 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Pope in America
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 15 Oct 15 - 02:02 AM "...but we are not talking about science, we are talking about philosophical belief systems in conflict. And since you are unable to offer any evidence from your own disciplines or others, any claim to the contrary rings hollow..." We are not talking about "philosophical beliefs" in conflict! We are talking about a dogmatic belief that myths recorded in an old book represent absolute truth vs a methodological approach to the investigation of reality which has just happened to reveal, in passing, that the myths in the old book do not represent any sort of absolute truth. Any normal person would tend to think: "Oh well, never mind, I always thought those myths were a bit dodgy anyway. Now let's get to grips with important stuff like relativity and quantum mechanics and evolution etc." But a small coterie of fanatics and fundamentalists - who appear to have brainwashed you, Pete - are still, in the 21st century, getting upset and waving their arms about! And no, I'm not going to present you with any evidence because to do so would be a complete waste of time because you'd only dismiss it out of hand (unless, of course, it 'proved' that the myths in the Bible represent absolute truth!). 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. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Oct 15 - 09:49 PM If anyone ever had the impression Catholics are lined up like soldiers on parade marching to the same drum, just have a look at the site of the National Catholic Reporter, and the comment threads beneath the stories... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Oct 15 - 09:01 PM Steve, I gave this link on 12 October; but I'll give it again, just for you:Yes, I know the Catholics have all sorts of rogue bishops and armchair "apologists" who are trying to explain away what the Pope said in 2010, but his statement still stands. The Catholics have a problem: all the good domain names were bought up by the right-wingers long ago - catholic.com, catholic.org, catholicinfo.com, all of them. Oh, and the "Catholic League," which the U.S. networks like to consult for advice. And they all claim to speak with the authority of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. But in reality, they express only the right-wing agenda, and that's very misleading. The Jesuits and Franciscans are far closer to the truth. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Amos Date: 14 Oct 15 - 08:34 PM Science does not usually explore metaphysics, because for many scientists the scientific method requires the kind of reproduceability that only material particles demonstrate. Thought does not cleave to the same repeating laws that matter does and may not give a brass farthing about responding the same way to the same situation twice in a row. That does not mean that the universe of thought cannot be explored scientifically, but it does mean that it is tricky and difficult to explore it if you treat it like matter. Religion wanders straight into metaphysics, but unfortunately tends to substitute revelation and derivative dogma for clear thinking and open-eyed exploration. Dogma is the antimatter of discovery and the bane of new understanding. So neither hard-core materialism OR normal religion will discover any workable truths about religious questions as they are now practiced, in the main. But that does not mean that individuals exercising their best abilities cannot do s, at least for themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Oct 15 - 07:13 PM Ive said it several times before. Religion and science scarcely concern each other at all except at the very front edge of knowledge. That's a place that most working scientists don't go very often, especially not when they're at work. You can do your science perfectly according to the tenets of the scientific method, then go off to Mass that evening and no-one would bat an eyelid. To think anything else is to misjudge the prosaic nature of most of the science that's done. We're not all science-philosophers at the very front edge of knowledge. Those with the time to delve a bit deeper will see clashes. Most scientists couldn't be arsed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Oct 15 - 06:18 PM CS Lewis a creationist? Questionable. He went on record as recognising that Christians can accept evolution and saw the suggestion that he should argue against it as "a temptation to fight the battle on what is really a false issue". And of course most Christians have no problem in seeing no clash between belief in God and whatever science reveals, and in recognising tyat the Biblical creation stories are not historical accounts. Bibliolatry is a Temptation that needs to be resisted. It can be a form of idolatry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Oct 15 - 06:11 PM (From the Why Do I Bother Department at the University of Questioning One's Own Sanity...) "Oh, and I should add that many great scientists have been spurred on in their science by the bible, rather than digging no further than the bible." Name them. As you say "many", I'll accept a list with as few as six on it. "... as part of the creation mandate." Gosh, I'm so confused, so could you please define "creation mandate" for me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Oct 15 - 05:54 PM Please provide chapter and verse on the Pope's clear declaration that the use of condoms