrong.
[/size]

Now, tell me how this legitimates murder, rapes, human sacrifice, etc, etc. Man, your legal training was a waste of your time and money, if you cannot grasp this simplest of concept.

Hello easylogic,

Welcome to Nairaland. I notice that you have only just joined NL today (Date Registered: Today (27 Sept 2009) at 02:03:06 PM), only a few minutes or hours ago. It is very unlikely that as a novice to this site, you would have sufficient knowledge about the point of view of individual users, to target direct questions at them.

From this I can only conclude that you are an existing user who is hiding behind a different account. Please, reveal who you are.

Deep Sight,

Allow me to point you to this great legal philosopher  Michael Sandel . You will find him very enlightening.

Deep Sight:

Na wa o, Huxley, this is really becoming embarassing!

You are so scared to answer a simpple question, you are busy talking about my legal training! I have answered your question about three times above and i will answer it again now:

Mad people have the same diminished responsibility that Minors have because it is recognised that they do not have a full grasp of their actions.

That's why Insanity is an absolute defence. To Crystalize it for you, a Mad person is not able to conceive a "mala in se" (an act of inherent evil). He cannot have what we lawyers call a "mens rea" (wicked intenstion/ motive), because he is absolutely deluded and disfunctional. Thus the diminished responsibility.

Huxley, please help me out cos i am begining to see through you finally: you cannot answer a very simple question and you are trying so hard to divert attention from that fact.

The reality is that NONE of the things you have raised have ANYTHING to do with the issues at hand. I only bothered to answer the legal questions just to prove that fact.

Please, please, please, please, in the name of Atheism, or whatever you believe, STOP BEING EVASIVE, because YOUR EVASION IS NOW ASSUMING A VERY COMICAL ASPECT!

Its easy enough:

Here's the question again.

You said sin is meaningless for you. Only crimes prescribed by Human Laws exist for you.

So i ask: In countries where there are no human laws stating that cannibalism/ murder / rape/ are crimes, would that serve to make such acts right in those countries?

In other words: If we do not legislate against murder, would murder be ok?

Please i beg you on my knees, just answwer this question and stop the monkey tactics, ok?

If you cannot answer this question, boy, you have no bizness arguing on this Forum?

WHY are children NOT liable for crimes?


Children have not yet developed the cognitive abilities to appreciate the consequences of certain actions.  The generally lack the abilities to apply reason, rationality to assess and appreciate the consequences of their action and behaviour. Culpability and responsibility in secular law is strongly related to the notion of intention, pre-meditation,  [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_%28law%29]capacity [/url] of an individual.  In view of the cognitive demands that these make on the individual, secular society takes the view that minors and the cognitively impaired do not have the mental equipment exercise capacity.  Hence, the notion of  things like age of concent, age of responsibility, etc, etc. These are secular notion - invented by humans.

Now to the main point of the debate.

What makes an act a crime or an offense?  Is it something about the act or something about the perpetrator of the act, or is iti both?  To return to the example of the toddler.

A)  A toddler at a playground is annoyed at one of his playmates.  He picks a rock and hurls it towards his mate.  It hits him on the head, causing some head injuries.  Some hours later, his mate dies from his injuries.

B) An adult at  a disco is annoyed at one of the patrons in the disco.  He picks a rock and hurls it towards him.  It hits him on the head, causing some head injuries.  Some hours later, he dies from his injuries.

Exactly the same scenario - except that the perpetrators are of different ages.   But WHY do we treat these perpetrators differently?  Is there something in NATURE, some natural law,  that mandates that we MUST treat them in different ways?    Would this natural law be grossly violated if we opted to subject both perpetrators to exactly the same legal procedure?

I submit that there isn't.  There is no such natural legal imperative.  Then why do most societies treat these perpetrator in different way? 

Because the better societies are made up of rational beings, who have used their REASON to arrive at human-made imperatives that now dictates that these naturally identical situations are humanistically unidentical.


So humans are able to apply REASON to arrive at LAWS which we all abide by for the interest of society at large.   Just as you parroted without justification, most societies have a notion of an age of responsibility for crimes.  This is not some sort of natural limit, but is arriveed at by universal consent (amongst other things) by the society concerned.

The foregoing shows that REASON can be used to decide whether something is an crime (infraction) or NOT.  If this is so, could REASON also be used to adjudicate on the following?

1) Paedophilia

2) Rape

3) Murder


etc, etc, etc.

I submit that,  YES, we could.  Suppose the society were to decide that it be grave wrong for someone to engage in any activities liable to affect others parties WITHOUT the active consent of the other parties and WITHOUT the other parties being brought under duress.  And that the other parties are fully cognisant of the activities they are engaging in.

