New Atheism believes religion should be countered, criticized and exposed

[Not2BSubjugated]

I will try to read up on your response #84 if I can find the time. In the meantime I spend some time on this one:

Well, let me explain it to you as a former Catholic who spent nine years in Catholic schools, the Catholic Church not only does not reject evolution, it teaches evolutionary biology in its schools. Catholic elementary and high schools is where I had my first exposure to it.

Yes, I suspect you are mostly correct. You might notice the spineless Catholic universities in this nation (the majority I fear) offer classes that are in violation of Catholic teaching and in violation of Biblical morals. They put on blasphemous plays and so on. Hardly makes it Catholic.

But to your point --- I am very much of the opinion the only reason Catholic schools go along with contemporary thought on evolution is because 1) it is not a deal breaker on the condition of the soul and therefore why bring in more controversy upon itself? We are already suffering horribly from popular opinion and treatment by the media on clergy abuses, our positions on birth control, abortion and homosexuality --- what gain is there in pressing the evolution argument? Yes, I do believe this. I do not think the vast majority of priests or bishops care all that much one way or another if we evolved or were created. They only insist God was the authore either way and that is all that really matters.


In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic TE position, according to which God created, evolution occurred, human beings may indeed have been descended from more primitive forms, and the Hand of God was required for the production of the human soul. You didn't know this? Huh.

Didn’t know what? This is no papal bull or decree of any sort. I did read the words “may have” which is far from a position of certitude. I explained it all already above.


Quote mining scientists is the primary trade of creationists, and frankly, the only argument (and a very lame one) that they can make. That's just sad.

The quote mining charge --- speaking of a lame defense. Since you don’t like what someone said, you or anybody trots out the quote mining defense. That is weak. Dance around the facts all you want, but there is no question Gould, Stanley and many other great evolution scientists are greatly troubled there is no fossil evidence for gradual evolution. You know what that says to me personally? ----- if there is no evidence for gradual evolution then evolution never occurred. God created every species in their fully developed form. If evolution occurred it would be patently obvious in both the fossil evidence, and it would be perpetually occurring in significant observant forms here and now, not just some micro-changes within a species or with some bacteria under a microscope. Finally, I do not care that Gould is an ardent believer in evolution, his honest statements on the lack of evidence are crushing to the theory.


Gee, that' wasn't an expected response - NOT. The argument about transitional species is a spurious argument - ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL.

I know. Since science after centuries of search cannot find those rare and pined for transitional fossils they have altered the theory instead. I am sure the only problem is we have yet to find all those species of half lizard half birds that must exist? No doubt there are also all other interesting species that were the missing links to what finally became a platypus, and so many other extremely odd creatures?

I've come to expect because I know that you people will never take me up on the offer because you are all cowards, hiding behind your bling faith, too afraid to face the real world. You have my sympathy, truly you do.

What on earth could your field trip provide that your beloved websites like talkorigins.com do not already provide or suggest?


If astronomy teaches us nothing else, it is how utterly small and insignificant we are in the great scheme of things.

That sounds vaguely familiar to me. It reminds me of this (forgive me if I paraphrase it poorly) --- “we had to have evolved from primitive animals because our DNA, etc. has so much in common with them.”

And I call that junk science, but more importantly, so do many scientists much more learned than I. Now you are suggesting what with the astronomy line? That there has to be other intelligent life out there because of the nearly infinite size of the universe? Or that given planets surrounding 70 sextillion stars (science’s latest estimates) it is nothing for life to evolve by chance with that much real estate and billions upon billions of years? Or maybe you can clarify your point for me? Here is my point. God created the immeasurable universe for man to be in awe of his creator. And to give thanks for what God has revealed and what we have been given.

BELOW IS A FALSE STATEMENT:
" God created the immeasurable universe for man to be in awe of his creator. And to give thanks for what God has revealed and what we have been given."-turzovka

Prove it

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

What's wrong with NON THEISM?

Why does it have to be A THEISM?

Nontheists can take the SAME scientific approaches that Atheists respect,
and PROVE the effects and process of prayer, spiritual healing, and forgiveness
on people's health from the mind to physical body and relationships in society.

So NO ONE has to be 'Anti' God or 'Anti' Theist
to prove the same concepts taught in religion are universal by using science instead of relying on faith based religion which is relative to those groups.

These do not need to be adverse to each other!

And I agree with the idea of rational argument as a check and balance;
if this were applied equally to scientific as religious biases,
then such atheists would not need to come across as [asses].
It's when people on either side get so biased they start attacking the other for the same,
then they BOTH come across as [asses]. Scientific proof can level the field as an equalizer.

Because in the end ALL religions go to war. Yet another line of evidence to support my contention that atheism is yet another religion. Agnostics (like me) simply don't care. You believe what you want to, and keep it to yourself, and I'll keep to my scientific view of things.

The religious intolerant of all belief systems are all equally obnoxious.

I was an agnostic for many years then it occurred to me how timid a position it was
.
besides if atheists are wrong...then we can do what lot's death row inmates do.. just before they get the needle.

LMFAO! So you stopped being agnostic because you felt that it was timid? To admit that you don't know?

So I guess in order to prove your manhood, you decided to just go ahead and pick a side on the God question? And this was some sort of rite of passage?

