BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 06:53 PM

Note to Greg ...picking up his ball and going home, having shown himself up .                      Steve, did,nt you know Dawkins is often on tv and on you tube. And I suspect that I have read more of Darwin than you have of the scientists you atheists slag off. I read enough to know he was less dogmatic than his followers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 06:44 PM

" ... which part of kerkuts definition did you take issue with.. Seemed to me to be an accurate, concise description of what you atheists believe."

I didn't take issue with any of Kerkut's definitions - I merely pointed out that after 55 years they are probably out of date. And I have few 'beliefs' when it comes to evolutionary biology - just an interest in the science and an open mind.

"And as to increase in scientific knowledge, how's about you tell us how that helps your cause ..."

I don't have a "cause" - except, perhaps, an antipathy towards religious dogma. Nevertheless, real science does not involve dogma but does involve a continuous advancement in human knowledge through collaboration, deep thinking and hard work.

""I,ll let you do the work", and then I will tell you again how new discoveries make evolutionism even more unlikely !"

You mean you will 'parrot' stuff from 'Creation.com' - which is all you're capable of? Any idiot can do that! Pretty Polly, pretty Polly! Squawk, squawk!!

You accuse me of "bluff and bluster" but your latest load of tosh would win a gold medal in a 'bluff and bluster' competition! You have no idea what the current status of Kerkut's work is among evolutionary biologists, do you, Pete? And you don't have the faintest clue about how to go about finding out!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 06:24 PM

Note to Pete: Piss off. I'm not about to play games with intellectual kindergarteners like yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 05:40 PM

Oops ....should have been ...morphed into...       And Greg ...biblical belief that Jews were sub human...?       Chapter and verse please, or just admit that you sure shooting your mouth off !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 05:29 PM

I sound like Dawkins then, do I ? So tell us what Dawkins you've read, pete. Why, you haven't even read Darwin, the guy you diss so much!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 05:24 PM

So shimrod, which part of kerkuts definition did you take issue with.. Seemed to me to be an accurate, concise description of what you atheists believe.   Though of course it does highlight the unproven, dependant on interpretation nature of your belief.   I don't recall appealing to anything else Kerkut said , so your challenge seems quite irrelevant. And as to increase in scientific knowledge, how's about you tell us how that helps your cause "I,ll let you do the work", and then I will tell you again how new discoveries make evolutionism even more unlikely !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 05:12 PM

Greg says thar"daft" notions mirth into foul ones.    Too true,   As Gould said, something about ,there has always been racism, but it increased by order of magnitudes with the theory of evolution....    Let's not give in to holocaust deniers eh !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 05:05 PM

Well of course I might be sounding like a creationist website , steve, we all get our info somewhere. And do you know how much like Dawkins you sound !   But be that as it may...or not, it does not constitute a logical argument. In fact the only argument I recall you using which was,nt just assertions and appeal to numbers and suchlike was the geological features of your locale. Credit where it's due !       Oh, and it's encouraging to hear you admit finally , that Darwin got some things wrong.   Of course, he never knew the cell was a complex information bearing thing , and assumed something simple evolving.    He also never knew that the ...imperfections of the geologic record....would not be much better now. What he did know though, and conceded was that the data used in his theory could be otherwise interpreted.   Never mind, shimrod, just say....err..evolution" done it "

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 03:08 PM

Therefore not Godwin's Law! (nothing to this thread for hours, so you must think I'm here all the time ready to pounce. Not so - I just had a minute before serving up the smoked haddock dauphinoise..).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 03:00 PM

Bringing in the Holocaust as a parallel involves bringing in the Nazis without any implication that the deniers must be Nazis, or even have any sympathy for Nazism. (After all, it'd be wonderful to wake up and find out that the Holocaust never happened, and it was all a misunderstanding.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 11:02 AM

On a technical point, whilst some Holocaust deniers may be Nazis, far from all of them are. I know two holocaust deniers, both of whom are detestably antisemitic but a long way from being Nazis. Then there was Bishop Williamson, a nasty piece of work who was nonetheless reinstated by a weak-kneed Benedict. Still not exactly a Nazi, however. We shouldn't unjustly extrapolate Godwin's Law. If Godwin were dead today he'd be turning in his grave.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 10:12 AM

Daft notions are not the same thing as foul notions.

Well, Kevin, since we're discussing religion, I think it germaine to reflect that the Holocaust was fueled by the sincerely held biblical belief tha Jews were sub-human and should be wiped off the face of the planet.

Also to reflect that often people scream "Godwin's Law! as an excuse for not discussing reality.

