 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Pope in America
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Bill D Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:24 PM LOL Steve! I've been called worse than a genius and been blamed for getting far worse things stuck in folks heads. Good metaphors make for less typing.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:13 PM "Steve, I was responding to the claim, "it's worth noting that there are schools in the UK & USA where this stuff is being taught as a science" That gives the false impression that it is permissible to teach it in UK schools as it is in US schools. I simply replied "Not in UK schools." It is not. It can not legally be taught in UK state funded schools." I'm a very simple man, Keith, as you know. You clearly stated that creationism is not taught in UK schools. You were wrong, because we provided insurmountable evidence that it is. You are now pretending that what you said is, er, not what you actually said. Don't you realise how you demean yourself by adopting such a dishonest approach? Actually, I'm almost beginning to feel a bit sorry for you. I'll get over it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,# Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:05 PM Has anyone seen the picture of presidential candidate Ben Carson and his homie? If not, please let me reassure you all that so far none of you have it right. Carson's the one to ask. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Nov 15 - 05:59 PM "One more case of sticking the dart on the wall and drawing the bullseye around it." Bill, I wish to inform you that not only are you a genius but also that I am going to be using this amazing expression ad nauseam for the rest of my life, and it's all your fault! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Nov 15 - 04:46 PM Insults always come from people who find themselves without an answer, so they are almost always an admission of defeat. Glad it was you that said that, ake. Were you, by any chance, referring to St. Joe's drive by character assassinations of Date: 13 Oct 15 - 05:16 AM and 13 Oct 15 - 05:52 AM. They seemed very full of insult, insinuation and had very little by way of answers... :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 07 Nov 15 - 04:31 PM Well I suppose that I might have been better not to use that word, as I am not a scientist, but as it is a word used by scientists of either persuasion I shall not lose any sleep over it. And as for narrow minds, evolutionism excludes the design , creation explanation a priori ........can't allow".....a divine foot in the door..." Talk about putting the dart in the door and drawing a circle around it!. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Bill D Date: 07 Nov 15 - 02:51 PM "The creationist model is of a pre flood world of less pronounced ups and down.." "Model" is a word often substituted for 'wild guess' to explain something that common sense & science can't wrap their narrow little minds around... One more case of sticking the dart on the wall and drawing the bullseye around it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 07 Nov 15 - 02:42 PM So Steve , just disagreeing with the paradigm amounts to abuse of scientists! But if the scientists are creation believing it is ok to abuse them is it ?. Some of that subjective good that you believe in , I suppose. After all, I don't suppose you have an objective standard to appeal to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 07 Nov 15 - 02:17 PM Thank , Ake , for noting in one place that it is mainly me who gets the insults , and in another place that those offering arguments do so because they are losing the argument ......think that's more or less correct......glad someone's noticing !. Thanks joe for clarifying for me. Thanks keith, for providing the ref I did not have to hand, even though not supporting my position. Which brings me to bill. You will remember I hope, that I never claimed that it was proof of the noahic flood , but that this evidence was consistent with it. Neither am I claiming I can prove the geologic model proposed from the bible , but then neither can you prove your model....or should I say current model. It has been calculated that were the earth flat all round the sea would cover it to some depth. The creationist model is of a pre flood world of less pronounced ups and downs giving way to higher mountains and deeper ocean basins from major geologic activity during the flood. As I say, can't prove it, but the model accounts for the water......ringwoodite or not ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Greg F. Date: 07 Nov 15 - 12:15 PM That gives the false impression that it is permissible to teach it in UK schools.,?I> It does nothing of the sort, Professor - apparently you know as much about the English language as you do about everything else - i.e. nil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Nov 15 - 12:08 PM Steve, I was responding to the claim, "it's worth noting that there are schools in the UK & USA where this stuff is being taught as a science" That gives the false impression that it is permissible to teach it in UK schools as it is in US schools. I simply replied "Not in UK schools." It is not. It can not legally be taught in UK state funded schools. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Nov 15 - 12:01 PM Sorry, I neglected to delete the last five lines of my last post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Raggytash Date: 07 Nov 15 - 11:43 AM goalposts are moved yet again. yesterday creationism is NOT taught in any UK school. FULL STOP. Today it is not legal to teach creationism. Why not admit you were mistaken professor. Oh i forgot you are never wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Nov 15 - 11:31 AM "Yes, but you can not deny that a single ancestor is widely accepted in the Scientific community . Or do you Steve?" Nope. I said it was superficial, not that it was wrong. "Obviously no-one could ever say something was never taught in any school in any country, whatever the law. No UK state funded school can legally teach creationissm. It is not allowed here." But you categorically and rather authoritatively said not in the UK. This was incorrect. This is a classic example of why most people here treat your arguments with distrust, scepticism or derision. If I make a mistake I own up. It doesn't stop me from being a complete bastard but at least we don't have to spend hours with you persisting and me denying. It is just over a year since the ban was extended to the new "free schools." A few do not yet comply. If they fail to comply they will lose their funding as some already have. So far 54 left out of over 24000. Within months there will be none. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Bill D Date: 07 Nov 15 - 11:00 AM About that "deep water": There seems to be a couple of dozen sites quoting the same source...usually just wholesale C&P. I'm not sure which is the original... but here is a section [my highlighting] "Four hundred miles beneath North America, Schmandt and Jacobsen found deep pockets of magma, which indicates the presence of water. However, this isn't water in any of the three forms we are familiar with. The pressure coupled with the high temperatures forces the water to split into a hydroxyl radical (OH) which is then able to combine with the minerals on a molecular level." The situation is: they did seismic tests, and got *readings* which *indicate* the presence of Ringwoodite 500-700 KM down. This mineral can contain water "...in the form of hydroxide contained within the wadsleyite and ringwoodite crystal structure,..." Now, this is fascinating... and something I had never heard of.... but water 'bound in a form we never see' is not exactly compelling evidence that it once gushed up to "float Noah's boat". If water DID such a thing, by some process we don't understand, it seems to have gone back down... or away.. or something. At the time that the 'event' referenced in some old scriptural documents occurred, there WERE mountains; and not just in the Middle East near Ararat. There were much higher mountains in North America and Tibet...etc. No amount of scripture can metaphorically account for a 'flatter' topology which could be universally flooded by huge volumes of water gushing UP then settling back down. *IF* (that's a BIG IF) some unknown process in the distant past transformed Ringwoodite into 'water' and gave us our seas, it was billions of years ago, not thousands...and one wonders why only 'some' Ringwoodite was transformed... and how. (Yes, I know.. God can do anything..) All this relates to why Willie of Ockham sharpened his razor: It just makes more sense to find a simpler, obvious story about a localized flood that we are now finding physical evidence of on the Black Sea that affected a lot of people 10,000 years or so ago, than to posit huge amounts of water gushing UP (and somehow becoming rain?) from deep deposits of a rare mineral, then going away after 40 days. I can't tell anyone what to 'believe', but I can look at evidence and logic and sort out reasonable answers from apocryphal stories. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Nov 15 - 10:22 AM Steve, That was a rather superficial article of the popular science variety, Keith, Yes, but you can not deny that a single ancestor is widely accepted in the Scientific community . Or do you Steve? Re creationism in UK schools. In other words, YES in the UK, Keith. You were wrong. You're really not going to admit it, are you, Keith? Obviously no-one could ever say something was never taught in any school in any country, whatever the law. No UK state funded school can legally teach creationissm. It is not allowed here. It is just over a year since the ban was extended to the new "free schools." A few do not yet comply. If they fail to comply they will lose their funding as some already have. So far 54 left out of over 24000. Within months there will be none. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Nov 15 - 10:20 AM Yesterday: "Guest....there has not been many insults here...Insults always come from people who find themselves without an answer, so they are almost always an admission of defeat." Today: "Finally found your proper level then Steve?" Are you saying that you lose? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 07 Nov 15 - 10:13 AM "I happen to be on first name terms with a friendly neighbourhood amoeba." Finally found your proper level then Steve? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Nov 15 - 09:50 AM " Multiplying cells are a pretty good indication of life. What's your definition?" I happen to be on first name terms with a friendly neighbourhood amoeba. When I told him/her this, he/she was highly indignant and accused Joe Offer of being bloody multicellularist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Greg F. Date: 07 Nov 15 - 09:44 AM As in most things, there are few absolutes. Didn't you know that? Now, now, Joe, don't get on my case, eh? YOU'RE the one that provided the "multiplying cells" definition of "life". Care to give the definition another try? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Nov 15 - 09:44 AM That was a rather superficial article of the popular science variety, Keith, but you should have clicked the link at the bottom to the next page, which explains very clearly why scientists never say "just a theory", as you just did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 07 Nov 15 - 09:18 AM I think that you're missing the point, Keith A! Pete constantly makes statements like: "It is an observable scientific principle that life only comes from life." The boldness of such statements suggests that he views himself as some sort of authority. But when you look closely at most of the stuff he writes, it soon becomes obvious that it derives from the website 'Creation.com' and his literal interpretation of biblical texts. I strongly believe that if he wishes to pose as an authority he has to look beyond those two dubious sources. The purpose of my last post was to challenge Pete to read more widely and to consider all of the available evidence. You've gone and ruined it now - thanks a bunch!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,keith A Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:52 AM Shimrod, the is no scientific consensus on the origin of life. Just theories. On Earth it seems to have been a single event. All life has a common ancestor. That single event occurred as soon as the Earth was cool enough for life . http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:44 AM "Taking a life is a sin in certain circumstances. At other times, it is necessary, but usually has some regrettable aspects. Didn't you know that?" And did YOU know that saying to a woman who's planning an abortion that what she's doing is "regrettable" sounds judgemental, patronising, sanctimonious and downright upsetting? Never forget that you are a man. "Steve Shaw, I'm sorry my faith is not as complicated as you wanted it to be, but that's what I believe - simply that God is Good. I believe in Good, and I believe in God as the personification of Good." Sorry, I'm not allowing you to get away with usurping "good" in that manner. I also believe in Good but I know that Good comes out of people unhampered by a God. If someone is "good" on the back of a God who almost certainly isn't there, then it doesn't say much about that person. If you believe that a God is THE personification of Good, as you state, you are not thinking this through. See below apropos of sloppy language... "And no, I don't believe in all that bad stuff you list, and I don't support or defend it." Don't you think I already know that? Why do you think I picked you up on it? Because you expressed it in sloppy language, that's why, shortly after castigating me over my understanding of English and calling me a dunce. Sailor Jack used to do the same thing and he got the same treatment. And I suppose you're now going to say that you can't respond to Steve Shaw and his blathering. Or maybe you've learned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Monique Date: 07 Nov 15 - 05:48 AM May I suggest some reading some reading which is more about "Know thyself"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 07 Nov 15 - 05:45 AM Question for Pete. You keep telling us, Pete that: "It is an observable scientific principle that life only comes from life." Bearing in mind that the words "observable", "scientific" and "principle" seem to mean different things to you than they mean to normal people, what is the latest MAINSTREAM scientific thinking on the origins of life? Remember, we don't want to know what 'Creation.com' thinks and we don't want to know which findings you have chosen to believe or not to believe. Perhaps it would be best to go away and research the subject and come back with a list of references which we can then read and make up our own minds. Can you do that, Pete? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Nov 15 - 05:17 AM " Personally I am moving away from outright atheism because of people like Dawkins who appear to be ideologically motivated." Personally I am moving towards mild Catholicism because our local priest has got a very nice hat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Nov 15 - 04:57 AM I do not believe in a global flood, but you are wrong to deny the existence of water deep down. New Scientist. "A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth's surface. The finding could help explain where Earth's seas came from. The water is hidden inside a blue rock called ringwoodite that lies 700 kilometres underground in the mantle, the layer of hot rock between Earth's surface and its core." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 07 Nov 15 - 04:17 AM "Since you claim the intellectual high ground here, asking me who made God is merely evasion." No it's not - it's an obvious question! "I don't believe in a God who needs creating himself." Surely, it's not just a question of 'belief', is it, Pete? You can't call on (your very peculiar versions of) 'logic and 'reason' when it suits you and then ditch them for 'belief' when it doesn't. "To demand who made him is thus just the same as saying , you don't accept there is a God, since at least in Christian teaching, the eternal, and God, are synonymous." If this 'debate' is really about logic, reason and science (oh, if only it were!) then no questions are impermissible; appealing to pious religious waffle convinces no-one. "It is an observable scientific principle that life only comes from life." "Christians believe that he is living and though it is not a giving of life in temporal terms, he has given life to his creatures." Declaring that God created life (out of nothing) because Christians believe He did is all about faith - and faith has nothing to do with 'logic' and 'reason'. The trouble with you, Pete, is that you don't actually know what 'logic' and 'reason' are, do you? You constantly confuse these terms with 'belief'. Time after time you tell us that a particular scientific discovery is not 'logical' or 'reasonable' merely because you have chosen not to believe it. My advice to you is to stick to religion and leave the science to the scientists! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 07 Nov 15 - 04:15 AM Just my view on the way the thread has developed, I think intelligent people do understand about religion and the part it plays in many peoples lives....I think Steve and Bill understand that, and also understand what Joe has explained about "goodness", the ancient analogy. Personally I am moving away from outright atheism because of people like Dawkins who appear to be ideologically motivated. It has become about the killing of spirituality and Joe's "goodness", to bring about a society where anything is permissible, where moral rules set out over centuries can be ignored. In short, to banish social conservatism. History has shown us that we do so at our peril. Guest....there has not been many insults here, Pete seems to come in for some abuse, but I enjoy his contributions, he fairly makes the sparks fly..... :0) Insults always come from people who find themselves without an answer, so they are almost always an admission of defeat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Nov 15 - 02:28 AM Pete sez: Your simple faith sounds complicated to me joe. You seem to see God in the abstract rather than a personal being, yet you say you believe in the resurrection. How does that work out? Oh, I see God as a personal being, Pete, but I have no quarrel with those who see God as abstraction. But above all things, I believe that God is Good. I believe Jesus is the incarnation of God, God become human in a form we can understand. As I've said before, the Bible does not give the specifics of how the birth of Jesus/Incarnation/Virgin Birth came about, or how the Resurrection happened. I just believe they happened, and that we'll know the specifics when the time comes for us to know. But don't you also believe that God is Good? Isn't that the primary belief of all believers? Steve Shaw, I'm sorry my faith is not as complicated as you wanted it to be, but that's what I believe - simply that God is Good. I believe in Good, and I believe in God as the personification of Good. Some people don't buy the personification, but it works for me. And no, I don't believe in all that bad stuff you list, and I don't support or defend it. Why should I? Why should anybody? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Nov 15 - 12:16 AM Greg_F sez: So by your definition, cancer is "life", Joe? Then its a sin as far as you're concerned to remove tumors? Yes, Greg, cancer cells are living cells. Didn't you know that? Taking a life is a sin in certain circumstances. At other times, it is necessary, but usually has some regrettable aspects. Didn't you know that? As in most things, there are few absolutes. Didn't you know that? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Bill D Date: 06 Nov 15 - 10:35 PM Pete..." How do you know there was not enough water below to augment that from above."? Avoiding for a moment reminding you that YOU have no way of knowing and having records of how things were in "deep time"........(no, old religious tracts are not evidence. Who would have seen that happen and lived to write it down?) First, elementary arithmetic. We have X amount of water now, and there's no math I can see that would explain where it went after drowning everything. Second, 'below' is a pretty hot place. Water that does manage to get 'below' is heated and finds its way back up in places like out Yellowstone Park. Third, there's no reason in physics and geology that water would BE below in such large quantities. There are large aquifers in places, but that water began above and gradually seeped down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST Date: 06 Nov 15 - 06:44 PM 'An nae insults please! Good luck with that Ake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Nov 15 - 06:35 PM Yeah, you ought to let it be. I should apologise for calling you a buffoon I suppose (I'm not doing because you probably are one). However, you fling abuse around like confetti. You disrespect the life's work of honest scientists in favour of of a bunch of demented creationist bigots and you do it out loud and from a position of cheerful ignorance. I wouldn't complain too much about being abused, you poor thing. To be honest, you get away with blue murder here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 06 Nov 15 - 06:17 PM Perhaps I ought to let it be, but as it,s only me you,re abusing, and I got the bit between my teeth now, here goes........ 1 Since you claim the intellectual high ground here, asking me who made God is merely evasion. 