Holy shit, sorry if there's any typos, I'm seriously laughing my balls off while reading this. I've only come across that particular criticism of an agnostic mindset once before, someone telling me I'm agnostic because I'm just too big of a ***** to pick a side. Didn't think I'd see it again, though. . . the guy's IQ was barely in the double digits and typically people dumb enough for that conclusion aren't interested in philosophical conversations.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

John 15:22-24
"If I had not come to them and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; now, however, their sin cannot be excused. To hate me is to hate my Father. Had I not performed such works among them as no one has ever done before, they would not be guilty of sin; but as it is, they have seen, and they go on hating me and my Father."

I don't see how this statement expounds on how Oro was blaspheming. Read this again and then think about it in the context of the argument you're making.

Well, for starters, are we in agreement that Orogenicman was blaspheming? After all, that is larger matter here.

If Orogenicman was some clueless low intelligent wanderer who was only interested in base pleasures and lust, then he might not be guilty of blasphemy by making fun of godly stuff since his mind is incapable understanding the gravity of the subject. But the John verses I site (in my own interpretation only) appear to allude to the situation of someone who knows very well what is at stake, what is being taught, what is the evidence and reasons for it, and what is also possible consequences. Said individual allegedly mocks the whole idea by laughing out loud when tragic comedian calls G-d a prick. And all the related similar humor following. To that Jesus says (paraphrase) “you claim to know what is at stake and still do not care. Ok, fine, but now you are far more accountable for your actions and decisions.”

Your logic is way off here. First, no we cannot agree that Orogenic man is necessarily blaspheming here because we don't necessarily agree on whether or not the God against which he potentially offends actually exists.

Second, read the scripture in question once again. Jesus doesn't say that if their minds were -INCAPABLE- of understanding they wouldn't be guilty. Everything he implies is that the blasphemers have SEEN EVIDENCE that he is the son of God. Nowhere does he make any statement regarding their overall intelligence or -ability- to understand.

Your paraphrase is kinda shitty, also. The scripture doesn't say anything about the blasphemers in question -CLAIMING- to know anything. The point that Christ makes is that they've witnessed, -FIRST HAND-, evidence that Christ is the son of God. The way you've summarized these verses is pretty far off, and the conclusion you've drawn requires some serious leaps of logic.

If it stands as true that Jesus has never performed any miracles in Oro's presence, and it stands as true that Jesus has never spoken to Oro, then it stands to reason that Oro can't be guilty of blaspheming.

I could almost see your point if what you're saying is that Jesus' exact criteria in this quote is symbolic, and it means that people with knowledge of Christianity are similarly responsible for blaspheming, but even then it's a stretch. What Jesus points out is, after all, first hand evidence. At the very least, the argument can be made that anyone without first hand evidence of Jesus being God's son (essentially everyone alive today) has complete legal immunity where blasphemy's concerned when they get to the white throne of judgement.

Essentially, the people he's accusing of blasphemy and hating God in these verses are only guilty of such because they spoke with Jesus and watched him perform miracles and continued to blaspheme.

I am not going to change all I wrote above now that I have read the rest of your post. No, we very much disagree. Jesus has spoken directly to orgogenicman and directly to you and me. We are not ignorant, far from it. Neither you nor attorney will ever be able to trick God or convince God that you had no idea what this was all about. Sorry, no chance, IMO.

When you say Jesus spoke directly you, I'm forced to take you at your word and decide whether or not I believe that, but I can never know.

However, when you say that Jesus has spoken directly to me, I don't need to make a similar decision. With all due respect, how the **** do you know whether or not Jesus spoke to me? As near as I can tell, I'm more aware of what I have and have not experienced in this life than you are. I went to church and tried to find faith in Christ for the first half of my life and never found shit. Never felt the holy ghost move through me. Never felt his presence. Definitely never heard from Jesus.

If the crux of your argument here is that you know more about what I've experienced than I do, then we're gonna have to agree to disagree. That's some silly ass shit.

And no, if the bible turns out to be true, I won't be able to trick God into believing that I was completely ignorant of Christianity and its rules. I will, however, be able to look him in the eye and tell him honestly that I had no way of knowing that the bible was anything more than an overly edited and revised collection of fanciful stories. If he doesn't believe that then those rumors of his omniscience are horse shit.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Would someone please prove I evolved from a single-celled animal?

 

[Peterf]

Would someone please prove I evolved from a single-celled animal?

Nothing is ever finally proved in science. The best we can say is that all, repeat all, the evidence we have indicates that you and I evolved from a single cell individual. Call it an animal or plant as you wish.

Scientific statements can be disproved, never proved. Unlike religious statements which are just faith-based waffle, incapable of either proof or disproof.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Would someone please prove I evolved from a single-celled animal?

Origins cannot be proved and theories must be accepted or rejected on faith. The only effective experiment leading to proof would involve a time machine.

However you believe we got here, keep the faith, baby!

 

[orogenicman]

I will try to read up on your response #84 if I can find the time. In the meantime I spend some time on this one:

Well, I am still waiting for your response.

Yes, I suspect you are mostly correct.

Actually, I am entirely correct.

You might notice the spineless Catholic universities in this nation (the majority I fear) offer classes that are in violation of Catholic teaching and in violation of Biblical morals. They put on blasphemous plays and so on. Hardly makes it Catholic.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence do you have that Catholic universities are teaching classes in violation of "Catholic teaching"? As for the violation of "biblical morals", who put you in charge of Catholic doctrine?

