Dinosaurs are not real :(

[Vonhelmet]

There were three different avenues. Delusional wasn't the only one

Haha. So I'm foolish or a troll? That hardly gets you home free, given that each is still pretty offensive.

So, what's it to be? Do you edit your post? Ban yourself? Or repeal spw's rule?

 

[kedge]

No such thing.

Well, i suppose an imperfect human who may not or has maybe never attemted to understand Gods power would say that.

 

[Gilly]

Haha. So I'm foolish or a troll? That hardly gets you home free, given that each is still pretty offensive.

So, what's it to be? Do you edit your post? Ban yourself? Or repeal spw's rule?

I don't edit my post, I don't ban myself (I don't even think I can?) and I certainly won't put my word against the word of other mods.

I made that post as a member, not a mod. I'm sorry you feel that my post was offensive. It wasn't intended that way.

Note: I didn't say 'all religious folks are foolish, trolling or delusional'.

Well, i suppose an imperfect human who may not or has maybe never attemted to understand Gods power would say that.

Likewise an imperfect human that has a belief in a magic sky wizard

 

[kedge]

Inorganic matter evolving into organic matter has already been proven within Chemistry, I have no desire to spend a whole day searching science journals to find the article for you though.

Why keep it a secret then?, if this was true we all wpuld know of it, it would be all over the news, people, scientists from all over the globe would be rejoicing with their true findings and share it with the whole world instead of keeping it locked up for a privileged few, pfff! give me a break mate.

 

[Raikiri]

Why?

Because it can be applied to anything.

Earthquakes? That's god. Until we gained a scientific understanding of tectonic plates.

Volcanos? God's wrath. Or super heated rocks forced from under the Earths crust.

Virgin birth? God. Until of course it's completely debunked or there's a scientific explanation for it.

I believe in something beyond the realms of what science can measure. Surely you can see why it's extremely narrow minded to believe that a human construct for predictively modelling events could be able to conclude on every issue we could possibly encounter?

Not really, whilst our understanding is far from complete there's no reason to say it won't be eventually. That may well include evidence of a god or gods, but until then I'm happy to stay firmly in the realm of what is measurable and reproducible.

 

[Castiel]

Well, it isn't

Not unless you're delusional/foolish/trolling.

Alternatively someone has faith in what is effectively a divine intervention in the natural order of things.

As Augustine said, "Miracles are not contrary to Nature, they are contrary to what we know about Nature...."

That doesn't necessarily make them delusional/foolish/trolling....surely?

 

[Gilly]

Alternatively someone has faith in what is effectively a divine intervention in the natural order of things.

As Augustine said, "Miracles are not contrary to Nature, they are contrary to what we know about Nature...."

That doesn't necessarily make them delusional/foolish/trolling....surely?

Yeah... I don't agree.

I'm fine with them believing it, that'll never change, but that doesn't mean I don't have negative thoughts about their beliefs.

 

[Raikiri]

Why keep it a secret then?, if this was true we all wpuld know of it, it would be all over the news, people, scientists from all over the globe would be rejoicing with their true findings and share it with the whole world instead of keeping it locked up for a privileged few, pfff! give me a break mate.

It's very nearly been done, the issue being we don't know the exact conditions under which it did happen 4 billion or so years ago.

http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html
http://nodens.ceab.csic.es/people/afernandez/files/lifeorigin/RNA-synthesis.pdf

 

[Castiel]

Yeah... I don't agree.

I'm fine with them believing it, that'll never change, but that doesn't mean I don't have negative thoughts about their beliefs.

I don't think anyone asking you to believe anything, least of all immaculate conception or the virgin birth, I certainly don't believe that Christ was conceived in this way and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either.

I think that some, including myself, were simply surprised at the way in which you worded your disagreement, not by disputing the rationale of the concept or simply stating your disbelief or non-acceptance but by effectively ridiculing those that do believe rather than the belief itself.

If that makes more sense....

 

[Diesel]

every where i look i see intelligent design even in many man made things

You see intelligent design in 'man made' things? Well yeah, Man's intelligence.

