It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome

[Cleon]

And you believe Mary evolved from a chance collision of atoms in a swamp pool. Hey where did the atoms come from? Oh I know the Big Bang 14 billion years ago made them.

You're not even pretending to know what you're talking about anymore, are you.

Oh, and in case you missed it--the Catholic Church is ok with the whole evolution thing. Big Bang, too.

 

[DOC]

You're not even pretending to know what you're talking about anymore, are you.

Without a reasoned explanation this statement means nothing.

Oh, and in case you missed it--the Catholic Church is ok with the whole evolution thing. Big Bang, too.

Yes, they believe God said the word and BANG the Universe came into existence.

 

[Cleon]

Yes, they believe God said the word and BANG the Universe came into existence.

Er, no, the Roman Catholic Church is officially A-OK with evolution and the Big Bang:

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Their schools teach the subject better than public schools do.

 

[joobz]

And you believe Mary evolved from a chance collision of non-living atoms in a swamp pool.

You're not even pretending to know what you're talking about anymore, are you.

Without a reasoned explanation this statement means nothing.

Actually it is quite accurate and meaningful.

You see, it is rather obvious to everyone else that you are just making crap up now. Anyone who wishes to debate evolution (if they are honest and not lazy liars), will have read up on the current state of the evolutionary debate. They would know that NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED that random chemical reactions formed Mary, Jesus, paul,... or any other human. That's just such an exceptionally stupid statement.

What is said is that humans have common ancestry with other modern apes. And that these common ancesters had common ancesters... and so forth. But this is far from the retarded random chemical statement you made. For one, there is actual evidence for evolutionary theory. There is no evidence for the crap you are making up.

Why do you need to lie to defend your faith?

 

[DOC]

NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED that random chemical reactions formed Mary, Jesus, paul,... or any other human. That's just such an exceptionally stupid statement.

Sure they have, that's the whole basis for the current generally accepted scientific theory on how life began -- Non living material randomly turned into living material. And I still maintain that to believe that, takes greater faith than being a Christian. You may have the opinion it takes greater faith to believe in one God but I and about 3 billion other people who believe in one God (Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc.) would disagree.

 

[joobz]

Sure they have,....

nope.

there is a far large difference from the foolishness you state and the process of mutation and natural selection. Abiogenesis is a different issue and one that most likely used natural selection, but again...no airplane from a hurricane.
I suggest actually reading and learning. Not spouting nonsense.

this is why you were called out on just making stuff up. But then again, you seem happy with the "goddidit" argument so why should we expect more?

BTW, what evidence do you have for "goddidit"?

this is obviously of the topic of this thread, why don't you post your response in the thread I started for you? Or will you continue to ignore it and act the intellectual coward?

 

[strathmeyer]

Sure they have, that's the whole basis for the current generally accepted scientific theory on how life began -- Non living material randomly turned into living material. And I still maintain that to believe that, takes greater faith than being a Christian. You may have the opinion it takes greater faith to believe in one God but I and about 3 billion other people who believe in one God (Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc.) would disagree.

No.

 

[fuelair]

It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome




And pretty certain Jesus spent many days in Mary Magdalene!! (well, he would have had he existed).

 

[Miss Anthrope]

It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome




And pretty certain Jesus spent many days in Mary Magdalene!! (well, he would have had he existed).

No, no, you've got it all wrong. That was Biff. You see, in the great work Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff--which is absolutely as credible as the Bible--it was the apostle Biff who got jiggy with Mary M. This was before he and "Josh" went out into the world to learn Kung Fu and comfort the Yeti. Also, before the savior learned how delicious bacon was.

 

[Fitter]

No, no, you've got it all wrong. That was Biff. You see, in the great work Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff--which is absolutely as credible as the Bible--it was the apostle Biff who got jiggy with Mary M. This was before he and "Josh" went out into the world to learn Kung Fu and comfort the Yeti. Also, before the savior learned how delicious bacon was.

Don't forget his "problem" with the bottle.

 

[Carnegiea]

It's totally fine to believe in a being that no one has seen (The Bible backs me up on this one, at least once -- John 1:18) who is the only one of his species, who apparently doesn't need to eat, is apparently immortal, all-knowing and all-seeing and can kill people and control the weather through sheer will, violating all sorts of natural laws in the process. And since no one has seen God, ever, including in the Bible, we can only speculate as to his existence.