But to your point --- I am very much of the opinion the only reason Catholic schools go along with contemporary thought on evolution is because 1) it is not a deal breaker on the condition of the soul and therefore why bring in more controversy upon itself? We are already suffering horribly from popular opinion and treatment by the media on clergy abuses, our positions on birth control, abortion and homosexuality --- what gain is there in pressing the evolution argument? Yes, I do believe this. I do not think the vast majority of priests or bishops care all that much one way or another if we evolved or were created. They only insist God was the authore either way and that is all that really matters.

While it is true that the Catholic church has taken a huge hit due to the pedophile priest issue and on the abortion issue and birth control, the Catholic Church agreed that the theory of evolution has merit long before these other items even became an issue for the church. The Catholic Church owns a lot of hospitals and universities, and conducts a lot of medical research. They simply recognize that it is very difficult to conduct such research while ignoring/denying the very foundation of said research. And Turzovka, we aren't talking about priests teaching evolution, although some undoubtedly do. We are talking about the fact that the Catholic Church accepts the theory and allows it to be taught in their schools (and has allowed it to be taught for many decades).

Didn’t know what? This is no papal bull or decree of any sort. I did read the words “may have” which is far from a position of certitude. I explained it all already above.

And you were incorrect, and still are.

The Vatican's View of Evolution: Pope Paul II and Pope Pius

The quote mining charge --- speaking of a lame defense. Since you don’t like what someone said, you or anybody trots out the quote mining defense. That is weak.

No sir. What is weak is continuing to use a creationist method of misdirection and deception that is well known and considered completely unacceptable by the academic community.

Dance around the facts all you want, but there is no question Gould, Stanley and many other great evolution scientists are greatly troubled there is no fossil evidence for gradual evolution. You know what that says to me personally? ----- if there is no evidence for gradual evolution then evolution never occurred. God created every species in their fully developed form. If evolution occurred it would be patently obvious in both the fossil evidence, and it would be perpetually occurring in significant observant forms here and now, not just some micro-changes within a species or with some bacteria under a microscope. Finally, I do not care that Gould is an ardent believer in evolution, his honest statements on the lack of evidence are crushing to the theory.

Except that he was wrong about there being no evidence, as was Stanley. Furthermore, you creationists misunderstand what they were saying.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In an often quoted remark, Gould stated, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."[40] Although there exist some debate over how long the punctuations last, supporters of punctuated equilibrium generally place the figure between 50,000 and 100,000 years.

I know. Since science after centuries of search cannot find those rare and pined for transitional fossils they have altered the theory instead. I am sure the only problem is we have yet to find all those species of half lizard half birds that must exist? No doubt there are also all other interesting species that were the missing links to what finally became a platypus, and so many other extremely odd creatures?

Ahem:

I've come to expect because I know that you people will never take me up on the offer because you are all cowards, hiding behind your bling faith, too afraid to face the real world. You have my sympathy, truly you do.

What on earth could your field trip provide that your beloved websites like talkorigins.com do not already provide or suggest?

Geology is ALL about field work. You can read every book on geology that exists, go to every web site, but until you go into the field and see DIRECTLY the evidence, learn how to collect that evidence, and what evidence to collect, and apply in the field what you've learned elsewhere, evidence upon which all those books and web sites are based, you lack the most basic understanding of the science. We geologists understand this. This is why every geology student is required to complete extensive field course work prior to graduating. It is not a minor issue. To come to the unsupported conclusions you do without having done ANY field work at all or gone into the field to see the evidence first-hand is incredulous, to say the least.

That sounds vaguely familiar to me. It reminds me of this (forgive me if I paraphrase it poorly) --- “we had to have evolved from primitive animals because our DNA, etc. has so much in common with them.”

My statement is true regardless of the truth of the theory of evolution.

And I call that junk science, but more importantly, so do many scientists much more learned than I.

Really? Perhaps you can provide a list of names of scientists who think that statement is junk science.

Now you are suggesting what with the astronomy line? That there has to be other intelligent life out there because of the nearly infinite size of the universe? Or that given planets surrounding 70 sextillion stars (science’s latest estimates) it is nothing for life to evolve by chance with that much real estate and billions upon billions of years? Or maybe you can clarify your point for me? Here is my point. God created the immeasurable universe for man to be in awe of his creator. And to give thanks for what God has revealed and what we have been given.

So what you are saying is that your god is so insecure of himself that he had to create a universe, then create humans to put in that universe so they could marvel at how great he is? I am seeing a facepalm moment here.

My point is that the idea that man's "sin" has any value in the face of the utter vastness of the universe in comparison is meaningless.

 

[orogenicman]

Would someone please prove I evolved from a single-celled animal?

Nothing is ever finally proved in science. The best we can say is that all, repeat all, the evidence we have indicates that you and I evolved from a single cell individual. Call it an animal or plant as you wish.

Scientific statements can be disproved, never proved. Unlike religious statements which are just faith-based waffle, incapable of either proof or disproof.

For clarification, the theory of evolution does not say that we evolved from a single cell individual. Evolution is about changes in populations, not in individuals.

 

[turzovka]

I will try to read up on your response #84 if I can find the time.

Well, I am still waiting for your response.