 

[Craig R]

And Mary gave birth to Jesus as a Virgin? How is this possible?

She was clearly slutting it up behind Joseph's back.


"Joseph I'm pregnant!"

"WHAT?! How is that possible, we haven't..."

"I know, er, it's a miracle! Isn't it amazing!?"

"A miracle?"

"Yeah the lord has given us a gift, isn't it wonderful"

"Oh wow, that's great! Hallelujah!"


Joseph wasn't the brightest.

 

[bhavv]

Why keep it a secret then?, if this was true we all wpuld know of it, it would be all over the news, people, scientists from all over the globe would be rejoicing with their true findings and share it with the whole world instead of keeping it locked up for a privileged few, pfff! give me a break mate.

Because the common kedge wouldnt even be able to comprehend a single line of such a science paper. You dont need to be one of the 'privileged few' to go to University and study an Evolution based degree.

It isnt a secret, and the researchers simply want to profit from their research by only having it available in premium scientific journals (I believe it costs £30 or something silly per journal article for non students to be able to obtain them).

I think that anyone is still free to write news reports on any such discovery, but what makes you think that the average journalist is going to be interested in reading and writing about every single paper within every science journal?

The information is there within the journals, and its highly expensive to obtain unless you are a student.

It's very nearly been done, the issue being we don't know the exact conditions under which it did happen 4 billion or so years ago.

Also this. The science reports I have quoted in the past to try and convince the common kedge have been responded to with comments such as:

'That happened in a science lab, it was interfered with by the researchers'
'How do you know that what happened in the science lab is what happened then the universe / life was created'
'Teh Science Labs and reports are a lie!!!!!'

It doesnt mater how any such evidence is presented, such fools will never accept it over their biblical creationist myths.

 

[Jay794]

Everyone knows Mary cheating on Joseph with God, either that or God raped her, either way a sin was commited lol

 

[ubersonic]

She was clearly slutting it up behind Joseph's back.


"Joseph I'm pregnant!"

"WHAT?! How is that possible, we haven't..."

"I know, er, it's a miracle! Isn't it amazing!?"

"A miracle?"

"Yeah the lord has given us a gift, isn't it wonderful"

"Oh wow, that's great! Hallelujah!"


Joseph wasn't the brightest.

Im fairly sure that Joseph hit the roof when he found out and left her but an angel visited him and told him it was all cool or something (went to catholic school, didn't pay attention)

 

[bhavv]

She was clearly slutting it up behind Joseph's back.


"Joseph I'm pregnant!"

"WHAT?! How is that possible, we haven't..."

"I know, er, it's a miracle! Isn't it amazing!?"

"A miracle?"

"Yeah the lord has given us a gift, isn't it wonderful"

"Oh wow, that's great! Hallelujah!"


Joseph wasn't the brightest.

LOL

Im fairly sure that Joseph hit the roof when he found out and left her but an angel visited him and told him it was all cool or something (went to catholic school, didn't pay attention)

Double LOL.

Its kind of like when a white couple give birth to a black child, and when they appear on Jerry Springer, the always devout christian father has absolutely no clue that the child cant be his until the DNA test results come in. And then to see how heartbroken, upset and mad he gets just induces a roffle fit .... Like HERPY DERPY how thick can you possibly get!

 

[Gilly]

I don't think anyone asking you to believe anything, least of all immaculate conception, I certainly don't believe that Christ was conceived in this way and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either.

That was kinda my point. I don't expect any reasonable person to believe in the immaculate conception. Those that are not reasonable I would expect to fit into the categories I gave.

I think that some, including myself, were simply surprised at the way in which you worded your disagreement, not by disputing the rationale of the concept or simply stating your disbelief or non-acceptance but by effectively ridiculing those that do believe rather than the belief itself.

If that makes more sense....

Yeah, it makes perfect sense, but I didn't expect anyone here to be offended as I didn't expect anyone to put themselves in that bracket.

 

[bhavv]

I certainly don't believe that Christ was conceived in this way and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either

Oh but the vast majority of Christians that you love to defend believe that Jesus was miraculously born to a virgin mother.

And the vast majority dont believe in Evolution and try to dismiss it at any opportunity they can get.