Believing in evolution, which is supported by observable things like antibiotic resistance, is crazy.

 

[Tanstaafl]

And you believe Mary evolved from a chance collision of non-living atoms in a swamp pool. Hey where did the atoms come from? Oh I know the Big Bang 14 billion years ago made them out some kind of unusual energy that doesn't exist now. How did the Big Bang happen? Ah, we don't know because the physical laws don't explain how the Big Bang could happen.

I think it takes greater "faith" to be an atheist than a Christian.

I know we've established the difficulty of accurate measurements, but this meme is definitely a lightweight.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Sure they have, that's the whole basis for the current generally accepted scientific theory on how life began -- Non living material randomly turned into living material. And I still maintain that to believe that, takes greater faith than being a Christian. You may have the opinion it takes greater faith to believe in one God but I and about 3 billion other people who believe in one God (Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc.) would disagree.

As joobz says, you are confusing Abiogenesis with evolution. We are still trying to figure out the abiogenesis stuff, but evolution is very well understood and supported. And neither states that a modern human being came directly "evolved from a chance collision of non-living atoms in a swamp pool" or that "Non living material randomly turned into living material". (emphasis mine)

And your statement that "about 3 billion other people who believe in one God" is false. Not that it would make a difference (it's not a popularity contest), but most believers understand and accept evolution as fact. It's only a minority of....that don't.

 

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Well just give me three of James Kennedy's lies if you don't want to do 20.




You imply that you pointed out 20 Kennedy lies in the "Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity" thread. You, really start to lose credibility when you make statements like this. But I'm glad your doing it because it hurts your side of the debate..







A few clicks of your mouse looking up the quote and all the many websites and different people that attribute it to Columbus will make you a believer. But I can certainly understand how the Columbus quote blows the mind of someone brought up with secular textbooks.

I think Doc looks good in Maroon.

 

[fuelair]

I do not. I state that I pointed out 20 Kennedy lies in that thread.



Only until someone checks the thread and finds the relevant posts.



You mean, if enough secondary sources lie about something, it becomes true?



It doesn't blow my mind at all. I'm very familiar with religously motivated quote-mining. That's why I ask for a primary source -- because a large fraction of the time, the original quote, in the original context, has nothing to do with the message that the secondary sources would like to present -- again, as has been amply demonstrated in the Jefferson Thread.

DOC, Kennedy is a proven liar. You are a proven liar and quote-miner, in that same thread. Why should I believe that any source you quote actually says what you claim it does?

And you still owe me $20.

Which you will collect when Docs' final home freezes over!

 

[Hokulele]

... I and about 3 billion other people who believe in one God (Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc.) would disagree.

Which one? The descriptions used by the various faiths seem to differ greatly.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

The Great Noodly One.

 

[RandFan]

And you believe Mary evolved from a chance collision of non-living atoms in a swamp pool. Hey where did the atoms come from? Oh I know the Big Bang 14 billion years ago made them out some kind of unusual energy that doesn't exist now. How did the Big Bang happen? Ah, we don't know because the physical laws don't explain how the Big Bang could happen.

I think it takes greater "faith" to be an atheist than a Christian.

You argue from ignorance.

Science is a process not a gospel. I don't have to have faith in the big bang. I don't have to believe in it. I only have to know that it is a hypothesis and might be an explanation of the origins of the universe. I don't live my life by atheism or the big bang. I don't sprinkle big bang water on my car to bless it. I don't eat atheism wafers. I don't pray to science or Darwin. I hold truths provisionally. When a new idea comes along like heliocentrism I don't have to freak out and burn anyone at the stake. I can simply modify my understanding. If evolution turns out wrong that would be fine by me. If relativity turns out wrong, that will be fine by me. I don't care, I really don't give a $&!t. Ultimately I only care to try and understand how my world works, what the truth is. Only that I'm capable of recognizing it and not killing people or imprisoning people or telling them not to use a condom because it will offend my beliefs.

I only have faith in what is easy and rational to have faith in. Peer reviewed scientific consensus is pretty damn easy, especially when I accept their findings provisionally and not dogmatically.