Do you think that this law would be capable of criminalising rape, murder, paedophilia, and such other vile acts?

Deep Sight:

Listen: Its simple enough: Its obvious that minors do not have fully developed minds. That's why ALL countries recognise minors as having diminished responsibility. Its much the same way that nature dictates that 9 year old girls dont have fully developed sexual organs. That's why 99% of humanity have laws matching this natural dictate: making sleeping with such a person rape. It might interest you to note that even in Islamic Countries the secular laws prohibit such acts.

You may need to study Jurisprudence a bit, do some research on these subjects: "Natural Law and Positive Law".

Huxley, stop being a coward:

You stated:

And i ask:

If there are no human laws, would it be right to kill and eat your wife?

Just answer, please!

You are on the right path but you are still wrong. I am really disappointed with your legal training. Do you currently practice in the legal profession? Where did you train?

Think About why mad people are not also held legally responsible for "some" crimes in some legal systems. Man, think!

noetic10:

whats the connection between Jesus meals and the first evolution process?

Oh there is. Jesus being God, would have compounded this at the start of ALL life on earth.

noetic10:

Lets be civil,  ,  I aksed the first question.

As soon as u answer mine. . . I would answer urs. . .is that a deal?

I would like to do that, but the answer to your question is dependent on the answer to my question.  That is why I require the exact number and not an estimate.

noetic4:

Quotes from Huxley

your world view is ridiculously distorted. . ,  , your theistic definition is also ridiculous. . . .what were u taught in sunday school.
Sin is simply the transgression of God's Laws and commandments. . .  .not will.

what was the components of this natural process? I want u to define each element that took part in this first evolution process? I am also interested in the source of each of these elements?. . . .is this a hard nut to crack?

Sorry, I was not paying attention when this was posted so I missed it.   I was keeping my oyes on Deep Sights posts.

Noetic, please, lets make a deal here.  I shall attempt this question of yours if you answers this one first.  I want you to be as honest as you possibly can:


         [size=18pt]As a follower of Jesus how many cooked meals did Jesus have in total while he was on earth?
[/size]

Please, I would like the exact number - not an estimate.   All the best.

noetic10:

is huxley now afraid of answering my questions?

Have you been pestering the moslems again? You seem to be collecting bans like there is no hell.

B.T.W, what are "your" questions you mean?

Deep Sight:

You are being evasive, Huxley.

The age of full criminal responsibility is not very different in most countries, it hovers, plus or minus, around 16 - 18.

You wondered who made this law, of course humans did, because some natural laws are so self evident that all nations adopt them (e.g: Murder is a crime every where in the world)>

As far as i am concerned, you are still running away from these questions:


Please address particularly the last portion emboldened in red, since you have such difficulty focusing on the point in issue.

Hello Deep Sight,

I am not being evasive. The questions I ask are prior question to your question and I shall address your question once the most fundamental parts of my questions have been addressed by you. I ask them again in this simple format;

1) Who made this law about the age of responsibility for crime/offense?

2) WHY are children NOT liable for crimes?

The key question is number 2. Once you have address these, I shall answer you question.

Deep Sight,

Are still using your legal mind to contemplate the questions I asked?  Here they are again, in case you have forgotten:

You have not answered the question.  You have simply stated the LAW.  But who made this law?


WHY are children NOT liable for crimes?    For instance,  the age of responsibility for action is NOT a universal Law, is it?  It is different in different countries, legal systems and cultures, isn't it?   WHY is it not a universal limit, applicably to ALL people ALL the time and to all cultures.

I hope that while considering these question, you have now got the answers to the questions you asked me, chiefly of which was the one about paedophilia in Islam.

I apologise for getting you to rack you legalistic mind in this way, because it looks like you have never done this sort of thinking before, other than just regurgitate facts from legal textbooks

Deep Sight:

You give me a very easy question which i will answer in 1 line. You dey ask me legal question, you forget say i be lawyer.

Answer: Under the law, Children are not liable for crimes or torts (civil wrongs). A child is a person under the age of 12.

Young persons (12 - 18) are liable but only for correctional purposes.

Adults (18+) are fully liable.

You have not answered the question. You have simply stated the LAW. But who made this law?


WHY are children NOT liable for crimes? For instance, the age of responsibility for action is NOT a universal Law, is it? It is different in different countries, legal systems and cultures, isn't it? WHY is it not a universal limit, applicably to ALL people ALL the time and to all cultures.