And the vast majority believe that everything in existence was created by the magical sky daddy, and absolutely no other belief or theory can be true in any way over their beliefs.

Sorry if the 0.000000001% or less of the Christians that you personally know do not represent the majority of believers of their faith.

 

[Castiel]

That was kinda my point. I don't expect any reasonable person to believe in the immaculate conception. Those that are not reasonable I would expect to fit into the categories I gave.

I would be more inclined to say that I wouldn't expect anyone without faith to believe in the Immaculate Conception, as that is what it is, a statement of faith. I do not believe, not because I am more reasonable than a Christian, but because I do not share the same faith as a Christian.

Yeah, it makes perfect sense, but I didn't expect anyone here to be offended as I didn't expect anyone to put themselves in that bracket.

That is fair enough, although there are posters such as Vonhelmet who are Christian and would take a certain amount of personal negativity from the terms used.

 

[quickshot89]

lolreligion in america

 

[Castiel]

Oh but the vast majority of Christians that you love to defend believe that Jesus was miraculously born to a virgin mother.

What has that got to do with anything Bhavv...I was discussing the difference between disputing the concept itself and disputing the competence of those who have faith in the concept.

And the vast majority dont believe in Evolution and try to dismiss it at any opportunity they can get.

And the vast majority believe that everything in existence was created by the magical sky daddy, and absolutely no other belief or theory can be true in any way over their beliefs.

Sorry if the 0.000000001% or less of the Christians that you personally know do not represent the majority of believers of their faith.

See that is just fallacious nonsense based on your own innate bias, Literal Conservatism doesn't make up anywhere near a majority of Christian belief, for example the Catholic Church that represents arguably the majority of Christians specifically doesn't hold that Evolution isn't a valid scientific truth....

Pope John Paul II

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of the theory.

Pope Benedict XVI

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favourable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.....


.....We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.

Catholic Catechism:

159. Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....

As far as the Protestant Christian community, and the mainstream Christian Community as a whole:

The Clergy Letter - from American Christian clergy – An Open Letter

Concerning Religion and Science Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth

The Jewish Community;

The Clergy Letter - from American rabbis - An Open Letter

Concerning Religion and Science As rabbis from various branches of Judaism, we the undersigned, urge public school boards to affirm their commitment to the teaching of the science of evolution. Fundamentalists of various traditions, who perceive the science of evolution to be in conflict with their personal religious beliefs, are seeking to influence public school boards to authorize the teaching of creationism. We see this as a breach in the separation of church and state. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective in their homes, religious institutions and parochial schools. To teach it in the public schools would be to assert a particular religious perspective in an environment which is supposed to be free of such indoctrination. The Bible is the primary source of spiritual inspiration and of values for us and for many others, though not everyone, in our society. It is, however, open to interpretation, with some taking the creation account and other content literally and some preferring a figurative understanding. It is possible to be inspired by the religious teachings of the Bible while not taking a literalist approach and while accepting the validity of science including the foundational concept of evolution. It is not the role of public schools to indoctrinate students with specific religious beliefs but rather to educate them in the established principles of science and in other subjects of general knowledge.

Unitarian Universalist Christian Community:

The Clergy Letter - from Unitarian Universalist Clergy– An Open Letter

Concerning Religion and Science As Unitarian Universalists, we draw from many sources, including "Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life," and "Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit." While most Unitarian Universalists believe that many sacred scriptures convey timeless truths about humans and our relationship to the sacred, we stand in solidarity with our Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters who do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. We believe that religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. Fundamentalists of various traditions, who perceive the science of evolution to be in conflict with their personal religious beliefs, are seeking to influence public school boards to authorize the teaching of creationism. We see this as a breach in the separation of church and state. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective in their homes, religious institutions and parochial schools. To teach it in the public schools would be to assert a particular religious perspective in an environment which is supposed to be free of such indoctrination. We the undersigned, Unitarian Universalist clergy, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and other scriptures may comfortably coexist with the discoveries of modern science. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

This is the truth of the matter Bhavv, and no amount of shouting me down or calling me names will change that.