BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:30 AM

"utter bollocks...you arrogant holy fool...flying fuck"

Slightly over-excited there, I suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:25 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the view of many anti-abortionists is that abortion is often used as a means of birth control. Divorcing abortion from sexual activity is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Especially when you consider that the Church's attitude to contraception doesn't exactly help to reduce abortion numbers. In my view, contraception and abortion go somewhat hand-in-glove.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:23 AM

"A wordy post from shimrod evidencing nothing except his opinion . I fear."

What utter bollocks! I suppose that you don't have any opinions, do you, you arrogant holy fool!

"You imply that creation scientists search for evidence to overturn the evolutionary paradigm , as though evolution believers don't try to do the same !"

Do you really think that evolutionary scientists spend their careers searching for ways to refute creationism? I would guess that most REAL scientists couldn't give a flying f*ck about creationism!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:19 AM

Folds could NOT be created. Damn.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:17 AM

The reason abortion is opposed isn't to because of anything to do with sex, but because, as with euthanesia, it is seen as an act of killing a human being, but at a different stage of life.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:11 AM

I forgot ice.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:08 AM

"When you see strata layered, I say it was laid down by the flood, whereas you might say it was deposited over millions or yr.."

Well I rarely take you on over your inane burblings these days, but I have a minute or two. I live on a coastline made of cliffs of alternating massive sandstones and thin shales. The layers are twisted and contorted and faulted like mad. Some of the layers now even stand perfectly vertical. Geologists come here from far and near. Now these layers were laid down in flat layers horizontally or, at worst, on gentle underwater slopes. To get them into their present conformation they had to undergo incredible sideways and vertical forces. That is not possible on the earth's surface; the beds had to be buried under several kilometres of further sediments which later had to be eroded away. The neat anticlinal folds could be created unless the layers were deeply buried and subjected to considerable pressures, otherwise the infilling and consolidation at the fold apices would not have been possible.

Takes time, pete. And study and a bit of thinking. And looking for evidence (we know now that the intense folding happened in a period of huge mountain-building in the Carboniferous, the Variscan phase - there is corroboration from other parts of the UK and Europe). Laid down in the Flood doesn't begin to cut it. It doesn't explain anything about the rocks round here. And a flood as described in the Bible could not have produced the thousands of metres of sediment in the first place. Sediment is formed only by stuff being moved by water, wind or gravity from one place to another. A single flood event that Noah might have endured could not remotely have managed it. There simply wasn't enough water, enough stuff to move and nothing like enough time. And you need to explain where all that stuff that needed to be moved in order to make those layers came from in the first place. Of course, if you believe only in miracles, anything is possible. Good for you. I suppose it saves you ever having to actually use your brain. I don't think Jesus would be very proud of you for that. One day St Peter will be asking you why you never used the greatest gift that God gave you. What are you going to say?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:08 AM

Interesting that you admit religion & god-botherers to be on a par with Mao's China and Stalin's Russia, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 09:22 AM

And before I get picked up for my mischievous use of the words of the Lord, yes I know. ;-)

But he was a simple man who taught in simple terms, not tortuous bits of cod-theology that his followers found hard to unravel.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 09:15 AM

Here's a list of sexual matters that trouble severely the Catholic Church.

Abortion (you are excommunicated)

Homosexual acts (it's okay to be homosexual but you are still objectively disordered and are called to chastity)

Any kind of extra-marital sex

Pornography

Any kind of contraception

Condom use to prevent HIV transmission

Coitus interruptus

Masturbation

Anal sex

Prostitution

Divorce

Gay marriage

Adultery

Lust (I think I may have called that impure thoughts in an earlier post)

Rape

Sexual intercourse that does not have the twofold significance of union and procreation (otherwise, you should be abstaining, so simple fun is out of the question)

As I say, a hefty list. The obsession with sex is even troubling the Pope. But he has yet to soften the stance very much on any of the above. Note that I didn't exclude stuff that I agree with just to make a baddie-only list. I recognise that some of these areas leave scope for interpretation and the exercise of conscience. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't good enough. The good Lord said let your speech be yea yea, nay nay. It's about time the Church followed the advice of the boss and let its members know exactly where they stand. No double-entendre intended.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 09:03 AM

