By the way, I have to ask, are you going to respond to my response #111?
(a partial)
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.
Is the world shuddering because of Christian extremists about to exact violence and murder upon unsuspecting innocents? Then at least have the decency to acknowledge a general truth and reality of our present day. I will no more accuse atheists of being a gaggle of murderers because of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot if you will not suggest Christians are a serious concern for the world because of some Ugandan sect.
In parts of the world, it is, in fact, "shuddering" because of Christian extremists. At least have the decency to acknowledge the shortcomings of your own religion. Mao, Stalin and Pol pot were despots not because they were atheists, but because they were sociopaths.
orogenicman said:
So when you talk about blaspheming and punishment, considering Christianity's bloodthirsty history on the matter, naturally, I get uncomfortable about your intentions.
turzovka said:
“Christianity’s bloodthirsty history,” yes, of course, how could one look upon it in any other way? This is highly disingenuous of you.
Why do you believe that pointing out Christianity's many failings to be disingenuous?
turzovka said:
It also draws me to believe you really are far more interested in advancing your own agenda than you are in seeking the truth.
What agenda would that be?
turzovka said:
Generally speaking, Christianity civilized a barbaric world, modernized Western Europe, brought forth education, medical care, government and charity to an abandoned number of people. Not without sin or error, we must grant you that. But for you to characterize Christianity as some scourge upon a godless, thoughtless world is iniquitous, IMO.
Generally speaking, Christians were responsible for the deaths of millions of Native Americans, stealing their lands and subjugating them to reservations. Before you "saved" these people, wouldn't it have been wise to ask them first if they needed to be "saved"? Oh, and, turzovka, the Native Americans were not "godless". Far from it.
orogenicman said:
Do you believe that killing for Jesus is legitimate human behavior for civilized people to engage in? What about lying for Jesus?
“A time to love, a time to hate. A time to live, a time to die.” In opposing demonic forces like Naziism is a call for killing in defense of the innocents. How many more examples would you like?
Hitler was a Catholic. Try to argue from facts instead of slogans.
orogenicman said:
]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?
turzovka said:
Catholic universities have an obligation to abide by their mission statement and to uphold certain Catholic teachings and principles.
As long as those principles do not violate the constitutional rights of their students.
turzovka said:
Suffice it to say their actions demonstrate they are not doing this and are in fact working directly against those principles. That may not disturb you, but I can assure you it disturbs Jesus Christ.
I can assure you that you don't speak for Jesus Christ.
turzovka said:
Enough said. Artificial contraception is a violation against GodÂ’s law.
In your opinion. But then, you are not the spokesman for an imaginary sky daddy.
=turzovka said:
You put the Catholic Church in a very difficult position with Africa. It is like asking the pope should a 15 year old boy wear a condom when having intercourse with his 13 year old neighbor?
So you would prefer that the 15 year old NOT wear a condom, and get the 13 year old pregnant and possibly infect her with AIDs? Don't talk to me about morality when you cannot see past your own blinders. Should these supposed 15 and 13 year olds have sex? In a perfect world, no. But we do not live in that perfect world. In the world in which we live, these children ARE having sex, getting pregnant, AND dying from STDs by the millions. All because you Christians have an aversion to latex.
turzovka said:
I might add, the Catholic Church (to my understanding) does more for AIDS patients around the world than any other institution, by far!
Well, there is certainly NO evidence to substantiate that claim. The fact is that no entity has pour more money and resources into the fight against AIDS than has the U.S. government. The Vatican doesn't even rank in the top 20. In fact, the Vatican has largely been a show stopper in efforts top prevent the spread of these diseases.
turzovka said:
God gave me the gift to reason and discern.
When you learn how to use it, let me know.
turzovka said:
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.
turzovka said:
All that does is give me pause as to why you have come away thinking all your relatives are so misguided in their allegiance?
For the same reason why I believe that all theists are misguided; because they've been deceived.
turzovka said:
It also makes me wonder what kind of Christian or unbeliever you truly are?
Erm, I can be one or the other, not both. What kind do you believe I need to be other than what
I believe
I should be?
turzovka said:
As to evolution taught in Catholic schools, I already addressed that and told you why I believe it is allowed. Basically, because the Catholic Church has bigger fish to fry and does not want to alienate more people with unnecessary controversies. You can believe in evolution and go to heaven. No problem.
And again, I've already pointed out that that isn't it. Recall what both Popes Paul and John-Paul said about the issue.
orogenicman said:
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.
=turzovka said:
I can understand your passion then, and also your disgust with the likes of me. No problem, but that does not really change anything does it?
No, simply discussing this on a forum doesn't change anything. I believe I could persuade you otherwise if you'd agree to go on a geologic field trip with me. I've asked nearly every creationist I've ever met online to do this and to date none have agreed to do it. I'm not a criminal, a mass murderer, or a serial rapist, and quite a few people online (including on these forums) know who I am. So why do you think no creationist will agree to go into the field with me to see the scientific evidence first-hand? What are they afraid of?
turzovka said:
The point is, there are very learned and qualified scientists on both sides of this issue, and you need to understand why.