Response: It was a pointless narrative as far as I was concerned. So some crazy Isamic nations punish what they call blasphemy as some capital crime? What of it? What does that have to do AT ALL with what I was referring to? I am speaking of a condition between you and God, period. Not unlike any other sin you may have committed. It is between you and God. No Christian church, no local or federal government or authority is going to make note of it or care or follow up. So please, don’t throw mud at the Christians’ wall hoping some of it might stick.


What evidence do you have that Catholic universities are teaching classes in violation of "Catholic teaching"?

Any Catholic university that holds regular showings of the Vagina Monologues or hosts “Queer film festivals” is in direct violation of God’s and the Church’s teachings. Boston College hired an atheist to head its theology department. The evidences is easily accessible if you were truly interested.
http://cns.winxweb.com/Portals/0/docs/UCLAStudy.pdf (excerpt: A survey of students at 38 major Catholic colleges reveals that graduating students are predominantly pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, and only occasionally pray or attend religious services. Nine percent of Catholic students abandon their faith before graduation.)


As for the violation of "biblical morals", who put you in charge of Catholic doctrine?

Who gave you the right to pretend you know nothing and are therefore an innocent onlooker?


We are talking about the fact that the Catholic Church accepts the theory and allows it to be taught in their schools (and has allowed it to be taught for many decades).

Yes, you are correct on it being taught in some schools, but only to some extent. Again, there is not and never has been any formal teaching, statement or doctrine on evolution. We are free to believe as we wish without any fear of sin or penalty.


Except that he was wrong about there being no evidence, as was Stanley. Furthermore, you creationists misunderstand what they were saying.

I see. You know more on the subject matter and evidence than Gould or Stanley? And you don’t think they would have given their right arm to have seen fossil evidence of gradual evolution between species?


In an often quoted remark, Gould stated, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

Oh, just some minor detail I suppose? And his term “generally lacking” is his way of mitigating the harsh facts he knows, that is, totally lacking! And Stanley is not mincing words. He says no fossil evidence between species, period!


[Your pictures of animals. ]

Nice. What is that animal in the middle supposed to represent? Are you telling me that is an ancestor of the platypus? No website I found is claiming that? Sounds like science working overtime again, throwing enough mud hoping some will stick. This website seemed to be the most focused on trying to explain the evolution of the platypus.
Monotremes: the First Mammals and their Descendants | ferrebeekeeper
Even they admit their “artists drawings” of the earlier animals came from one jaw bone. Gamesmanship with a serious purpose I call it.

Really? Perhaps you can provide a list of names of scientists who think that statement is junk science.

This stuff is easily accessible, if you cared. Here, for example. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
And a few quotes from some of those scientists clearly doubting, but being very kind in their attack for the sake of courtesy. Dissent From Darwin Blog
Dr. David Berlinski writes exceedingly on the subject. He mocks the evolution science claims with reason. What is so interesting about him is that he also admits he is an agnostic and has absolutely no religious reason to oppose. He is simply not going to compromise his integrity for the sake of the party line.


So what you are saying is that your god is so insecure of himself that he had to create a universe, then create humans to put in that universe so they could marvel at how great he is? I am seeing a facepalm moment here.

I am? I am merely giving you my guess as to why God created a universe so vast. For you or man to just accept it “just happened on its own” and therefore also conclude there must be more intelligent life out there is just as much of a guess as mine, and even more inane because you cannot even arrive with God as a premise. And the evidence for God is far more prevalent than just the origin of life question.

My point is that the idea that man's "sin" has any value in the face of the utter vastness of the universe in comparison is meaningless.

Not as meaningless as what you are trying to suggest with that statement!!!??? That is my opinion only.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm going to speak the truth of what I see and observe, even if you don't want me to. You are free to not listen and ignore. I wish you no ill will whatsoever. I am just not going to stop speaking the truth I see because you don't want to hear it.

Now should the Lord correct me and show me I am wrong about something, I will gladly correct my observations.

There is a God in Heaven and we have an adversary seeking to drag us down to hell. He will try to do it subtlely or with force. But regardless of the tactic he uses, he is real. He is just as real as the Lord is. Denying it wont change it. Nor will believing it change it. It just is.

Bellevue must have opened the doors wide and let all the nutz out.

Who depressing it must be Orogenicman to live in a country where creationists roam just as though the enlightenment had never happened. Here in Sweden the only visible creationists are most of the Muslim minority.

Isn't it odd that in the USA, which imagines that it has separated church and state, religious creationist nutz who stand for public office are not laughed off the platform? They would be here.

Is this the nation to which you refer???


1. "Sweden is the poster state for those who believe in the power of the government to solve all problems.
Frequently referred to as a "benevolent" socialist or social democratic state, to distinguish it from the run-of-the-mill socialist butcher shop, such as Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia, Sweden is the Promised Land of the Left. Where the USSR was a departure from the genius of Karl Marx, Sweden shows the potential.

2. According to a Swiss federal government statistical comparison of Switzerland and Sweden, the percentage of Swedish unmarried pregnancies in 1996 was 54% percent — roughly equal to the black community in the United States. The reason for this high rate of unwed pregnancies is apparent in both cases, and it is not illegal drugs: the state gives incentives to unwed mothers in the form of social benefits, with predictable results. Why go through the hassle of getting married or staying married when a government check means that such a decision has no practical consequences for your life? Over the long-term, a 54% illegitimacy rate can only undermine Swedish society.