A wordy post from shimrod evidencing nothing except his opinion . I fear.                           Bill, once again I find that you seem to not quite read me, and maybe I am not precise enough.   Whilst I do take the bible as evidence for myself , it should be obvious by now, that I do not use that in defending creationism here. You also still don't seem to see what I mean by interpretation of evidence. If you dig up a fossil.....that is the data, when you assess the age, your presuppositions and worldview influence your finding. I have afore provided quotes from evolutionary scientists admitting this. When you see strata layered, I say it was laid down by the flood, whereas you might say it was deposited over millions or yr...... You imply that creation scientists search for evidence to overturn the evolutionary paradigm , as though evolution believers don't try to do the same ! Well of course creation believers will find the gaping flaws in evolutionism.....the question is, can you answer them.   The evolutionary paradigm may be most believed by most scientists, but if that had been that's that then , in history, we would,nt have made much progress.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:55 AM

Really, Steve? I don't see it. I am not making claims about the Church being all-knowing and all-wise, or having no other motivations. Just that as I see it that is a reasonable way for a church or family to behave in those circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:48 AM

What's with this "it"? The list of sexual strictures is a long one. Rolling them into one, as if there's just a single rule, is highly misleading.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:44 AM

Fair amount of conjecture creeping in here, I suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:42 AM

Richard,
who, apart from god-botherers dictates either that contraception is wrong, or that sex outside marriage is wrong, or that abortion is wrong

Stalin's Russia.
Mao's China.

Rag,
We all knew that it is on the list of sins, but Joe said that it is not seen or treated as "a big thing."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:33 AM

Ah, the importance of punctuation. When I said "know. So" I of course meant "know, so"....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:27 AM

Yes, Steve, you are right that condoms of some form are ancient. But my point was about reliability (and availability), not existence. And without reliable contraception the relationship is far from even handed, as we all know. So it is perfectly reasonable for a group to say you should not enter into this lightly, whether that is a church or the families or whoever. And that is why I make the distinction between before and after reliable contraception, because after that the relationship is effectively even handed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:11 AM

Well that's an interesting diversion, but I'd remind you that the Romans may have used condoms made of animal skins. Condoms made of intestines were certainly used in the Middle Ages. A bit like swear words, these things often a enjoy greater antiquity than we may at first suppose. Nothing new under the sun. In any case, your argument should perhaps be that these are hardly matters that should be decided by elderly celibate clergy, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:18 AM

Perhaps I need to emphasise the point that being the right shape and lubricated both have a direct bearing on whether the condom remains in place and hence its reliability as a method of contraception.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:56 AM

When traditional teachings of the church on sexuality are being discussed it makes sense to treat the ages before and after reliable contraception differently, especially as the vast majority of the teachings were formulated before that point. So that has led me to look at the website for Durex. It is a bit surprising that they say and I quote "1960s - The world's first anatomically shaped condom is released by Durex". Makes you wonder what shape they were beforehand! Equally, the company itself was only founded in 1915 and lubricated condoms became available in the 1950s.

Just something to mull over, bearing in mind that the teachers of the cardinals and popes, as well as many of the more elderly clergy were raised well before that date.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:40 AM

I sent that before I'd edited or checked it, so please ignore and read this one instead (if you can be arsed):



I'm going to take you on over several things, Joe. First, sex and the pulpit. There are several reasons why priests don't preach about sex from the pulpit. First, they are single men preaching to a largely married audience, and you don't have to be that bright to see that you would would have zero credibility as a bedroom advisor or pontificator. Second, most congregations will contain young children or elderly people for whom priestly sex talk would be highly inappropriate. Third, the Church's many edicts on sex are so well-established and so set in stone that there is little need for further priestly elaboration. The implication that the Church isn't too bothered about sex because it isn't good pulpit material is, therefore, misplaced. You and I both know that the Church is heavily into people's sex lives. It has strictures in place about contraception, abortion, the purpose of intercourse, homosexuality, gay marriage, masturbation, divorce , etc., that are seriously at odds with liberal thinking, even with some other Christian organisations. That is quite a hefty list of control orders for an organisation that purports not to make a "huge thing" of it, I'd say.