That is not true, actually,. First of all, there are no sides to this issue. The theory of evolution is a long-accepted scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet. It is, in fact, one of the best scientific theories ever devised to explain anything. Secondly, the bulk of people who are fighting against the theory are not experts in the requisite fields - in fact, most of them aren't even scientists, and nearly every single one has, at best, a poor understanding of the theory, and even of the scientific method.
turzovka said:
It is surely not political, nor is it for religious reasons that these particular scientists are unwilling to acquiesce to what some refer to as “facts” that bolster their theory.
Hogwash. The courts have already spoke to this matter. Creationism is entirely a minority religious belief, and ID was and is a scam to try to get creationism to appear to be something it is not in order to try to get it taught in the public schools. Now who is being disingenuous?
turzovka said:
One major dissention: They do not accept there are transitional fossils between species in the known fossil record. And no transitional fossils, no evolution. I find your other charge “all fossils or species are transitional fossils” to be utterly spurious, if not desperate.
Repeating a lie does not make it true no matter how many times you recite it. This is what is called "lying for Jesus". All species are in transition because all species change. This is a well documented fact. For instance, the Western English sparrow can no longer breed with the Eastern English Sparrow despite the fact that the English Sparrow was introduced (accidentally) into this country only about 100 years ago. This is because they are undergoing genetic isolation. This species is documented to be in transition. It is likely that in another few hundred years, they will be entirely different species.
turzovka said:
Groping, yes perhapsÂ… but I am far from the only one groping or grappling. As Dr. Berlinski put it: The fundamental core of Darwinian doctrine, the philosopher Daniel Dennett has buoyantly affirmed, "is no longer in dispute among scientists." Such is the party line, useful on those occasions when biologists must present a single face to their public. But it was to the dead that Darwin pointed for confirmation of his theory; the fact that paleontology does not entirely support his doctrine has been a secret of long standing among paleontologists. "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." Small wonder, then, that when the spotlight of publicity is dimmed, evolutionary biologists evince a feral streak, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins, and John Maynard Smith abusing one another roundly like wrestlers grappling in the dark.
As I asked before, you do realize, of course, that Gould and Stanley were in the minority in their opinions. Look, I've worked in the field of geology since 1988, and know most of all the major players, particularly in invertebrate paleontology. So when you bring up the names of Stanley and Gould, I just have to snicker. When you bring up the name of Berlinski, who's degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on, I just have to groan.
Gould and Stanley were and are still being misquoted. The fossil record is full of transitional species because ALL species are transitional. To ignore this fact is to ignore that you have a mother and father. Again, the only ones who claim otherwise are you creationists. How many times do I have to point out Gould's own angst at being misquoted by creationists? How many times?
turzovka said:
As far as your picture of alleged “transitional species” goes, of the one allegedly on its way to platypus splendor ---- is this a pick and choose kind of game?
What? Are you really this stupid? The third one is not "on its way to platypus splendor".
IT IS A PLATYPUS!
turzovka said:
How come the evolution websites I checked out do not put that animal anywhere in the phyletic tree whence the platypus originated from? Did it evolve from your fish/animal or did it evolve from the echidna? Or did those two species have an unlikely chance romantic encounter? ItÂ’s all speculation with a decided agenda. And this is not the only arena where science has embellished either the facts or the gravity of the problem for ulterior reasons. We all know how all these universities and camps lobby for government grants to fund their programs and overstate the danger --- at the expense of other more pressing needs for this world I might add.
WTF are you babbling about? The second image (I assume that is what you are rambling on about) is not a platypus in waiting. It is a transitional species between a fish and an amphibian. Did you not check out the link I provided?
orogenicman said:
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 conducted "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.
turzovka said:
I totally reject your conclusions. Dishonesty is at least equally on your favored side, IMO, if not far more so.
Fortunately, the facts do not rely on whether or not you accept or reject them. You are not an expert in this field. I am.
turzovka said:
Now you are bringing into the discussion inane arguments. You are telling me that God could never have created an almost infinitely vast universe for our wonder and awe because if that was His only objective, He could have done it on a much smaller scale and not “wasted” so many resources? Is that your point? You would have been far better off telling me that my speculations are pure guesswork without any sound backing and I would have agreed with you. But to suggest God would have been a fool to have done so for said reasons or because of some inferiority complex is making you the fool, IMO.
Okay, if that is what you want, I can give you that. Your speculations are pure guesswork without any sound backing. Worse, it is nothing more than wishful thinking. Feel better now?
orogenicman said:
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.
turzovka said:
“Not as meaningless as what you are trying to suggest with that statement!!!??? That is my opinion only.”
orogenicman said:
What is it that you think I am trying to suggest?
turzovka said:
I really cannot say… but it sounded to me like you were saying something like “if God created this vast universe with 70 sextillion stars and one single planet with tens of billions of humans and untold billions of animals, how can one tiny sin of one person be all that important to such and omnipotent God?” And I am here to tell you, that you are sadly, very sadly ignorant of the facts. One tiny venial sin very much grieves Almighty God. Probably far more so than a heard of pigs being wiped out in a barn fire. And nothing defiled shall enter the kingdom of heaven. That one sin if not fully expiated while here on earth will cause one to go through some purification in purgatory.
Again, you are pretending to be the spokesman for an imaginary sky daddy, and I just have to laugh-out-loud.
The point I was trying to make was eloquently expressed by my mentor:
"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become
a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such,
man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.
Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time.
Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).
Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after
world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.
Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totemic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.
In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independently of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.
These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony,
Chaos never returning to Cosmos."
- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus of Geology, University of Louisville, 2002