Also that mindlessness is mindlessness, and that's how "daft" notions rapidly morph into "foul" ones.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 09:24 AM

Well I don't waste anywhere near as much time on him as I used to. It's interesting to see from the back seat how he totally blocks off the good cop/bad cop Bill/Shimrod onslaughts. As a matter of fact, when I was looking up those stats this morning I accidentally found a creationist website that could have been pete himself talking. Same phraseology, same facile points put in the same way. He hasn't got an original or independent thought in his head. But, as with the Holocaust-denier point, it's vital that the counter-argument is put. These people are not harmless. As you point out, if you're capable of swallowing one false argument it will soften you up for others. What we right-minded militants are very bad at, I'm the first to admit, is tactics. Does that matter? Probably!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 09:11 AM

It's a shame so many Americans are like that, and of course it could be not so much a shame as a disaster, if it feeds into climate change denial etc. But arguing about it here with Pete isn't going to change minds, including his, so turning to the more interesting aspects of stuff like evolution makes sense, rather than going through the same revolving door repeatedly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 08:46 AM

I thought I hadn't posted that yet and I hadn't finished it (I did enjoy the fish finger wrap in between!)

Dunno how appropriate is to get too deeply here into the details of modern developments, interesting and exciting though they are. The lamentable fact is that over half the US population don't think that evolution is the best explanation for life on earth. Four in ten US Catholics don't think it either. Seems that dads like Joe give up a little too easily. If a person thinks that God created everything, that person has actually stopped thinking. That is so sad. The truly exciting thing is to recognise that the truth is out there for the taking. It takes a lot more mental wrestling than believing in God, but think of the rewards. Chaucer said it well:

The life so short,
The craft so long to learn,
The assay so hard,
So sharp the conquering,

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:57 AM

Those things are interesting to talk about. Darwin's big idea was too simple in many regards if we look at it from the modern standpoint, and in another hundred years no doubt scientists will be saying that about our version of the theory. He got a good few things wrong too. He had never heard of genes and DNA and cellular chemistry was in its infancy. But he got the basics right.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:52 AM

That GUEST post at 07:18 AM was mine.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:34 AM

""Sometimes I think it is my mission to bring faith to the faithless, and doubt to the faithful.""
― Paul Tillich

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:18 AM

Agreed. But what is rather boring is when it gets treated as a battleground. As Joe says, some people are tied into a way of thinking that doesn't allow them to accept it. So what? There are flat-earthers, there are no doubt some people who think the sun goes round the Earth, or that Elvis Presley lives. Some people like eating sushi. Takes all types.

The more interesting thing to talk about is the ways in which scientists are finding ways in which the traditional version of how biological evolution works is too simple. I mean stuff like how different life forms have got entangled in each other at a cellular level, and the role of epigenesis. Complications that don't "disprove Evolution", but do make it even more interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 04:38 AM

Evolution is the most non-boring subject on earth. It explains, in searingly simple terms, everything about the staggering beauty, complexity and diversity of life on earth. It opens your mind to joyful celebration of nature and makes you want to know more and more. Next to that, God is a sidelined, miserable wretch.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 04:17 AM

I really wanted my kids to know about evolution because I wanted them to grow up enlightened, so I spent a lot of time discussing it with them.
Know what?
They found it boring. They didn't care.

I warned them that if they didn't pay attention, they'd grow up to be born-again Christian Republicans. But they still didn't care.

And to this day, I don't know what they know about evolution.
But they aren't Christian.
And they aren't Republican.
And they're good musicians.

So, I think I did something right.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 03:51 AM

"....general theory of evolution....as defined by Gerald kerkut as .....the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source, which itself came from an inorganic form.....          I think there is also that which is called the specific theory of evolution, which deals with what is observable changes in organisms."

I 'googled' Gerald Kerkut and it appears that he was a British scientist who published a book called 'The Implications of Evolution'. In this book he pointed out the gaps in our knowledge of evolution and these gaps have been eagerly seized upon by creationists as support for their case that evolution is impossible and that ... errr ... God did it!

And when did Kerkut publish his book? In 1960 that's when! 55 years ago! 55 years is an awful long time in terms of advances in scientific knowledge.

So, Pete, what's the current status of Kerkut's work among evolutionary biologists (not creationists)? I'll let you do the work.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 09:26 PM

"a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" I'd count bringing in Holocaust deniers in this context as qualifying. Daft notions are not the same thing as foul notions.
...................

