Evolution: "remains a bloodthirsty ethic"
All-Seeing-I
the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support. This
nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
Here is what the 'textual evidence' says the Current Pope believes
about evolution:
Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution
An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance" -- zenit.org
ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
<quote>
Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
inadequate. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people
have tried to extend it to a "philosophia universalis," has in fact
been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this
evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model
of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the
fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when
people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately
remains a bloodthirsty ethic. Here, the attempt to distill rationality
out of what is in itself irrational quite visibly fails. All this is
of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical love
of one's neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of oneself, which
is what we need.</quote>
There is the textual evidence. The Pope says:
1) Every explanation of reality should provide a meaningful and
comprehensible basis for ethics.
evolution fails
2) The explaination should offer comfort
evolution fails
3) Even when people try to make evolution more attractive, it
ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic
Jesus' entire ministry addressed meaningful and comprehensible basis
for ethics. Jesus' ministry explained offering comfort, compassion and
love. jesus warned about others that would use his name to teach
attractive and false doctrines.
So despite the fact that the pope has to be a politicial figure, his
views on evolution remain well within the parameters that the Original
Christian, Jesus of Nazareth taught.
Evolution is in direct conflict with what Jesus, The Pope and the
Bible teaches. Therefore it is impossible to be a "theist-
evolutionist" without coming in Jesus' name teaching false doctrin.
--
Take the truth from...
The All Seeing I
Credits
ZE05090123 - 2005-09-01
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-13872?l=english
alextangent
There's bad science in this. Lots. Then there's bad philosophy;
perhaps the Pope is better at religion? Or perhaps it sounded better
in German.
Side note; I wonder if the Pope eats beef, or whether he sticks to
three square meals a day on the Body of Christ?
Will in New Haven
> Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
> the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support. �This
> nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
Why do you care what the Pope thinks? You claim not to be a Christian,
at least when it is convenient to your arguments.
I snipped a bunch of what you posted because I wasn't responding to it
piece by piece.
>
> Evolution is in direct conflict with what Jesus, The Pope and the
> Bible teaches. Therefore it is impossible to be a "theist-
> evolutionist" without coming in Jesus' name teaching false doctrin.
Are you under the impression that all theists, or even a majority of
theists reference Jesus in some important way?
Only if you count the Muslims who revere Jesus as a prophet do you
have a majority of the theists in the world. And including the Muslims
would be quite a stretch.
Of course, your characterization of evolution is emotion-loaded and,
I'm afraid yet again, stupid. It doesn't matter whether evolution
implies competition, even "blood-thirsty competition." What matters is
if it is an accurate description of the development of life. Since it
is accurate, whether it is nice or not doesn't matter. Whether it fits
the teachings of Jesus or not doesn't matter.
The church has long gone along with the teachings of Augustine that
the observed natural world should be trusted, even when it is in
conflict with the Church's teachings.
"What is, is. what should be is a dirty lie." - Lenny Bruce
--
Will in New Haven
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
>the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support. This
>nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
meaningless statement. catholics are free to believe what they want
about evolution.
but creationism is not the position of the church, nor is biblical
literalism. there is NOTHING in catholic teaching which leads to
creationism, or condemns evolution.
>
>Here is what the 'textual evidence' says the Current Pope believes
>about evolution:
>
>Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution
>
>An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance" -- zenit.org
>
>ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
>
><quote>
>Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
>meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
>inadequate
which includes chemisty, physics and biology. no science is related to
ethics.
.. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people
>have tried to extend it to a "philosophia universalis," has in fact
>been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution.
and no scientist believes evolution is related to ethics, or can
provide an 'ethos'.
Yet this
>evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model
>of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the
>fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when
>people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately
>remains a bloodthirsty ethic. Here, the attempt to distill rationality
>out of what is in itself irrational quite visibly fails. All this is
>of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical love
>of one's neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of oneself, which
>is what we need.</quote>
>
>There is the textual evidence. The Pope says:
>
>1) Every explanation of reality should provide a meaningful and
>comprehensible basis for ethics.
well, no he doesn't. read it it again. he says every description of
reality that does not provide a basis for ethics is incomplete.
and that is, in a sense, true. chemistry can not be used to build a
system of ethics. yet chemistry describes an aspect of reality
the same is true for evolution
so you're a liar. you took the pope's words and twisted them. here we
have conclusive proof that
you are a liar.