2. I don't believe in a God who needs creating himself. 3. To demand who made him is thus just the same as saying , you don't accept there is a God, since at least in Christian teaching, the eternal, and God, are synonymous. 4. It is an observable scientific principle that life only comes from life. 5 Christians believe that he is living and though it is not a giving of life in temporal terms, he has given life to his creatures. 6. I have always accepted that faith comes into it, but you claim yours is not a faith position, but as you believe what you have no evidence for, it is just accepted on faith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Nov 15 - 06:06 PM You won't get anywhere, Greg. These guys never think things through enough not to leave bloody great big gaping holes in their arguments. Yet they claim that God doesn't stunt their intellects. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Greg F. Date: 06 Nov 15 - 06:01 PM Multiplying cells are a pretty good indication of life So by your definition, cancer is "life", Joe? Then its a sin as far as you're concerned to remove tumors? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Nov 15 - 05:40 PM "Steve's 6:45 AM post was just more bigoted blather, so there's not much I can say in response." Becoming a little mantra of yours this, isn't it Joe. Beats sensible response any time and please don't tell me that you can't respond to my blather. I take up your points and closely argue them and you don't like it (I'm glad about that). If you'd like to tell me what I say that is bigoted, I'd be glad to address it with you. How about this. You remain a Catholic because you were born a Catholic to your Catholic family and you haven't bothered to investigate whether a principled move away from that wouldn't be the proper thing to do. In fact, you remain a Catholic, thereby supporting an organisation that is corrupted by scandal, preaches illiberal and harmful nonsense, espouses mysogyny and makes saints of people who have harmed millions with their dishonest and misguided teachings. And which damages millions of children by peddling myth as truth. And it's an organisation with a centuries-long history of antisemitism. But you're still in it. Anyone who pretends to be thoughtful and reflective who can stay in with that shower is a bigot. And you call ME a bigot. Nice. " I didn't particularly like Mother Teresa or her conservatism or her preaching against abortion, so I don't see why I should be obliged to defend her. " I haven't asked you to. Stop playing the bloody victim. "All I can say is that I don't think she was a wicked woman. I wouldn't vote for her to become a saint, so why blame me if she becomes one?" As I said stop playing the victim. " Well, I don't usually pray to saints, anyhow..." But you do occasionally then. "Steve, let me remind you of your list of condemnations, I also "don't respect human sacrifices, the brutality of Moses that somehow manages to get him a bye, inquisitions, torture, stonings, antisemitism, the exclusion of women, circumcision, waging imperialistic wars and quite a few other religious traditions that I won't go on to list." I ask again, why in the world would you imply that I would respect any of these atrocities?" You said you respected religious traditions. Which ones of these are not tradition? "What makes you think that you have the right to condemn me for the misdeeds of others? I have not denied any of the misdeeds of religion - but neither do I espouse them." You don't condemn them either, and, after all, you are an enthusiastic member of the club. " To blame and condemn me for the misdeeds of another, is the very essence of bigotry. And you, sir, are guilty." Judge not. "So, what is it I believe? I suppose if it all boils down to the basics, I believe in Good, which I personify as God. Whether Good/God is a real or metaphorical person, is something I won't answer. But whatever the case, my basic choice of faith is that I choose to believe in Good. St. John says God is Love, and that has meaning for me, too. One could say that God is the perfection of all superlatives that lead to Good, and I'd buy that." Well I believe in good too. But your God is very bad indeed. He presides over plagues, famines and all manner of human suffering, including the deaths of millions more embryos than all the abortion clinics in the world combined could manage, and he fails to intervene in wars fought in his name. And all because Eve bit an apple. A bloody apple. Your doctrine stinks, doesn't it. It's