is acceptable for preventing the transmission of HIV. I've searched for this in vain. I have not referred to a Catholic rule book. I've linked to the Catechism, and a weird website that, in spite of its strangely absolutist stance, doesn't seem to contradict the Catechism, and referred to Humanae Vitae. The Catholic church has been an authoritarian organisation for hundreds of years. Even in my childhood and teenage years, and I'm not that old, teachings about sex and contraception (not to speak of eating meat on Friday and the mortal sinfulness of non-attendance at Sunday mass) were effectively dictats. A softening of the approach is welcome, but, in the substantive, the Church has moved very little. So give me the link. I've been rattling on about this for days but all you seem to do is issue snide contradictions to what I say without providing hard evidence that I'm wrong. I was a fervent Catholic for 35 years, over half my lifetime, so I'm not particularly open to being bullshitted about the ways of the Church. So demonstrate to me that the Pope has said to his flock, in plain and simple terms, avoiding the usual encyclical-style circumlocutions, that he promotes the use of condoms in order to prevent HIV. If you can convince me, and I am an honest man, I promise to eat shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 Oct 15 - 05:25 PM a culture that suggests, if not insists, that evolutionism is an absolute truth No one has suggested evolution (ism or otherwise) is an absolute truth. The clue is in the phrase "theory of evolution". Get it? Theory, hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation etc. etc. None of them mean the absolute truth. Now, if everyone were to say that god and creationism were theories as well we would have no argument. But they don't. You don't do you, Pete? You insist that god and creationism is a fact. Therein lies the difference between men in lab coats and men in frocks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 14 Oct 15 - 05:01 PM Oh, and I should add that many great scientists have been spurred on in their science by the bible, rather than digging no further than the bible. They accepted its narrative as historical , not as a science textbook and viewed scientific research as part of the creation mandate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 14 Oct 15 - 04:21 PM No shimrod, I do not think modern science is a conspiracy against creationism .....but we are not talking about science, we are talking about philosophical belief systems in conflict. And since you are unable to offer any evidence from your own disciplines or others, any claim to the contrary rings hollow........as also is your claim that you go through life never giving a thought to the bible.....you have spent hours on mudcat slagging it off !. And as to your little drama mocking the concept of dark powers at work in evolutionism, it sounds like you been reading screwtape letters by that creationist nutter c s Lewis ! Methinks you doth protest too much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 14 Oct 15 - 04:10 PM Thanks for that, Pete. You may be right that we have not been clear enough. I meant I was going no further on that specific point. I have little doubt we will have other things to discuss in the future! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 14 Oct 15 - 04:04 PM In the home, parents will tell their kids what they believe is true, and hopefully give them logic and Science to sustain the children's belief in the face of a culture that suggests, if not insists, that evolutionism is an absolute truth. In school, at least in the uk there don't seem to be much alternative to Darwinist dogma. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 Oct 15 - 03:57 PM That is a very good point indeed, Kevin, and one I should have thought of. I was brought up in a very religious way and have now reasoned differently. However, it did take an awful long time and my early life was marred by it. I do concede that religious education, certainly in local Catholic schools, is now a far dry from what it was in the 50's and 60's. I still think it is unforgivable to teach children that God and/or creationism is an absolute truth though. Teaching them that Father Christmas exists is only a minor sin though... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 14 Oct 15 - 03:57 PM Dmcg , I doubt joe meant you, and for What it's worth, I consider your posts have been civil and friendly disagreement. There has been though, it seems to me, misunderstanding about what we thought each other said. Perhaps I was not clear enough in expressing that the things once thought as evidences for evolutionism by its adherents being dropped or discredited, meant not just the initial proposers. A little reflection, however, might have helped though, as for example, I very much doubt that hackle discredited his own fraud !. In theory, there may have been some that published in a journal retracting their former supposed evidence , and if I realised that was what you were asking, I would be, indeed hard pressed to supply what you were asking! If as you say , you do go no further , fine , and thanks for courteous discourse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Oct 15 - 03:46 PM One unexamined assumption that deserves examination is that when children are raught something this determines what they believe in later life. That just isn't the case in most people's experience, including many who protest At this most stringly. As we grow older we recognise that people taught them what they believe is the truth, and we decide for ourselves whether we believe it or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 Oct 15 - 03:12 PM Just my answers. Others may disagree 1. I don't know. Sorry. 