>
>evolution fails
so does chemistry and physics
see, not only is your READING of this wrong, but your LOGIC is wrong.
try extending the pope's words to physics. what happens? the answer
is what i've said: no science can be the basis of ethics.
so what you've proven is that evolution is as scientific as physics
>
>2) The explaination should offer comfort
>
>evolution fails
meaningless
>
>3) Even when people try to make evolution more attractive, it
>ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic
and chemistry can be used to poison people. so what? 'bloodthirsty
ethic' is an anthropomorphism of a natural process
what this shows, in addition to you bing a LIAR, is that you don't
understand science. if you DID understand, you would have made the
logical extension of the pope's words to physics to see how no science
is an 'ethic'.
you didn't. so your logic is non-existent
and, of course, you won't address these issues, other than to call me
crazy.
>
>Jesus' entire ministry addressed meaningful and comprehensible basis
>for ethics. Jesus' ministry explained offering comfort, compassion and
>love. jesus warned about others that would use his name to teach
>attractive and false doctrines.
jesus didnt explain chemistry or physics. or evolution.
and YOU in a previous post, said jesus was about WAR and KILLING. so
your OWN posts show YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE
>
>So despite the fact that the pope has to be a politicial figure, his
>views on evolution remain well within the parameters that the Original
>Christian, Jesus of Nazareth taught.
>
>Evolution is in direct conflict with what Jesus, The Pope and the
>Bible teaches. Therefore it is impossible to be a "theist-
>evolutionist" without coming in Jesus' name teaching false doctrin.
well, you're a liar
a poor reader
and have no logic.
that's been proven.....adios...cuz you won't respond
you cant
Iain
It's not an ethic.
Try again.
--Iain
Mike Painter
>
> There is the textual evidence. The Pope says:
>
> 1) Every explanation of reality should provide a meaningful and
> comprehensible basis for ethics.
>
> evolution fails
inane claim that there is some comprehensive basis.
The history of the RCC as a major political organization with massive power
shows this.
The vow of "poverty" that most priests take is rather amusing when you look
at the command of wealth that the pope has and the good that could be done
by selling some of the artwork to the world.
>
> Jesus' entire ministry addressed meaningful and comprehensible basis
> for ethics. Jesus' ministry explained offering comfort, compassion and
> love. jesus warned about others that would use his name to teach
> attractive and false doctrines.
How about teh parts when he said you should buy a sword or hate your family?
>
> So despite the fact that the pope has to be a politicial figure, his
> views on evolution remain well within the parameters that the Original
> Christian, Jesus of Nazareth taught.
Has to be? Moral relativity anyone?
All-Seeing-I
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2:19�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
> > the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support. �This
> > nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>
> Why do you care what the Pope thinks? You claim not to be a Christian,
> at least when it is convenient to your arguments.
Because making the claim that the church and the pope support
evolution is a Lie. That's why. However, it is worse then just a lie
because the lie itself is being used as a tool to persuade people from
the truth.
If everything in the bible is true, then the person that coined the
phrase "theist-evolutionist" will have some real issues to face one
day before God. So will those that insist on teaching others that
evolution is compatable with the bible.
The ToE explains man's origins with out the need of the bible OR the
need of God. How exactly can the two be compatable when one does not
even need the other?
> I snipped a bunch of what you posted because I wasn't responding to it
> piece by piece.
>
> > Evolution is in direct conflict with what Jesus, The Pope and the
> > Bible teaches. Therefore it is impossible to be a "theist-
> > evolutionist" without coming in Jesus' name teaching false doctrin.
>
> Are you under the impression that all theists, or even a majority of
> theists reference Jesus in some important way?
> Only if you count the Muslims who revere Jesus as a prophet do you
> have a majority of the theists in the world. And including the Muslims
> would be quite a stretch.
>
> Of course, your characterization of evolution is emotion-loaded and,
> I'm afraid yet again, stupid. It doesn't matter whether evolution
> implies competition, even "blood-thirsty competition." What matters is
> if it is an accurate description of the development of life. Since it
> is accurate, whether it is nice or not doesn't matter. Whether it fits
> the teachings of Jesus or not doesn't matter.