rubbish, and, deep down, I think you know it. "Armstrong says all the religions were established to express some form of the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). I'd say the Golden Rule, some form of basic morality, is but one aspect of religious faith. " And I'd say that the Golden Rule can be executed utterly Godlessly, and usually is. If you think you need religion to realise some kind of moral rule you're coming up with, you have a lot of explaining to do, like why most atheists are not mass murderers, rapists, thieves or child abusers. "Others may see it otherwise, but I insist on being judged and heard only by my own words and thoughts and actions" But you don't mind calling me a bigot and telling me I'm guilty (what judges usually say). You accuse me of blather. I accuse you of typing something then ten minutes later in the same post forgetting what you typed. I could have accused you of hypocrisy instead, couldn't I. Your tendentious conflation of Good and God is fooling no-one. If I conflated atheism with good you'd be belly-laughing all the way to tomorrow morning. Yet I've got plenty of evidence that you're shaky and I'd be solid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Nov 15 - 04:47 PM "...and that life somehow arose from non life despite there being no evidence of this..." Well God creating us all from nothing is life created from non-life if ever I've met it. Now all you have to tell us where God came from, you buffoon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 06 Nov 15 - 04:25 PM Your simple faith sounds complicated to me joe. You seem to see God in the abstract rather than a personal being, yet you say you believe in the resurrection. How do es that work out ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 06 Nov 15 - 03:53 PM Blandiver, just like many evolutionist ideas are now jettisoned some creationist models are also out of favour now. The vapour canopy being one such , as it is now thought that it has little explanatory power , though possibly contributory. I won't laugh, but I hear that many schools teach that mankind arose from microbes over eons , and that life somehow arose from non life despite there being no evidence of this or of how it could be possible. Thankfully there are some, albeit very few, that resist this indoctrination. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link. Date: 06 Nov 15 - 03:37 PM That's a lot of primary premises in there bill !. They are just the opposite ones to mine. How do you know there was not enough water below to augment that from above. I know because it is in the narrative that waters come from below. And though I don't have the ref to hand I seem to remember that traces of water was found locked in deep rocks. As usual, don't prove the flood but just maybe consistent with it......what a shame for evolutionism believers that so much of observable science is such a challenge to the paradigm!. Yes, there is not enough water to cover the ....current...high mountains, but as you know, they were not always so high, which is why marine fossils are found on them so often !. If you read to the article you linked to, you will see how dr Morris' explains it. You can't just toss in bad science to correct unsupported ideology ! To turn your remarks on their head !. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Nov 15 - 03:19 PM Thread #158223 Message #3748902 Posted By: Greg F. 06-Nov-15 - 08:58 AM Thread Name: BS: The Pope in America Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
but I also think that abortion is the taking of a life I dunno, Greg, but I knows it when I sees it. Multiplying cells are a pretty good indication of life. What's your definition? Please note that the squashing of an ant is also the taking of a life. I did not say whether taking a life is right or wrong - it all depends on circumstances, and even then I would hesitate to give an absolute answer. Steve's 6:45 AM post was just more bigoted blather, so there's not much I can say in response. I didn't particularly like Mother Teresa or her conservatism or her preaching against abortion, so I don't see why I should be obliged to defend her. All I can say is that I don't think she was a wicked woman. I wouldn't vote for her to become a saint, so why blame me if she becomes one? I don't expect to pray to her, ever in my lifetime. Well, I don't usually pray to saints, anyhow... Steve, let me remind you of your list of condemnations, I also "don't respect human sacrifices, the brutality of Moses that somehow manages to get him a bye, inquisitions, torture, stonings, antisemitism, the exclusion of women, circumcision, waging imperialistic wars and quite a few other religious traditions that I won't go on to list." I ask again, why in the world would you imply that I would respect any of these atrocities? What makes you think that you have the right to condemn me for the misdeeds of others? I have not denied any of the misdeeds of religion - but neither do I espouse them. To blame and condemn me for the misdeeds of another, is the very essence of bigotry. And you, sir, are guilty. Most of the time, the naysayers here are the ones who attempt to define what it is that believers believe, and then they rush to condemn what they have defined. But is that