Nothing unscientific about having fundamental premisses. Immovable tenets are something else, and I can't see how they have any place in science. If a fundamental premiss turns out to be unsustainable, the theoretical structure changes to accommodate that, and the premiss is adjusted/replaced.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:38 PM

The point about Holocaust deniers is not necessarily that you try to convince them of anything. The point is that, in the name of humanity, the counter-argument has to be put. They are putting their foul notions out there, and those notions have to be counteracted. It's called civilisation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:31 PM

A long time ago, I learned that there are people on the internet who won't recognize truth, and if you jump through the hoops they hold out for you, and just hold out more hoops, or when they make up their own rules concerning evidence, proof, or whatever, you can't ever win the argument, and if they're very good or you're very dense, you can't even stop trying. Some have a tenuous grasp of reality and some are deliberately trolling you, but whatever their intentions, once you engage, they own your ass.

You also won't ever convince somebody who's clueless and/or crazy enough to deny the Holocaust that they're wrong...because they're clueless and/or crazy. If you like hearing yourself talking to clueless, crazy people, keep on trying... forever. Because they own your ass.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:25 PM

That is not Godwin's Law invoked. Look it up.

Yes it is an immovable tenet, because without it the theory collapses. The whole concept of natural selection requires no goals, no end-points, no directional driving force and no striving for perfection. Remove that and you have no theory.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:17 PM

You bet, Joe - just give in to the Holocaust deniers as well & discuss sports with 'em.

Godwin's Law strikes again...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:13 PM

"An immovable tenet of evolutionary theory is that evolution has no predetermined direction and no goals." The concept of an "Immovable tenet" doesn't really have any place in science.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:12 PM

You bet, Joe - just give in to the Holocaust deniers as well & discuss sports with 'em.

Sounds good to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:12 PM

Well, it doesn't have to be a battle and there's no reason on earth why we should abandon the promotion of evidence and reason, even if you think that makes us sound like Mr Spock. Religion is very damaging on the whole, narrowing people's minds and giving them false hopes and false certainties, and that's just the more benign aspects of it. It doesn't deserve respect and the arguments against it will not go away, neither should they. You want us to leave you alone. The very last thing religion does is leave people alone, sadly. We think it would be wrong to leave it like that. There's still room to talk about other things. We can and we do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:01 PM

Michaelr, some people firmly believe in a literal understanding of the biblical story of creation. No matter how long or how hard you battle against them, they're not likely to change their minds. Rather than maintain a constant state of conflict with them, might it not be better to make peace and talk about other things - baseball scores, or something?
What good does constant battle do?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:51 PM

It is not remote from the issues of real life. Real life involves using your brain and refusing to abandon your intellect. The myths that drive religious belief have caused a lot of trouble for humanity and they continue to do so. There's a quite a lot of real life involved in that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:47 PM

"It's important to recognise the difference". Not really, michaelr. It's interesting enough for those of us who are interested,, but it's all a bit remote from the issues of real life.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:39 PM

There are no such things as the general theory of evolution or the specific theory of evolution. It is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. If you can't get even this basic starting point right, it's hard to see how absolutely anything else you say can carry any credibility at all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:32 PM

"The rest of your post illustrates you meaning Steve, don't make the mistake of assuming others are as dense as you and your friends."

Ladies and gents, I invite you to read my post of 07.29 am, then make up your minds as to the particular point on the scale of wilful illiteracy at which we should position this vexatious man.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:27 PM

Well, Kevin, I'd reply to the Pope that he's got bit the wrong way round. It would have taken some kind of mysterious Big Bang to create a creator. Unless he has a better idea. As for conflating creationism with evolution, that's very valiant of him but he's catastrophically wrong. There is not one single aspect of evolution that requires any kind of magical intervention. Everything can be explained perfectly by the laws of nature. An immovable tenet of evolutionary theory is that evolution has no predetermined direction and no goals, which is completely at odds with any notion of the intervention of a creator, whether you see him as having kicked it off, driving the process or inserting pieces like a Lego model. The Pope's perfectly welcome to devise his own theory to explain life on earth, of course. I'd be interested to hear his evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:24 PM

The rest of your post illustrates you meaning Steve, don't make the mistake of assuming others are as dense as you and your friends.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:13 PM

"You are wrong Steve, even in Africa the rates of infection for the MSM demographic are many times higher than in the general population."

As I didn't give comparative figures, I can't be wrong. I simply said that heterosexual transmission of HIV in parts of Africa is a serious issue. I did not mention same-sex transmission as it wasn't the point I was trying to make. Take off your homophobic blinkers and concentrate on what people actually put in their posts, then I won't have to waste my bloody time having to correct idiotic posts like yours.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:06 PM

"...whether evolution created or God created, why should anybody care?"