>
> The church has long gone along with the teachings of Augustine that
> the observed natural world should be trusted, even when it is in
> conflict with the Church's teachings.
What Augustine has said has been misused and abused by atheists for so
lomg it is not even funny. The Pope has made that clear too..
Burkhard
Neither does the theory of gravity. So, we have
a) the pope thinks the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't
provide a theory of ethics
b) you misunderstand the Pope
since the pope is now fool, and your track record is less from
distinguished, I go with b)
More specifically, the pope in above passage simply points out the
(since Hume, one woudl have thought) common place that descriptive
scientific theories cannot be an account of _all_ of reality since by
definition, they have nothing to say about the "ought". And where
science tries to move into this territory, it transgresses its own
methodological rules. So since including the ToE is just fine as long as
it does to get "religious" aspirations to offer a theory of "all of
reality".
No sensible person would disagree with that.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Dec 13, 1:33�pm, Will in New Haven
><bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 2:19�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
>> > the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support. �This
>> > nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>>
>> Why do you care what the Pope thinks? You claim not to be a Christian,
>> at least when it is convenient to your arguments.
>
>Because making the claim that the church and the pope support
>evolution is a Lie.
wrong. the vatican sponsored a conference on evolution in march of
this year
creationists were refused admittance
>
>If everything in the bible is true, then the person that coined the
>phrase "theist-evolutionist" will have some real issues to face one
>day before God. So will those that insist on teaching others that
>evolution is compatable with the bible.
why is evolution taught at the vatican? at the catholic university of
america?
you have NO proof that the vatican has condemned evolution. none
>
>The ToE explains man's origins with out the need of the bible OR the
>need of God. How exactly can the two be compatable when one does not
>even need the other?
chemistry explains the origins of variation in life without reference
to god as well.
every science does. where did you get the idea that science needs to
explain nature via god?
Will in New Haven
> On Dec 13, 1:33�pm, Will in New Haven
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 2:19�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
> > > the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support. �This
> > > nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>
> > Why do you care what the Pope thinks? You claim not to be a Christian,
> > at least when it is convenient to your arguments.
>
> Because making the claim that the church and the pope support
> evolution is a Lie. That's why. However, it is worse then just a lie
> because the lie itself is being used as a tool to persuade people from
> the truth.
>
> If everything in the bible is true, then the person that coined the
> phrase "theist-evolutionist" will have some real issues to face one
> day before God. So will those that insist on teaching others that
> evolution is compatable with the bible.
>
> The ToE explains man's origins with out the need of the bible OR the
> need of God. How exactly can the two be compatable when one does not
> even need the other?
I have written Haiku and broken a man's arm in the same afternoon.
They did not need each other. They did not _reference_ one another.
The ToE explains reality but not all of reality. This is better than
creationism, which explains all of reality but not very well. That is
because the different flavors of creationism attempt to explain the
unknowable and describe the indescribable. They will not let the
mysteries BE.
>
>
>
> > I snipped a bunch of what you posted because I wasn't responding to it
> > piece by piece.
>
> > > Evolution is in direct conflict with what Jesus, The Pope and the
> > > Bible teaches. Therefore it is impossible to be a "theist-
> > > evolutionist" without coming in Jesus' name teaching false doctrin.
It would be impossible to have evolution as a model for your behavior
and still act as a Christian. However, the study of evolution does not
PROPOSE that evolution be a model for ones behavior. Those who believe
that they SHOULD use evolution as a guide for their behavior make very
bad neighbors, as bad as some Christians.
> > Are you under the impression that all theists, or even a majority of
> > theists reference Jesus in some important way?
> > Only if you count the Muslims who revere Jesus as a prophet do you
> > have a majority of the theists in the world. And including the Muslims
> > would be quite a stretch.
>
> > Of course, your characterization of evolution is emotion-loaded and,
> > I'm afraid yet again, stupid. It doesn't matter whether evolution
> > implies competition, even "blood-thirsty competition." What matters is
> > if it is an accurate description of the development of life. Since it
> > is accurate, whether it is nice or not doesn't matter. Whether it fits
> > the teachings of Jesus or not doesn't matter.
>
> > The church has long gone along with the teachings of Augustine that
> > the observed natural world should be trusted, even when it is in
> > conflict with the Church's teachings.