3. From 1934 to 1974, 62,000 Swedes were sterilized as part of a national program grounded in the science of racial biology and carried out by officials who believed they were helping to build a progressive, enlightened welfare state...In some cases, couples judged to be inferior parents were sterilized, as were their children when they became teenagers...... The Swedes were also the first to sterilize the mentally ill, beginning in 1934.

a. ..."90 per cent of [those sterilizied] were women," and that "the practice, which predated and outlived Nazi Germany, started as an attempt to weed out perceived genetic weaknesses, mental or physical defectsand ended as a method of social control." According to Professor Gunnar Broberg, "Young girls were told they would be set free from [mental] homes and prisons ‘if we are allowed to make you calmer.'"


b. ....Sweden lobotomized perhaps 4500 "undesirables," in some cases without the consent of their families:
Some 500 lobotomies were conducted on patients who were not from mental hospitals...including a seven-year-old boy in Umeaa in northern Sweden in 1949. Diagnosed as "mentally retarded, hyperactive", he died during surgery."...One man featured in the documentary, who was lobotomised in 1963, is now 67 and has no concept of time, still believing that his children are small."
Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism ? LewRockwell.com alists.



Was that the nation to which you refer?


And you are critical of the United States?

Or, did I misunderstand your post?

 

[orogenicman]

I will try to read up on your response #84 if I can find the time.

Well, I am still waiting for your response.

Response: It was a pointless narrative as far as I was concerned. So some crazy Isamic nations punish what they call blasphemy as some capital crime? What of it? What does that have to do AT ALL with what I was referring to? I am speaking of a condition between you and God, period. Not unlike any other sin you may have committed. It is between you and God. No Christian church, no local or federal government or authority is going to make note of it or care or follow up. So please, don’t throw mud at the Christians’ wall hoping some of it might stick.

The point is that we see this happening all over the Muslim world, and even Christians in Uganda and elsewhere have done it. Gays in Africa are being killed by Christians. Hell, they are even being killed here. And there was a Christian cult in Uganda that was doing much the same sorts of things to "disbelievers and blasphemers". It took a military intervention to stop it, and their leader (a - possibly former - Catholic Priest) is still on the loose.

Uganda: Religion That Kills - ABC News

So when you talk about blaspheming and punishment, considering Christianity's bloodthirsty history on the matter, naturally, I get uncomfortable about your intentions. Do you believe that killing for Jesus is legitimate human behavior for civilized people to engage in? What about lying for Jesus? See below.

What evidence do you have that Catholic universities are teaching classes in violation of "Catholic teaching"?

Any Catholic university that holds regular showings of the Vagina Monologues or hosts “Queer film festivals” is in direct violation of God’s and the Church’s teachings.

Could you be more specific as to your objections (I say your objections because it isn't clear at all that the Catholic Church has come out against either of those specific items).

Boston College hired an atheist to head its theology department. The evidences is easily accessible if you were truly interested.
http://cns.winxweb.com/Portals/0/docs/UCLAStudy.pdf (excerpt: A survey of students at 38 major Catholic colleges reveals that graduating students are predominantly pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, and only occasionally pray or attend religious services. Nine percent of Catholic students abandon their faith before graduation.)

All that indicates is that the catholic colleges recognize that students and employees have a right to free expression and frees association under the Constitution of the United States. The schools can express dissatisfaction with said activities and counsel against them, but they cannot deny their students or their employees their Constitutional rights. As for the 9 percent, that is a lower number than occurs in the general Catholic population. And most left because they opposed the Church's stance on many social issues. Even priests have left because of their opposition to the Church's stance on those issues. How many Africans, for instance, have to die of STDs because the church opposes contraception?

As for the violation of "biblical morals", who put you in charge of Catholic doctrine?

Who gave you the right to pretend you know nothing and are therefore an innocent onlooker?

You didn't answer my question, and you don't get to ask more questions until you do.

We are talking about the fact that the Catholic Church accepts the theory and allows it to be taught in their schools (and has allowed it to be taught for many decades).

Yes, you are correct on it being taught in some schools, but only to some extent. Again, there is not and never has been any formal teaching, statement or doctrine on evolution. We are free to believe as we wish without any fear of sin or penalty.

On this, you are incorrect. I am an 11th generation (former) catholic, from a very large and old American family that can trace their Catholic heritage back nearly 700 years. My family was among the founding members of St. Mary's, the first Catholic English colony in the New World. My family was also among the members who founded the first catholic church west of the Allegheny mountains (at Holy Cross, Kentucky). I have a cousin who is a Catholic priest and another who was a priest before he took his own life. I had an aunt who was a nun, and another cousin who is currently a principal at a local Catholic high school. I tell you this, because you aren't talking to someone who doesn't know anything about catholic issues.

I attended Catholic elementary school for 8 years, and a catholic high school (the same one my cousin is now a principal of) for one year before I switched to public schools because of the physical abuse I received at the hands of one of the teachers there. I was taught the theory of evolution in both of those schools, first in science class in the sixth through eighth grades, and again in earth science class as a high school freshman. It has been taught formally and is being taught today in Catholic schools.

Except that he was wrong about there being no evidence, as was Stanley. Furthermore, you creationists misunderstand what they were saying.

I see. You know more on the subject matter and evidence than Gould or Stanley? And you don’t think they would have given their right arm to have seen fossil evidence of gradual evolution between species?