Come on Joe. We should care because one is the truth and one is a myth. It's important to recognize the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:56 PM

....general theory of evolution....as defined by Gerald kerkut as .....the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source, which itself came from an inorganic form.....          I think there is also that which is called the specific theory of evolution, which deals with what is observable changes in organisms.                         The GTE is impossible according to the scientific method , as only limited change within kinds is observable, and experiments have failed to turn anything into anything else.....less you can show otherwise ?    Evolutionist tend to cite changes within kinds by natural selection for example as though it evidenced change from one group of organisms to another.    But has any evidence been presented that shows that the information in a lower organism can be increased, even ever so slowly to provide added information for the higher organisms ?          Of course, I suppose you could say that all the things that are evidence against evolution do not prove it is impossible, only that you don't know how yet !       Almost midnight I ought to get to sleep, goodnight .

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:47 PM

""The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.

"Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve." Pope Francis speaking at Pontifical Academy of Science in 2014.°

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:39 PM

"Fortunately that is not difficult for me as there is so much evidence that evolutionism is impossible."

I don't know whether "evolutionism" is impossible or not but I do know that it doesn't exist. Pete ... listen to me ... there - is - no - such - thing - as - "evolutionism".

Oh yes, and I very much resent you characterising my carefully worded posts as "bluff and bluster". I'm also flabbergasted by your casual dismissal of the works of the great scientists of the last few centuries, people whose work has so illuminated the world and the universe around us. They are among some of the greatest and smartest human beings who have ever lived and a little respect is in order!   

I repeat: "If you want to discuss science YOU need to improve your scientific understanding. This means that YOU have a HUGE amount of work to do. First, you're going to have to get your head out of 'Creation.com' and put the Bible in a drawer and forget about it for the couple of decades that it will take you to get your head around science and real scientific thinking.

Oh yes, what DOES GTE mean?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:26 PM

You are wrong Steve, even in Africa the rates of infection for the MSM demographic are many times higher than in the general population.

Even taking into account that only a small minority will describe themselves as homosexual. The real infection rates in Africa are likely to be similar to those pertaining to every nation in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:22 PM

Fair enough McGrath re Lewis. A quick search seems to indicate I was a bit wrong there, in that he appears to have accepted evolution until later in life when he moved away from it, but seems never to have been a YEC.                Sure Christian accept the findings of science, but I suspect you mean accept evolutionism .       And how do you define bibliolatry. In the context you seem to suggest that I am idolatrous for believing the bible !   Most Christians recognise biblical stories are not historical ??.   
Maybe in the circles you move in !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:15 PM

Oh, I forgot to mention it: what does "GTE" mean, please?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:12 PM

Oh dear, I must be turning thick in my old age. I can't seem to remember any of this evidence that evolution is impossible. Could you refresh my memory?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 05:54 PM

Bluff and bluster again shimrod. The details may change , and they have to or evolutionism would have sunk a long time ago. But the basics of the GTE are not open to negotiation any more than I as a creationist am likely to entertain evolutionism. Fortunately that is not difficult for me as there is so much evidence that evolutionism is impossible. Some of which I have posted here , and of which you have not countered , except by bluff and bluster

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:29 AM

Joe, I read that link the first time. I honestly can't see what you're getting so excited about. Only a year before, Benedict was saying the precise opposite. The 2010 remarks, regarded as so significant, are very grudging, and are not exactly the clear green light I was hoping you'd show me. The only specific case he mentions is that of a MALE prostitute. Well male prostitutes can't get pregnant, so allowing them to use condoms (and he wasn't exactly getting excited about it, was he?) does not get in the way of the Church's position of sex having to have the potential for procreation. That much of what he said was a bit of a sideshow. You need to be asking yourself why he specified just male prostitutes. One of the biggest health issues in many parts of Africa is heterosexual HIV transmission. The fact that he specified male prostitutes speaks volumes. I've already acknowledged the welcome softening-up of the attitudes expressed by the Vatican. But you've far from convinced me that the Church is doing anything other than dragging its feet. The shit shall remain uneaten for the time being.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 04:17 AM

that would be an ecumenical matter....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 02:48 AM

Steve asked for a list of six great scientists who have been spurred on in their research by the bible. Unfortunately, that is too vague to be answerable. Prior to say the late 1800s the majority of scientists in the west would have called themselves Christian with various degrees of enthusiasm. In many cases, for example, it was a condition of employment as a lecturer or teacher. And many of them would be involved in religious services frequently, whether at church, university formal meetings or other such things, where they had frequent exposure to Bible readings. So finding six hundred people should not in itself be too difficult. The crux really is whether that 'spurred on" their work, and I can't see how that is decidable. Remember it is 'spurred on', not actually a part of the research or even directly inspiring the work. Even a general concept of 'improving the world' could in part by spurred on like that.