2. The word sacred has religious connotations to MOST people. 3. I think Steve has posted a link to a web site. 4. See 3. 5. There is no harm believing it. Teaching innocent children that it is the absolute truth is unforgivable. Just off the top of my head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Amos Date: 14 Oct 15 - 03:09 PM Moral codes are sets of evolved agreements which may or may not have anything to do with ethicality. It is a sin in some circles to eat bacon on certain days, or at all, because it violates agreements that have been established for some groups. But there is nothing ethically flawed about eating bacon, or carrots, or even cats or dogs, in the business of bodily survival. If you can choose a more broadly beneficial way to fuel a body, then, you may find a more ethical formulation, but it has nothing to do with agreements or moral codes. Choosing right action--whether it fits into some code of agreement or not--is an individual act of consciousness, and as such it can be marred, flawed, or completely inverted depending on the state of awareness of the individual. Keeping to a moral code is a matter of compliance, or maintaining agreements once made, whether actually ethical or not. The only thing that might be considered unethical about departing from a given moral code is any upset caused to those who expected you to keep it. Among rational beings, of course, this can be remedied by civil communication and mutual respect. The crutch of using a moral code instead of selecting right action based on one's own sense of good consequences is a popular crutch, indeed, because it saves you from doing all kinds of work, mentally and spiritually. But that don't make it good! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 14 Oct 15 - 02:49 PM I don't think I am attacking anything vehemently, Joe. In fact, I haven't questioned anything about creationist's beliefs in this thread as far as I remember. What I questioned was a statement that non-creationists have dropped much of evidence they used to rely on. That is something that could be checked, verified or discounted, and fully answered and discussed without mentioning creationism at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Oct 15 - 02:21 PM ...and despite Steve Shaw's protestations that it's not allowed in the rule book, it's clear that both the Pope and Delaney's Donkey would be permitted the use of condoms - depending on which side is which.... I have to say that there are lots of things in this discussion that I just don't understand:
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Greg F. Date: 14 Oct 15 - 10:51 AM It's misleading if you really only mean some or a little. Or none! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Big Al Whittle Date: 14 Oct 15 - 09:02 AM a song of welcome to His Holiness https://soundcloud.com/denise_whittle/the-day-delaneys-donkey-had |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 14 Oct 15 - 06:19 AM It's 9:00 am and we're in Professor Satan's office in the Militant Atheist University of Bastardshire; Dr Doubt enters. Satan: Morning Doubt. Good news: the Research Council have awarded us a MASSIVE grant to give those pesky creationists a bloody nose! Doubt: Excellent! When do we start? Satan: A week next Wednesday. Satan: Changing the subject, have they made any earth-shattering, paradigm destroying discoveries recently? Doubt: Yes, they've just found a fragment of pterodactyl bone in a Sainsburys' pork pie. Satan: Drat! Can we discredit it? Doubt: Shouldn't be too difficult. For a start, I think that it might actually be a Morrison's pork pie. Satan: Good work! Just make sure they're not able to publish anything. Doubt: Don't worry, I slipped the journal editor a couple quid and he owes me a favour anyway. Satan: Right, lets start some preliminary work on this project. Bloody creationists - we'll show 'em! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 14 Oct 15 - 06:01 AM " ... it seems that you are restricting where the evidence should be sought, ie you are asking for it from the very bodies that will not publish papers from a creationist viewpoint ..." So I'll ask you again, Pete. Is modern science a giant conspiracy against the biblical story of creation and creationism? If it is then vast sums of money are being spent, world-wide, on a rather silly and pointless exercise and I think that science is a more important and significant (by several orders of magnitude)activity than that! I go through my life without even thinking about the Bible and the myths it contains - and I'm sure that many thousands of practising scientists do to. You should also remember that if the Bible contains all of the answers, there's no point in doing science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Oct 15 - 08:46 PM Well, those codes are not quite the same thing as the ones we're allegedly talking about. St Paul's words were wiseenough, but I see very little sign of their having been adopted by the Church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Oct 15 - 08:35 PM Codes don't change? They most certainly do. What do you think Bletchley Park and Enigma was all about? That's a bit of a debating point answer maybe. But in all