Gould has his opinions, and everyone else has theirs. Do you you think the entire scientific community agreed with him? They didn't. Did you know that he spent 8 million dollars of someone else's money unsuccessfully trying to prove that all petroleum was of non-biologic origin? I have worked my entire adult life as a professional geologist, and, like Gould and Stanley, am published. Unlike you, for instance I actually spent years collecting, analyzing and publishing my findings of the fossils I found. For instance.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Furthermore, you obviously have decided to ignore the fact that Gould himself was infuriated by the lies you creationists have made up about his statements. Moreover, Gould is dead, and so can't continue to defend himself from the onslaught of lies being told about him from you creationists. See below:

In an often quoted remark, Gould stated, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking (but not completely lacking) at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups (at the genus and above level)."

Oh, just some minor detail I suppose? And his term “generally lacking” is his way of mitigating the harsh facts he knows, that is, totally lacking! And Stanley is not mincing words. He says no fossil evidence between species, period!

And those two gentlemen are not the only paleontologists on the planet. There are fossil specimens, thousands of them, but their provenience is spread out all over hell and back. Which means that overall (in general) they are rare. Why wouldn't they be? Do you understand the nature of fossil preservation? But that is neither here nor there because ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL. You guys made up this issue. It is not an issue that anyone in the paleontology community is losing sleep over.

[Your pictures of animals. ]

Nice. What is that animal in the middle supposed to represent? Are you telling me that is an ancestor of the platypus? No website I found is claiming that?

Well, you see, that is part of the problem. You have no formal education in the field and have to go groping in the dark to find these things out.

Tiktaalik roseae: Home

Sounds like science working overtime again, throwing enough mud hoping some will stick. This website seemed to be the most focused on trying to explain the evolution of the platypus.
Monotremes: the First Mammals and their Descendants | ferrebeekeeper
Even they admit their “artists drawings” of the earlier animals came from one jaw bone. Gamesmanship with a serious purpose I call it.

That was one fossil. Where in that article is the author saying that is the only fossil monotreme specimen in existence? It doesn't because it isn't. They are rare, but not non-existent. See, this is why you need to go on a field trip with me so you can learn how this data is collected and analyzed and why it is important to have field experience.

Really? Perhaps you can provide a list of names of scientists who think that statement is junk science.

This stuff is easily accessible, if you cared. Here, for example. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

And a few quotes from some of those scientists clearly doubting, but being very kind in their attack for the sake of courtesy. Dissent From Darwin Blog

Dr. David Berlinski writes exceedingly on the subject. He mocks the evolution science claims with reason. What is so interesting about him is that he also admits he is an agnostic and has absolutely no religious reason to oppose. He is simply not going to compromise his integrity for the sake of the party line.

That "STUFF" is not science. And Berlinski is an idiot. You can tell him yourself I said so. The courts have already ruled that ID is creationism and that creationism is a religious belief, that it is not science. NONE of the millions of scientists all over the world lend any credence to what any of these handful of misfits have to say on the subject. None of their work is peer reviewed, and none of it is based on original work. NONE OF IT. They do what you do. They cherry pick quotes from imminent scientists, taking them out of context, and make it appear that they agree with the crap findings of the discovery institute. These guys are among the most dishonest human beings I've personally come across. If any ordinary scientist consducted "research" the way these guys do, they've be laughed out of the business. They are unprofessional, and unethical in their conduct and their claims. And you think they are swell. Go figure.

So what you are saying is that your god is so insecure of himself that he had to create a universe, then create humans to put in that universe so they could marvel at how great he is? I am seeing a facepalm moment here.

I am? I am merely giving you my guess as to why God created a universe so vast.

Really? And you don't think that creating a small universe would have impressed us? And why would he need to impress us at all? Does he have some sort of inferiority complex that makes him look to us lowly earthlings to justify his existence? Doesn't that indicate an inherent flaw, a limitation to your supreme being?

For you or man to just accept it “just happened on its own” and therefore also conclude there must be more intelligent life out there is just as much of a guess as mine, and even more inane because you cannot even arrive with God as a premise. And the evidence for God is far more prevalent than just the origin of life question.

Look, if "god did it" works for you, have at it. But if that is the only thing that works for you, we don't need you in the science labs or even in any of the scientific fields. Why? Because, since a major part of the method of science involves questioning EVERYTHING, and testing from all angles and positions, you would be useless in that endeavor. Because "if god did it" is the answer, the ONLY answer, what would be the point of scientific endeavor in the first place?

My point is that the idea that man's "sin" has any value in the face of the utter vastness of the universe in comparison is meaningless.

Not as meaningless as what you are trying to suggest with that statement!!!??? That is my opinion only.

What is it that you think I am trying to suggest?

 

[daws101]

I will try to read up on your response #84 if I can find the time. In the meantime I spend some time on this one:

Well, let me explain it to you as a former Catholic who spent nine years in Catholic schools, the Catholic Church not only does not reject evolution, it teaches evolutionary biology in its schools. Catholic elementary and high schools is where I had my first exposure to it.

Yes, I suspect you are mostly correct. You might notice the spineless Catholic universities in this nation (the majority I fear) offer classes that are in violation of Catholic teaching and in violation of Biblical morals. They put on blasphemous plays and so on. Hardly makes it Catholic.