I would also take you up on your use of "divine". I have no clue as to whether I contemplate things more, less, or the same amount as you do. I love the world and I love nature, I marvel in it and I study it. I can look at a flower and revel in the thought that it took three billion years of evolution to make such a simple, beautiful and perfectly functional thing. I love not quite being able to get my head round it, but I can study the evidence and keep trying. I can look at the sky and celebrate not even beginning to get my head round the immensity of spacetime from my little scrap of a planet and the few puny years I have on it. It's all amazing and overwhelming and almost incomprehensible. But only almost, because I'm going to keep looking, even though I know I'll never get there. What I'm scared to death of is thinking that I've found something sacred or divine that stops me looking. I don't want answers that explain nothing. I'd rather do without answers at all and be able to keep looking. That's what I believe I'm here for, if I believe anything. The difference between you and me is that you are after deeper insight and appreciation, whereas I want to KNOW stuff and be edified through knowledge and be frustrated by the challenges of the search. Not mutually exclusive by any means, but different perspectives. You may call that earthbound, but I call it my intellectual challenge. I can't get that by seeing sacredness. Too much old baggage there for me. Not for you, which I do respect in spite of what I'm saying.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:35 AM

Just for you Professor and only because I realise you frequently fail to understand things that are written down. From Joe:

"Well, in my experience of 67 years as a Catholic, 8 years of seminary, and various periods of church employment, I haven't seen this "huge thing." It's there, and some individuals make a "huge thing" of it, but most priests I know are very critical of priests who speak about sex from the pulpit"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:19 AM

" ... just to make your arguments from experimental, testable, observable science."

You don't know what "experimental, testable, observable science" is, do you, Pete? In fact, you quite obviously don't know what science is. What science most definitely isn't, is a competing dogma to religion! All you can do is parrot stuff from, so-called, 'creationist scientists'. But if you had even the remotest understanding of science, you would know that the term 'creationist scientist' is an oxymoron - like 'kind sadist' or 'blind cyclist' or 'inland submarine'. A REAL scientist doesn't start off from a position of 'absolute truth' and work backwards from there. A real scientist doesn't expend all of his efforts trying to discredit the work of other scientists whose findings happen to conflict with his notions of absolute truth. A real scientist does often challenge the findings of other scientists - but that's called 'peer review' and it's a key aspect of modern science. What also drives modern science forward is uncertainty, unexpected findings and competing interpretations of data. Just because a particular scientist finds something puzzling or seemingly anomalous, doesn't mean that every scientist then has to pack his bags, throw in the towel and declare: "Right this means God did it after all and we should all go home!"

Imagine for a moment, Pete, sitting before a panel composed of such luminaries as Isaac Newton, Robert Hooke, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Paul Dirac, Edwin Hubble, Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman and telling them: "I read on a website that your all wrong and God did it really!" A little presumptuous perhaps? What do think they would say to you (if they could be bothered to speak to such a breathtakingly arrogant idiot at all)?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:13 AM

Joe, you have a year or two on me but my catholic upbringing taught me quite categorically that sex outside of marriage was a sin.

Everyone knew that thanks Rag.
What has it to do with anything Joe said?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 05:16 AM

Joe, you have a year or two on me but my catholic upbringing taught me quite categorically that sex outside of marriage was a sin.

Fortunately for me the priest who used to drink my Dad's whisky also used to slag off my Dad. Like any five year old my Dad was my hero and therefore I took a dislike to the priest and to the church.

I had managed by the age of ten to distance myself from the church although that meant I had a very rough time at my Grammar School run by Monks. It must have taken a further 30 years before I finally managed to shake off all the shackles. (I think)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 05:04 AM

Well said, Joe. I am a few years younger than you but in my life there have been almost no occasions the church (or indeed my schools) said anything about sex. In fact the last time I heard anyone speak from the pulpit about sex was around five years when the sermon was given by a married deacon who talked about the distortions that many people have of the church's views on sex and that all of this stuff about sex being sinful is hogwash, misunderstanding and distortion.