>
> What Augustine has said has been misused and abused by atheists for so
> lomg it is not even funny. The Pope has made that clear too..
Exactly how has Augustine's statement been misused. Have you spoken to
him lately, you lying sack of shit.
By the way, set yourself on fire.
heekster
Part One
>Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
>the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support.
Part Two
All-seeing-I
This does not change the fact that evolution and Christianity are not
even in the same neighborhood explaining the origins of man. The
versions conflict in such a way that it is impossible to believe in
both at the same time.
>
> > > I snipped a bunch of what you posted because I wasn't responding to it
> > > piece by piece.
>
> > > > Evolution is in direct conflict with what Jesus, The Pope and the
> > > > Bible teaches. Therefore it is impossible to be a "theist-
> > > > evolutionist" without coming in Jesus' name teaching false doctrin.
>
> It would be impossible to have evolution as a model for your behavior
> and still act as a Christian. However, the study of evolution does not
> PROPOSE that evolution be a model for ones behavior. Those who believe
> that they SHOULD use evolution as a guide for their behavior make very
> bad neighbors, as bad as some Christians.
We seem to agree on some level.
>
>
>
> > > Are you under the impression that all theists, or even a majority of
> > > theists reference Jesus in some important way?
> > > Only if you count the Muslims who revere Jesus as a prophet do you
> > > have a majority of the theists in the world. And including the Muslims
> > > would be quite a stretch.
>
> > > Of course, your characterization of evolution is emotion-loaded and,
> > > I'm afraid yet again, stupid. It doesn't matter whether evolution
> > > implies competition, even "blood-thirsty competition." What matters is
> > > if it is an accurate description of the development of life. Since it
> > > is accurate, whether it is nice or not doesn't matter. Whether it fits
> > > the teachings of Jesus or not doesn't matter.
>
> > > The church has long gone along with the teachings of Augustine that
> > > the observed natural world should be trusted, even when it is in
> > > conflict with the Church's teachings.
>
> > What Augustine has said has been misused and abused by atheists for so
> > lomg it is not even funny. The Pope has made that clear too..
>
> Exactly how has Augustine's statement been misused. Have you spoken to
> him lately, you lying sack of shit.
It is highly unlikely that Augustine would defend the ToE using a
direct challenge to what Jesus and the bible teaches. But he has been
misunderstood to do just that.
Even if he had. Any organization as large as the CC will have it's
share of traitors. Although that is not the case with Augustine. He is
just being misunderstood.
> By the way, set yourself on fire.
Wouldn't you like the pleasure of doing that yourself?
All-seeing-I
> > This nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eric Root
But the ToE doesn't challenge the Bible in any way. It just explains
why living things are the way they are. Augustine would look at you
like you're nuts and say, "where's the problem?"
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>This does not change the fact that evolution and Christianity are not
>even in the same neighborhood explaining the origins of man. The
>versions conflict in such a way that it is impossible to believe in
>both at the same time.
in your opinion.
you've lied about the position of the catholic church
so why should we believe you? all we have here is your opinion.
>>
>> Exactly how has Augustine's statement been misused. Have you spoken to
>> him lately, you lying sack of shit.
>
>It is highly unlikely that Augustine would defend the ToE using a
>direct challenge to what Jesus and the bible teaches. But he has been
>misunderstood to do just that.
he actually did. because literalists existed in his day. and pagan
philosophers like porphyry tried to make christianity a laughingstock,
just like you're doing today.
do you REALLY think your idea is new? that it's revolutionary? it's so
old that the ancients laughed at it and it threatened to destroy
christianity
>
>Even if he had. Any organization as large as the CC will have it's
>share of traitors. Although that is not the case with Augustine. He is
>just being misunderstood.
>
it's laughable...every single time you get your ass handed to you, you
assert the sources are being 'misunderstood'.
how many popes, bishops and theologians have to be 'misunderstood'
before you finally realize you're full of shit?
Will in New Haven
Not "like he's nuts." "As he is nuts."
Because he's nuts.
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 13, 1:33 pm, Will in New Haven
>> Why do you care what the Pope thinks? You claim not to be a
>> Christian, at least when it is convenient to your arguments.
>
> Because making the claim that the church and the pope support
> evolution is a Lie. That's why. However, it is worse then just a lie
> because the lie itself is being used as a tool to persuade people from
> the truth.