But to your point --- I am very much of the opinion the only reason Catholic schools go along with contemporary thought on evolution is because 1) it is not a deal breaker on the condition of the soul and therefore why bring in more controversy upon itself? We are already suffering horribly from popular opinion and treatment by the media on clergy abuses, our positions on birth control, abortion and homosexuality --- what gain is there in pressing the evolution argument? Yes, I do believe this. I do not think the vast majority of priests or bishops care all that much one way or another if we evolved or were created. They only insist God was the authore either way and that is all that really matters.


In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic TE position, according to which God created, evolution occurred, human beings may indeed have been descended from more primitive forms, and the Hand of God was required for the production of the human soul. You didn't know this? Huh.

Didn’t know what? This is no papal bull or decree of any sort. I did read the words “may have” which is far from a position of certitude. I explained it all already above.


Quote mining scientists is the primary trade of creationists, and frankly, the only argument (and a very lame one) that they can make. That's just sad.

The quote mining charge --- speaking of a lame defense. Since you don’t like what someone said, you or anybody trots out the quote mining defense. That is weak. Dance around the facts all you want, but there is no question Gould, Stanley and many other great evolution scientists are greatly troubled there is no fossil evidence for gradual evolution. You know what that says to me personally? ----- if there is no evidence for gradual evolution then evolution never occurred. God created every species in their fully developed form. If evolution occurred it would be patently obvious in both the fossil evidence, and it would be perpetually occurring in significant observant forms here and now, not just some micro-changes within a species or with some bacteria under a microscope. Finally, I do not care that Gould is an ardent believer in evolution, his honest statements on the lack of evidence are crushing to the theory.


Gee, that' wasn't an expected response - NOT. The argument about transitional species is a spurious argument - ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL.

I know. Since science after centuries of search cannot find those rare and pined for transitional fossils they have altered the theory instead. I am sure the only problem is we have yet to find all those species of half lizard half birds that must exist? No doubt there are also all other interesting species that were the missing links to what finally became a platypus, and so many other extremely odd creatures?

I've come to expect because I know that you people will never take me up on the offer because you are all cowards, hiding behind your bling faith, too afraid to face the real world. You have my sympathy, truly you do.

What on earth could your field trip provide that your beloved websites like talkorigins.com do not already provide or suggest?


If astronomy teaches us nothing else, it is how utterly small and insignificant we are in the great scheme of things.

That sounds vaguely familiar to me. It reminds me of this (forgive me if I paraphrase it poorly) --- “we had to have evolved from primitive animals because our DNA, etc. has so much in common with them.”

And I call that junk science, but more importantly, so do many scientists much more learned than I. Now you are suggesting what with the astronomy line? That there has to be other intelligent life out there because of the nearly infinite size of the universe? Or that given planets surrounding 70 sextillion stars (science’s latest estimates) it is nothing for life to evolve by chance with that much real estate and billions upon billions of years? Or maybe you can clarify your point for me? Here is my point. God created the immeasurable universe for man to be in awe of his creator. And to give thanks for what God has revealed and what we have been given.

BELOW IS A FALSE STATEMENT:
" God created the immeasurable universe for man to be in awe of his creator. And to give thanks for what God has revealed and what we have been given."-turzovka

Prove it

no need, it proves itself ..

 

[daws101]

Because in the end ALL religions go to war. Yet another line of evidence to support my contention that atheism is yet another religion. Agnostics (like me) simply don't care. You believe what you want to, and keep it to yourself, and I'll keep to my scientific view of things.

The religious intolerant of all belief systems are all equally obnoxious.

I was an agnostic for many years then it occurred to me how timid a position it was
.
besides if atheists are wrong...then we can do what lot's death row inmates do.. just before they get the needle.

LMFAO! So you stopped being agnostic because you felt that it was timid? To admit that you don't know?

So I guess in order to prove your manhood, you decided to just go ahead and pick a side on the God question? And this was some sort of rite of passage?

Holy shit, sorry if there's any typos, I'm seriously laughing my balls off while reading this. I've only come across that particular criticism of an agnostic mindset once before, someone telling me I'm agnostic because I'm just too big of a ***** to pick a side. Didn't think I'd see it again, though. . . the guy's IQ was barely in the double digits and typically people dumb enough for that conclusion aren't interested in philosophical conversations.

my shoe size is greater than yours, not to mention my I.Q.

why? you made the false assumption that I was judging your choice..a sure sign of immaturity...would it have made you feel better if I had said something comforting ?

 

[turzovka]

That doesn't make sense, frankly. To the Christian there are no other gods, correct? Just the One God/His Son/Holy Spirit all wrapped in one package and every other god is a lie. So why would it be blasphemy to mock a lie or to disrespect it?

I'm an agnostic. I have seen no proof of gods. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't but they aren't showing themselves in any event. That said, I don't routinely blaspheme or mock other people's religions just because it isn't a nice thing to do. I don't care what anyone does or doesn't believe so long as I am left alone and it is isn't jammed into a classroom.

It would be the same as if I made vulgar remarks to you about your mother --- something you held dearly and cherished. Christian teaching is apparently well hidden to those who give it but a cursory glance. But it could also be a victim of the fact that "Christian teaching" is maligned because my Catholic teaching often deviates greatly from varied Protestant claims of the truth.

I'm an agnostic. I have seen no proof of gods. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't but they aren't showing themselves in any event. That said, I don't routinely blaspheme or mock other people's religions just because it isn't a nice thing to do. I don't care what anyone does or doesn't believe so long as I am left alone and it is isn't jammed into a classroom.