He is still a deacon, so no-one took him off to be burnt, or excommunicated ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 04:43 AM

No, shimrod, I don't expect you to rediscover anything.....just to make your arguments from experimental, testable, observable science. For example, there is no debate now that allegedly deep time artifacts like dino bone contain soft tissue that according to measured rates of decay should not be there. That is an argument from the data that accords with testable etc science. Deciding that evolutionism is true, therefore there must be another explanation is a faith factor IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 04:30 AM

It's hard for me to participate in a discussion such as this, because the understandings of religious faith are so far from what is my reality. Steve Shaw asks, "why does the Catholic Church make such a huge thing about sex?"
Well, in my experience of 67 years as a Catholic, 8 years of seminary, and various periods of church employment, I haven't seen this "huge thing." It's there, and some individuals make a "huge thing" of it, but most priests I know are very critical of priests who speak about sex from the pulpit.
And the God that is argued about here, is a very simplistic God that is very foreign to the concept of God I learned in seminary.

Some people say I'm some sort of mystic, and I suppose I am. I think I prefer the word "contemplative." There are times when I put myself in a space where there is nothing but God...or maybe there's just nothing. But at the same time, everything is there, and I let it run past me and I contemplate it. That's what I do when I have the luxury of sacred space and sacred time. When I'm finished, I find I have a deeper appreciation of all that surrounds me, and I'm able to approach reality with deeper insight.

As I go through life, I encounter experiences and ideas that I consider to be significant, and I take them with me into my contemplation. And in that contemplation, I find an essence of things that I see to be divine, or to be an expression of the divine. I see the same things that everyone else sees - but in the essence of these things I see, I find something sacred, something that I see as divine. Others can look at the same things and not see divinity - and I accept that their perspective is legitimate but different from mine.

And part of my perspective is the tradition and teaching and ritual that I come from. I don't want to argue about this or prove anything - this is simply my perspective, and it means a lot to me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:38 AM

Good try, Bill D, but I suspect that we're all wasting our time with Pete. I think that he's probably allowed himself to be brainwashed by Creationists and is now incapable of stepping outside of the Creationist bubble. Notice that when I challenge him to read a popular account of modern cosmology, by Lawrence Krauss, all he can do is parrot back at me a 'critique' of Krauss's work which is obviously derived from Creationist sources.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:33 AM

AN APOLOGY

Can I apologise to all and sundry that in giving an example of effect with cause I chose one mentioning genetics.

If I had paused for a moment before that, it should have been obvious the consequence would be that we immediately transformed the thread in to that same old stale discussion where we all know who will take part and what they will say so well we could each write the rest of the thread by ourselves up to the point it gets closed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: LadyJean
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 08:39 PM

Every time I see the guy's picture, I try to remember a Marais/Miranda song that began "Oh Francis oh Francis oh please tell me why. Your mother is calling and you don't reply". I can't remember all of it, and it's driving me a little batty.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 08:12 PM

I still remember you admitting that your own field has no bearing on evolutionism

Pete, once again, there is no such thing as "evolutionism".

There are, however, such things as ignorance and stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 07:47 PM

It's probably a good thing that I was so busy the last few days, else I'd have used all my time getting in the middle of this....


But as a dedicated debater of Pete for several years....

Pete... you said: "The truth is we all have the same evidence , it is the interpretation that makes the difference."

That's a good point, but it stops a bit short of THE point, which is that there seems to be a bit of disagreement about HOW to recognize, evaluate and interpret data, in order to give it the status OF evidence.
   We have had the various versions of 'what constitutes good science' at length, but you still insist on calling your general opponents 'confidence' and 'acceptance' of many tenets of science *faith*.....This is a major sticking point, and there's really no way to reach anything like understanding if you take that viewpoint.
   Do not be deceived by words... saying "I believe what good, competent scientists tell me." is NOT the same thing as saying "I believe in what the Bible tells me." They are, flatly, NOT the same sort of thing. \