kinds of ways codes of conduct change all the time. And the same actually goes for the kind of codes of canon law that you might be thinking about , all kinds of changes take place. As St Paul put it "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:31 PM I don't think we need to go further on this, Pete, thanks. I just asked you to back up your statement that the 'former evidence has been dropped" and to my mind the only people who can drop evidence are those who were using it - it can't be dropped by someone else, so that's why I was restricting it to those who used it. Potentially, though, anyone can discredit evidence, so that is a wider remit. On the other hand that's ground we have all been over many times, so I see little point in pursuing it again. Now you are clearly happy you have justified your statement and I am clear that it goes nowhere near the claim that evidence for an older earth has been dropped. Now it is up to other readers to decide what they think. Yes, I put a lot of weight on your use of 'much', to me, that means quite a lot of information: It's misleading if you really only mean some or a little. A careless reader might even assume you meant 'most' or 'almost half'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:22 PM Joe, you also are not reading me well it seems. Yes, my trust in God and his revelation to us is primarily why I am a creationist, but you know very well that that is nottheargument I use much here, except sometimes when someone claims it is not saying what it clearly is. How about you tell me what scientific principles are broken by creationism, as you claim ? I can list a few that evolutionism breaks.....but after you ! You seem to be suggesting that I believe in a god of the gaps to account for creation, but really you,s are appealing to an evolution of the gaps, and yourself personally grudging God his omnipotence in favour of a godless theory that you cannot substantiate. I am sure you will say it is not like that, but that's how it comes across to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:06 PM Well it's not much of a code as I have to keep changing it as I get older and, er, wiser and make evermore cockups. It's a far more movable feast than a code. Codes tend to become certain people's treasured babies, hard to wrestle away from them. The Catholic hierarchy, for example. People live longer, there are too many mouths to feed, more babies survive than ever before, we've had sexual liberation, we have epidemics of HIV, but the Church will simply not say that it's OK to use condoms, even though all sane people know that it is. That's codes for you. They can turn into unreasonable edicts wrapped in illogical and nonsensical and outmoded reasoning. Times change fast but codes are clung on to by the men of marble. I won't be writing mine down anytime soon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:05 PM Well dmcg, it seems that you are restricting where the evidence should be sought, ie you are asking for it from the very bodies that will not publish papers from a creationist viewpoint unless it slips through unnoticed . Before anyone asks, I don't have details to hand so take it or leave it. Be that as it may, it is still evading the issue. Either the creation sites are lying about the evidence (as the more fanatical atheists might think!) or they misinterpret the evidence. In which case , how do you interpret it... Mostly I just get pious words about science being willing to live with uncertainty etc etc , when evolutionists don't have an answer for findings that contradict the paradigm. The mindset seems to be...we know evolution is true, so we shall have to wait for an answer as to why experimental science contradicts it... And in defence of it little is offered except arguments from authority and numbers. You make much of my use of...much... Perhaps I could have been more guarded but some of the points were pretty prominent in evolutionism, so I think it reasonable. As to whether the list will do, I certainly think it will, as I understood the challenge. No list, and no evidence , and no argument will convince the entrenched believer ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Oct 15 - 04:51 PM That all sounds like what I'd think of as an excellent moral code to me, Steve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Dave the Gnome Date: 13 Oct 15 - 03:08 PM True, Kevin. Not sure about the Zombies but the Goblins are, generally, a good bunch to have a pint with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Oct 15 - 02:59 PM Sure, life is full of choices, some easier to make than others. But we needn't get into a moral morass over each individual one. I don't wrangle over the tiny choices I make hundreds of times when I'm driving my car or playing a tune on the harmonica. That's because I'm experienced in those areas and my brain can be committed but in overdrive. So it is with the ups and downs of life. My experience in that regard is a function of my upbringing, my education and my sense of what's good for me and for other people. I have to trust to that so that I'm able to sail through life without agonising about choices a hundred times a day. There will be mistakes either way but I'd rather just tread lightly. Those who take it upon themselves to draw up moral codes are likely to make far more serious ones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Oct 15 - 02:20 PM I'm sure that you are interested in who wins in the entertaining mayhem, Dave. Even if you decide to be on the side of the zombies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Dave the Gnome Date: 13 Oct 15 - 02:08 PM BTW, Joe. Try communicating properly with somebody you really love. Then maybe you'll understand how communication can (and should) be clear. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Dave the Gnome Date: 13 Oct 15 - 02:03 PM Gnomes are more prone to nit-picking apparently, Raggy :-) I am sure there are worse offenses than pedantry and people who are better at it than I though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 13 Oct 15 - 02:02 PM Thank you, Pete, for responding. I gather that when you say you "sure I will get lots of flak about how science corrects itself" you already anticipate that the list will not do, so let's assume we have already had the discussion about fakery and all that; there's no need to repeat it. But let me question those examples from a different perspective, and to do that please bear with me while a repeat part of the discussion so far. I said: "Actually Pete it was the other way round. Before Darwin and Hutton the scientific community was indoctrinated with a young earth attitude and it was evidence that slowly and painfully persuaded them otherwise." You said: "Point taken Dmcg, but that was a long time past and there is more evidence now, and much of the former evidence used to support the GTE, is now dropped or discredited even by evolutionary scientists." I said: "Perhaps you could give a reference to an article in that that says the previous ideas were wrong and that the earth is actually less than say one million years." So that's what we are looking for. Evidence that was used to convince scientists to drop young earth ideas in favour of a much older earth. Does proving Piltdown man a fake give evidence that the earth is less than one million years? Clearly not. Ditto Nebraska man, and everything else in your list. All interesting stuff that does demonstrate science has a level of dubious characters like everything else, but nothing to indicate an earth of less than 1,000,000 years. And remember you said 'much of the evidence', not 'there are a small handful of instances'. Finally, let's just address your remark "I am afraid you have the advantage in that challenge, as unlike you as an avid reader of geological journals and me a poor layman". Fortunately, neither you nor I have to be an avid reader. This is an example of looking for evidence. Let us assume your assertion that much of the evidence has now been rejected. We both know that a website run by creationists would not convince anyone here. But if we can get an independent article that supports your view it would be 'gold dust' for you. Now, where might that exist? In the academic journals created specifically to record such things. You see? we can work out where it will be without reading a page of it. Now how do we find it? That's a little more tricky, so we can only reach a high probability of finding it if it exists, not certainty. But I am quite content to think that if there is an article in a peer reviewed geological paper in something like the bulletin the references will be prominent on lots of creationist web sites, so it should be quite easy for you to find. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:58 PM Oh, I wouldn't defend my statement, frogprince. It could have been said better. But within context, it should have made sense to the readers unless they were prone to nit-picking and seeing offense where no offense was intended. I was merely trying to reach consensus on the meaning of the word "sacred." There was no reason for me to insult anyone's marriage, so it wouldn't make sense to interpret what I said as an insult - even if what I said could have been said better. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Raggytash Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:55 PM Decapitating Goblins I should have thought that was a little too close for comfort. How many people know the difference between a Goblin and a Gnome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Dave the Gnome Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:50 PM when we follow a story, in a book or a film or whatever, most of the time what we are interested in are the moral choices Nah. I'm interested in the Zombie apocalypse/Mega death ray/Decapitating Goblins scenes :-) (Sorry to be trite. Can't help it at times.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:48 PM Pete, it's much easier to buy the simple Biblical view of creation:
If that's what people believe, that's fine. It violates any number of scientific principles and very sensible discoveries of fossils and geological plates and such. But if God can do anything, then certainly God can defy Science and create the universe by shortcutting the natural processes that were also created by God (or so we believe). But when you drag science into the picture and make a vain attempt to scientifically prove all this stuff, doing all sorts of dances to make observable facts fit your preconceived notions, it gets a little crazy. So, if you believe a 6-day creation, believe it. But don't try to prove it. And don't try to use your distorted, pseudo-scientific calisthenics in a vain attempt to disprove what legitimate science says. If you don't believe science, then don't try to twist it to "prove" your point of view. As I've said before, I believe that the Genesis creation stories are a beautiful, poetic description of the intimate, eternal relationship between God and creation, a creation that God saw as good. The universe came about in a way consistent with scientific discoveries, but (according to my belief) God has been the essence of the evolution of creation from the very beginning. I can't prove my belief, but it makes sense to me and to many generations before me. If others don't hold that belief, that's fine. But my belief system is how I make sense of the world, my perspective. There's nothing for anybody to disprove or for me to prove. To me, my approach seems to make much more sense than trying to distort science (and the beautiful, powerful poetry of Scripture) to "prove" what cannot be proved. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:35 PM Measured indeed, and that is duly appreciated, Steve. A choice on your part to do that, and that is what I mean by life being made up of moral issues. Not a moral maze, torturing ourselves over whether all our actions are right and wrong, but making choices, and when we make choices much of the time we are choosing between what we see as right and wrong, whether we use those terms or not. Most of the time for most of us that's a relatively tiny part of what determines the choice, sometimes it can be a major part. I would suggest that when we follow a story, in a book or a film or whatever, most of the time what we are interested in are the moral choices. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: frogprince Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:34 PM I'm a bit bemused, or amused, or somethin' by the fact that it was Steve Shaw who apparently "got" my last post, while Joe didn't. Joe, Raggytash, may I try somethin' here? I really think Joe just did something which I'm more often prone to than Joe is; he stuck his foot way down his throat with a slip of phrasing that really did lend itself to a meaning he never intended. Joe, would it not be fair to say that your intention would have been better conveyed by "Try thinking about the times when you have sex with someone you really love" ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Raggytash Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:31 PM Pete, the point is the examples you have given were shown to be and have been acknowledged as fakes or hoaxes. Science itself has discredited them. If and it is an "if" further fakes and hoaxes are recognised science will again discredit them. Creationists on the other hand rely in the first instance on books written nearly two a millennia ago probably in Hebrew initially, then translated into Greek and Latin, later translated again into other languages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:16 PM To be clear, HiLo, I was responding to McGrath. In a measured way too, if I may say so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:39 PM "You,s all however are claiming the intellectual high ground for what I say is a philosophical stance rather than an objective scientific and logical position." What?? So ... is your position (according to you) "philosophical" or "objective scientific and logical"? I'm struggling to follow that sentence. Can I offer an alternative (for your position)? How about: unbelievably silly and purely based on something you've read on a creationist website which supports your desperate need for the biblical account of 'creation' to be literally true? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:38 PM Pt 2 for dmcg. The evidences discredited or dropped..?......there are many but here are a few once used to prove ? Evolutionism. Piltdown man..........is it Nebraska man that turned out to be the pig tooth.........hacklyes fraudulent drawings .........racist ideas that Negros and aboriginals were inferior to the white man..........vestigial organs (supposedly!). ........junk (supposedly ) DNA . And specifically in geology the idea that uniformitarianism is the only process forming features........ think you get the idea. I am sure I will get lots of flak about how science corrects itself, But I merely answered the challenge! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Greg F. Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:23 PM since you ask for chapter and verse, I will ask the same . You've been given it ad nauseum and you dismiss it out of hand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Greg F. Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:21 PM ... assumptions that cannot be verified.....because the past is gone. Now we're descenting into REAL idiocy...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:19 PM Well Dmcg, I am afraid you have the advantage in that challenge, as unlike you as an avid reader of geological journals and me a poor layman! And the royal society?.....I got an idea that was begun by the creationist Isaac Newton . But anyway, the general theory of evolution (GTE) encompasses much more than geology , but perhaps you will know from those journals what their take is on some things ,like, tree trunks buried across supposed millennia rather than the initially exposed upper parts rotting away. Or how fine detail in soft organisms could be preserved if not buried quickly as would be consistent with the flood event. I realise of course, that geology and associated evolutionary ideas does now accommodate some catastrophism.....WHICH ADDS A LEVEL OF A GET OUT IMO. Anyway since you ask for chapter and verse, I will ask the same . Well actually I don't expect it.....and neither did you did you ! |