For me personally, I cannot get my head or arms around agnosticism, much less atheism. I am speaking of those who claim to have diligently looked at facts and history and reason and still come away with having "seen no proof of god or gods." I see no proof of Zeus or the Hindu gods or even Allah (as far as how the Muslims distinguish Allah from YHWH). But for the Judeo-Christian G-d, for Jesus Christ?... I am utterly certain of it.

Your classroom lament is a diversion of importance as far as I am concerned. If a child's parents are so secular minded and thoughtless of God or what follows death --- then no classroom will save that child, I fear. They are on a treacherous road.

 

[daws101]

That doesn't make sense, frankly. To the Christian there are no other gods, correct? Just the One God/His Son/Holy Spirit all wrapped in one package and every other god is a lie. So why would it be blasphemy to mock a lie or to disrespect it?

I'm an agnostic. I have seen no proof of gods. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't but they aren't showing themselves in any event. That said, I don't routinely blaspheme or mock other people's religions just because it isn't a nice thing to do. I don't care what anyone does or doesn't believe so long as I am left alone and it is isn't jammed into a classroom.

It would be the same as if I made vulgar remarks to you about your mother --- something you held dearly and cherished. Christian teaching is apparently well hidden to those who give it but a cursory glance. But it could also be a victim of the fact that "Christian teaching" is maligned because my Catholic teaching often deviates greatly from varied Protestant claims of the truth.

I'm an agnostic. I have seen no proof of gods. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't but they aren't showing themselves in any event. That said, I don't routinely blaspheme or mock other people's religions just because it isn't a nice thing to do. I don't care what anyone does or doesn't believe so long as I am left alone and it is isn't jammed into a classroom.

For me personally, I cannot get my head or arms around agnosticism, much less atheism. I am speaking of those who claim to have diligently looked at facts and history and reason and still come away with having "seen no proof of god or gods." I see no proof of Zeus or the Hindu gods or even Allah (as far as how the Muslims distinguish Allah from YHWH). But for the Judeo-Christian G-d, for Jesus Christ?... I am utterly certain of it.

Your classroom lament is a diversion of importance as far as I am concerned. If a child's parents are so secular minded and thoughtless of God or what follows death --- then no classroom will save that child, I fear. They are on a treacherous road.

 

[Steven_R]

Your classroom lament is a diversion of importance as far as I am concerned. If a child's parents are so secular minded and thoughtless of God or what follows death --- then no classroom will save that child, I fear. They are on a treacherous road.

When I'm in a classroom or lab, I'm not interested in being saved. All I am interested in is how the natural world functions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

New Atheism believes religion should be countered, criticized and exposed



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

OK, whatever does float the ignorant atheist boat.

what does float an ignorant atheist boat? since I've never met an atheist who was ignorant about god, on the other hand, how to make hospital corners when making your bed, yes

Your ignorance shows in your refusal to admit your ignorance: you can neither empirically nor philosophically disprove the existence of God.

You are, thus, faith believers, yes, just like religionists.

Step off.

 

[daws101]

OK, whatever does float the ignorant atheist boat.

what does float an ignorant atheist boat? since I've never met an atheist who was ignorant about god, on the other hand, how to make hospital corners when making your bed, yes

Your ignorance shows in your refusal to admit your ignorance: you can neither empirically nor philosophically disprove the existence of God.

You are, thus, faith believers, yes, just like religionists.

Step off.

no need to since you cannot empirically, objectively or quantifiably prove that god exists.
wrong! what you claim I believe is diametrically opposed to faith.
thus it's not comparable ..
to try is a kind of masturbation.
**** off.


just for laughs, tell me why and how I am ignorant?

 

[turzovka]

Your classroom lament is a diversion of importance as far as I am concerned. If a child's parents are so secular minded and thoughtless of God or what follows death --- then no classroom will save that child, I fear. They are on a treacherous road.

When I'm in a classroom or lab, I'm not interested in being saved. All I am interested in is how the natural world functions.

I have no problem with that. What you suggest is not a sin.

My point is more along the lines of this: whether one be a doctor or a scientist, a housewife or a bum, we are all going to die. It would behoove any soul on earth to consider what follows. It would behoove any intelligent being to seek out that mystery and to maybe try to make some connections to what all one's neighbors are talking about when they reference this entity called God. If those neighbors suggest they have evidence that our creator exists and He has a purpose for our lives and if we fulfill a minimal amount of ideas we may live happily forever, that should interest you? If not for you, then maybe one might have enough goodness inside of them that it would interest them for the sake of their loved ones? Or does the idea of never seeing your children or loved ones again when they die not cause you any sorrow?

Anyway --- your classroom, and your fossils, and your stars are child's play, even a serious diversion like most things in life (if focused on too much) compared to God, God's purpose, and our eternal destiny. Just because one has a career in science in no way, shape or form excludes them from a higher calling with their time on earth. (and it can all be accomplished outside of the classroom)

 

[Steven_R]

I have no evidence that there is anything beyond death, good or bad. I have no evidence that I an eternal soul of some sorts. I do have evidence that the brain ceases to function at death.

Based on the evidence at hand I must conclude that when I die and my brain ceases to function, that whatever it is that makes me me just ends. I suspect it is like going to sleep and never waking up.

Now, I would love to be wrong and would dearly enjoy seeing loved ones again, but there is no evidence that is going to happen.

I'm not happy about it, but there it is.