The former is making an assumption that most scientists 1) do not lie, 2) are competent, 3) have looked at as many possible bits of data that they can find, 4) compared various interpretations of that data, 5) given the best interpretation they can make about the data the status of evidence... and finally, 6) being always ready to re-evaluate their conclusions in the light of new data/evidence.
The latter is (usually) accepting one interpretation of one translation of one set of human copied documents as providing data/evidence of a metaphysical concept as being *truth*. What it is evidence of, is that a couple of thousand years ago, various scribes copied some things they were TOLD... and that they probably believed what they were told. These writings are stories.... many are fascinating & inspirational stories (though not all). The stories are filled with magic & wonder, and if repeated often enough, will of course be believed as *truth*. Even when the details of the stories differ (and they often do), people come to accept and **believe** the basic ideas in the stories, and..... this is the crucial point... they are usually NOT willing to entertain any doubt of the basics about metaphysical happenings! Thus... science & theology are not both 'faith'...(even if some careless scientists occasionally seem to act as though they 'believe' some stuff almost like theologians).
   Even Rene Descartes, when trying to 'prove' the existence of God rationally, to add to pure 'faith' got in trouble with the church for daring to even propose formal doubt as a starting place! The church had no place for disagreement... as Copernicus & Galileo discovered.
   Now we have the similar situation in discussions of evolution, the age of the Earth, paleontology...etc. Because certain bits of carefully done scientific data/evidence do not fit with someone counting 'years' in Genesis, (as translated from some old text..), some people whose day job is in a scientific field spend a lot of time looking for ways to discount the data/evidence that has been generally accepted, and theorize in some strange ways about weaknesses in any scientific theory that does NOT jibe with their notion of what they already believe by 'faith.
   Finally... the idea of "something coming out of nothing" is just not relevant. If YOU can't accept that we just don't know, as Steve Shaw put it so well above, well... *shrug*...."something coming out of nothing" is no odder than the idea that there was a 'spirit' that existed before anything existed.... and that this spirit 'created' everything OUT of nothing. Our minds cannot really handle those ideas. We can form sentences referring to what we can't know... but putting names to concepts does not confer reality on them! It's just that some of us don't LIKE not knowing... we want answers... and we'll by golly find answers, even if we have to make them up, then repeat them to our children for a few hundred generations. Can we be right about the basics of those stories? *shrug* maybe...but let's not kid ourselves about the ultimate status of those stories.... believe what YOU 'need' to believe, but don't mess with the workings and procedures of science in indefensible ways...............

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 06:19 PM

'Krauss' not 'Krause'. You're so contemptuous of scientists that you can't even spell their names right!

And what's all this nonsense about "appealing to authority"? Do you expect Steve and I to, independently, re-discover everything that has been discovered by scientists (real scientists - not creationists) over the last 300 years? It's not about appealing to authority - it's about credibility.

And while we're on the subject of appealing to authority, you and your co-religionists have completely surrendered your intellects to the authority that you imagine lies within the pages of an old book! As my old mum used to say: "That's the pot calling the kettle black!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 06:02 PM

It is not directly an answer to your question, Pete, but it an important first step. A mutation is nothing to do with something malfunctioning or being broken. That contains all sorts of assumptions about something being right or working properly which is a completely wrong way of approaching genetics. All a mutation is is a difference; good and bad as value judgements don't come into it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 05:25 PM

When have I ever appealed to authority or numbers? Kindly do not confuse me with Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 05:11 PM

It is not true that I don't respect your academic achievements Steve . It is true however, that I don't accept your conclusions. It is one thing being achieved , but quite another being able to defend what you claim is true, rather than appealing to authority and numbers as you and shimrod have just done.          Interesting that dark matter and dark energy are " genuine discoveries " despite what I have read from a cosmologist.   But of course , as he is a creationist he is a priori an idiot to your mind whatever qualifications he has. !      As I said before , we admit the faith factor while you deny yours , but are unable to demonstrate that which you assert is so.      So I take it, you still think I should read Krause , even though you are unable to articulate how he asserts the plausibility of a universe from nothing.    I don't think so.....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 04:31 PM

" ... so I guess that means you just accept the evolution story on faith."

Unlike you, I don't accept anything on "faith"!