really what believers believe? For the most part, I don't think so. Most people just aren't as stupid as other people think them to be [Yes, Greg_F, I am reading Idiot America, and it does make some good points]. Still, there's plenty of stupidity to go around, I guess... So, what is it I believe? I suppose if it all boils down to the basics, I believe in Good, which I personify as God. Whether Good/God is a real or metaphorical person, is something I won't answer. But whatever the case, my basic choice of faith is that I choose to believe in Good. St. John says God is Love, and that has meaning for me, too. One could say that God is the perfection of all superlatives that lead to Good, and I'd buy that. Karen Armstrong says that all of the great religions were formed in the Axial Age a term coined in 1949 by the German philosopher Karl Theodor Jaspers ("Achsenzeit" - "Axial Age" or "Axis age" in English) to describe a time between approximately 900 - 200 BCE when "The spiritual foundations of humanity were laid simultaneously and independently and these are the foundations upon which humanity still subsists today." Armstrong says all the religions were established to express some form of the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). I'd say the Golden Rule, some form of basic morality, is but one aspect of religious faith. I think the more fundamental basis of faith is to seek the elusive Good, whatever that is. Others may see it otherwise, but I insist on being judged and heard only by my own words and thoughts and actions, and see no reason why I should be blamed for or required to defend the words and thoughts and actions of others. I'm sure that I have plenty of flaws in my own thinking and actions, without having to be blamed for what other people say and do. I suppose my thinking is annoyingly optimistic, but I think maybe I don't mind being deemed a Pollyanna. I see all things as seeking good, not that they necessarily achieve it. And I believe that somehow in the end, all beings will be absorbed into the Good, whatever that is. Christians call it the Kingdom of God, but others have other concepts that are just as valid. Now, Good is an elusive abstraction, and it can be well-nigh impossible to grasp or to define - or to experience. I think that people have developed traditions and rituals and sacred stories in an attempt to grasp this elusive Good/God. They are all attempts to reach out and at least partially and temporarily touch this elusive Whatever - and I think that people of all cultures and traditions regularly achieve some sort of contact with or experience of this elusive reality that is beyond all and within all. Another reality is, of course, that people often go astray in their quest for this elusive and undefinable Good. So, Steve's list is certainly not invalid - it just can't be applied universally to all religious endeavors. But religion does go astray, there's no doubt about it. All people go astray at times, even Enlightened Atheists. Not to say that there's anything wrong with atheism. Atheists are individuals, and all individuals deserve to be judged according to their own faults and merits - and their own thinking. So, that's the thing. My faith is very simple, as is the basic faith of every believer. I believe in Good, personified as God. That's all. Theology is the exploration of that belief and its implications, and doctrine is the explanation of that belief, not the faith itself. And I admit that my faith perspective is annoyingly simple and annoyingly optimistic. But that's who I am. There's good reason for us all to be pessimistic and cynical and untrusting, but that is not who I am. I'll probably burn in Hell (or Whatever) for annoying Steve and Raggytash and others. But it's kinda fun.... -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Nov 15 - 01:10 PM Oh, sorry, I forgot we're not supposed to do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Raggytash Date: 06 Nov 15 - 12:36 PM Please do not let the truth come between the Professors "facts" and reality |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Nov 15 - 12:23 PM Keith: "there are schools in the UK & USA where this stuff is being taught as a science." Not in UK. Keith, a few hours of facing the facts later: No school is legally teaching it in UK. OK? Of the 24 thousand plus of schools, only a few have yet to comply. In other words, YES in the UK, Keith. You were wrong. You're really not going to admit it, are you, Keith? I feel a Wheatcroft moment coming on... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Greg F. Date: 06 Nov 15 - 12:08 PM Attempting to change the Professor's mind with facts is a futile effort, Blandiver. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray) Date: 06 Nov 15 - 11:51 AM OK? Not OK. Not OK at all. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/creationism-taught-at-durham-free-school-10080714.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Nov 15 - 11:25 AM I am reminded of a kids video that my younger ones used to enjoy when they were little. I can't remember exactly what it was but the song went 'first he's there, then he's not. What a complicated life he's got'. It was describing something that changes to and fro as you watch. Can't think what reminded me... |