 

[DOC]

Quote from DOC

And you believe Mary evolved from a chance collision of non-living atoms in a swamp pool.

nope.

there is a far large difference from the foolishness you state and the process of mutation and natural selection.

Your response like many of your responses has as its first priority to attack me, the messenger, in any way possible. Reasoned explanations are of secondary importance. That helps me in a way because it detracts from your reasoned explanations and makes it easier to respond to the limited explanations you give.

I never said they weren't different. If I said a baby comes from sex am I saying that a baby and sex are not different. As I said, your main priority is to attack through word manipulation.

Abiogenesis is a different issue and one that most likely used natural selection, but again...no airplane from a hurricane.

Huh?

I suggest actually reading and learning. Not spouting nonsense.
this is why you were called out on just making stuff up.

Abiogenesis is just what I mentioned above with the collision of non-living atoms [chemicals] forming life. I didn't make anything up.

From Wiki on Abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is the formation of life from non-living matter.

________


You suggest reading and learning. Could a person really have a 16000+ hit thread like the Jefferson thread and make 300+ responses in that thread if he didn't do a lot of reading. And would this thread about St. Peter even be in existence if I didn't read about early Christian history. Once again your priority is to attack the messenger -- even if you have to imply obvious falsehoods [like I don't read and learn] to do it.

 

[Cleon]

Your response like many of your responses has as its first priority to attack me, the messenger, in any way possible. Reasoned explanations are of secondary importance. That helps me in a way because it detracts from your reasoned explanations and makes it easier to respond to the limited explanations you give.

Actually, no, this is not the case. joobz' response was:

there is a far large difference from the foolishness you state and the process of mutation and natural selection.

Bolding is in the original--so the "first priority" of the response was to say that your understanding of the process was largely inaccurate. The term "foolishness," which by the way refers to your statement and not you personally, is an afterthought.

In conclusion; no, attacking you "in any way possible" was not joobz' first priority.

However, it is my opinion--and so far I have every thread you've participated in as evidence--that you choose to whine about "attacking the messenger" as a way to deflect from the fact that reality is not on your side.

I never said they weren't different. If I said a baby comes from sex am I saying that a baby and sex are not different. As I said, your main priority is to attack through word manipulation.

But you just said that joobz' first priority was "to attack me, the messenger, in any way possible," and now you're saying that it's "to attack through word manipulation." You've managed to contradict yourself within two paragraphs. Congratulations.

Huh?

Well, figure it out. It's fairly obvious what joobz is talking about--your understanding of evolution and abiogenesis (two completely different topics) is simply incorrect. You've said that "you believe Mary evolved from a chance collision of non-living atoms in a swamp pool," which is simply not how it works. It's like saying a hurricane resulted in an airplane.

Abiogenesis is just what I mentioned above with the collision of non-living atoms [chemicals] forming life. I didn't make anything up.

Yes, you did.

You suggest reading and learning. Could a person really have a 16000+ hit thread like the Jefferson thread and make 300+ responses in that thread if he didn't do a lot of reading.

Yes. Easily.

You seem to have this idea that if a thread you started gets a lot of activity, this is somehow a validation of your arguments. This is wrong. On many levels.

And would this thread about St. Peter even be in existence if I didn't read about early Christian history.

This is dishonest. Of course this thread wouldn't be in existence because you started the damn thread!

Once again your priority is to attack the messenger -- even if you have to imply obvious falsehoods [like I don't read and learn] to do it.

You keep claiming this.

If you honestly believe that a particular post was a personal attack against you, you can report it. It's very simple--there is a small icon at the bottom left-hand corner of each post, an icon that is a small triangle with an exclamation point in it. Click that icon for the post you think is an attack, and put the reason you are reporting it ("personal attack" or some such). The post will then be reported to the moderating team--and if they decide that it is, in fact, a personal attack, they will take action--from editing the offending post to remove the attack to issuing a warning to the poster. In extreme cases, they might even issue a suspension for repeat offenses.

And, as one of the moderators, I will say this right up front: You have my word that if I was involved in the thread, especially if I was debating you, I will recuse myself from any decision involving your report.

I can't be much fairer than that.

If you seriously think that a post is a personal attack and against the rules, report it.

If you don't report a post, then you really have no business whining about it.