Lets put it this way: do I give credence to the translated, re-translated and mis-translated myths and legends of some Bronze Age, Middle Eastern goat herders or the model of reality being slowly built up by some of the finest minds of the last 300 years or so? You, and your co-religionists, have arbitrarily decided to view the former as an expression of absolute and inviolable truth but science is an on-going, open-ended ,open-minded and painstaking quest for truth. Concepts such as dark energy and dark matter are not "fudge factors" but genuine discoveries which have yet to be fully explained and are currently the subjects of intensive research. It's easy to pick a few myths, slap the label "absolute truth" on them and then switch your mind off. Contemporary science is in a whole different Universe of thought, striving and effort! Scientists are actually using the brains that 'God' is supposed to have given them. If I was God, I'd give the scientists an 'A' for effort and re-cycle you lot!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 04:17 PM

You're missing everything. You just don't understand the thing you're trying to criticise. A very disreputable approach, exactly what one expects from a creationist.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 04:06 PM

Not sure if I fully follow you dmcg , as I understood that mutations don't spring from nothing but are rather something broken or a malfunctioning switch for example.   Or am I missing something?.......and that is not addressed to the mockery merchants !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 04:03 PM

"Btw, I still remember you admitting that your own field has no bearing on evolutionism, so I guess that means you just accept the evolution story on faith."

Hmmm. Not very discriminating, are you? Evolutionary biology was a major part of my graduate studies, yet you say the same about me. You don't really care about anyone's academic background, do you? Let's face it. You can only be a scientist if you're also a God-botherer, can't you, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 03:42 PM

And far be it from me to tell Catholics how to run their religion, but I'd have thought that a proper, one hundred percent earthly Jesus, one of us, warts and all, the product of a good hard bonk, would have been a far better bet. The inventors of the virgin birth may well have got it right for most of the last two thousand superstitious years, but it ain't going to work so well in the age of questioning in which we now, thankfully, find ourselves. In other words, the whole concept is a load of unnecessary old rubbish, and I suspect that you suspect it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 03:41 PM

No, I have,nt. have you shimrod ?.i do know though that Krause redefines ....nothing....to have at least some properties, and that he builds his argument on unsubstantiated ideas like dark matter and energy.......otherwise known as fudge factors.    Now, I do realise you are the one with the scientific training and I a poor layman , so perhaps you can briefly describe how his ideas are so compelling, if not for me then others here brighter than myself !    Btw, I still remember you admitting that your own field has no bearing on evolutionism, so I guess that means you just accept the evolution story on faith.       And if you like to recommend books, so do I. Evolutions Achilles heels, is written by several PhDs scientists explaining the fatal flaws in the theory.   But I doubt you will expose yourself to such a challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 03:29 PM

Well I think you're putting a brave face on it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 03:22 PM

I agree with McGrath about the significance being Jesus as the son of God, and there are other theological implications as well.....but we know your attitude to theological distinctions.....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 03:06 PM

The significant thing really isn't about any absence of sex, it's about Jesus being the son of God. The rest is incidental. How far the doctrine has impacted on attutudes towards sex in later millenia is an interesting question, but far less than you assume.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Monique
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 02:07 PM

Miraculous births.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 09:53 AM

Quite so. I think you know that I respect your views on most things and appreciate the measured way you express them. I didn't really mean to play the man there, though I can see that that's how it may have come across. To put the point more diplomatically, I think it's rather a stretch to deny that Jesus' uniqueness in being the only person ever to have been born of a virgin has nothing to do with putting him above the murky and sin- filled world of sex. Of course that was the idea. The Church needed Jesus well clear of that world so that it could exploit it as an instrument of control, unfettered by direct divine carnal involvement. By the Church's fruits shall we know it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 07:57 AM

I don't think disagreement should lapse into accusations of insincerity.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 07:22 AM

Then why does the Catholic Church make such a huge thing about sex then!   Why is Mother Teresa heading for sainthood! Poking its nose Into people's private lives and finding sin in sex wherever it can has been the time-honoured numero uno blunt instrument of control over the flock for centuries. Lessee, masturbation, gay sex, anal sex, using contraceptives, having impure thoughts, gay marriage, abortion, divorce, lusting after you neighbour's wife, etc., all sins, some for all time, some for at least nearly all of the last two thousand years. The Church will find unsavouriness in sex wherever it can (unless it's covering up child abuse, of course). I think that refusing to accept that the one and only non-sexual conception in the history of humanity hasn't got everything to do with putting Jesus above sex is highly disingenuous. The gospels didn't even have to say it.