The Catholic Church, and the Pope agree that evolution is science. What he
is saying is that it's not a good thing to treat evolution as a moral guide.
>
> If everything in the bible is true, then the person that coined the
> phrase "theist-evolutionist" will have some real issues to face one
> day before God. So will those that insist on teaching others that
> evolution is compatable with the bible.
Evolution is compatable with the Bible, if one realizes the Bible isn't
science, and science isn't a moral guide.
>
> The ToE explains man's origins with out the need of the bible OR the
> need of God. How exactly can the two be compatable when one does not
> even need the other?
Easily. If the two don't need each other, then there isn't any points of
conflict.
snip
>>
>> The church has long gone along with the teachings of Augustine that
>> the observed natural world should be trusted, even when it is in
>> conflict with the Church's teachings.
>
> What Augustine has said has been misused and abused by atheists for so
> lomg it is not even funny. The Pope has made that clear too..
How has Augstine been "misused" or "abused" by atheists? The Pope hasn't
claimed that atheists have misused Augustine.
DJT
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:
>In the "atheists love Jesus and Lies" catagory
>
>On Dec 13, 3:02�pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>> In the "illiterate imbecilities" category,
>>
>> Part One
>>
>> >Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
>> >the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support.
>>
>> Part Two
>>
>>
>>
>> > This nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
OK, I give up. Where's the Chez Watt?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 13, 2:30 pm, Will in New Haven
>> I have written Haiku and broken a man's arm in the same afternoon.
>> They did not need each other. They did not _reference_ one another.
>> The ToE explains reality but not all of reality. This is better than
>> creationism, which explains all of reality but not very well. That is
>> because the different flavors of creationism attempt to explain the
>> unknowable and describe the indescribable. They will not let the
>> mysteries BE.
>
> This does not change the fact that evolution and Christianity are not
> even in the same neighborhood explaining the origins of man.
Why should they be? Evolution is science, not religion. Christianity is
religion, not science. They don't belong in the "same neighborhood".
> The
> versions conflict in such a way that it is impossible to believe in
> both at the same time.
You are making the mistake of thinking both are the same type of
explanation. Evolution is a scientific explanation. It deals with facts,
and and testable theories. Christianity is a religion. It deals with
matters of spirit and belief. The two don't intersect, unless you
mistakenly try to combine the two.
Science isn't a replacement for religion, and religion doesn't do what
science does.
>
>>
>>>> I snipped a bunch of what you posted because I wasn't responding
>>>> to it piece by piece.
>>
>>>>> Evolution is in direct conflict with what Jesus, The Pope and the
>>>>> Bible teaches. Therefore it is impossible to be a "theist-
>>>>> evolutionist" without coming in Jesus' name teaching false
>>>>> doctrin.
>>
>> It would be impossible to have evolution as a model for your behavior
>> and still act as a Christian. However, the study of evolution does
>> not PROPOSE that evolution be a model for ones behavior. Those who
>> believe that they SHOULD use evolution as a guide for their behavior
>> make very bad neighbors, as bad as some Christians.
>
> We seem to agree on some level.
That's what Cardinal Ratziger was saying before he became Pope. That
evolution shouldn't be a guide for one's morality/ That doesn't mean it's
not good science.
snip
>>> What Augustine has said has been misused and abused by atheists for
>>> so lomg it is not even funny. The Pope has made that clear too..
>>
>> Exactly how has Augustine's statement been misused. Have you spoken
>> to him lately, you lying sack of shit.
>
> It is highly unlikely that Augustine would defend the ToE using a
> direct challenge to what Jesus and the bible teaches.
The theory of evolution does not issue a "direct challenge" to what Jesus,
or the Bible teaches, on spiritual matters. The theory of evolution
explains the workings of biology much better than the non scientific legends
of the Bible do, but the purpose of the Bible is not to replace biology.
> But he has been
> misunderstood to do just that.
It's only your own misunderstanding. Augustine wrote that one shouldn't
let a literal reading of the Bible prevent one from learning about the way
the world works. That's exactly what you are saying one should do.
>
> Even if he had. Any organization as large as the CC will have it's
> share of traitors. Although that is not the case with Augustine. He is
> just being misunderstood.
If anyone is misunderstanding Augustine, it's you.
>
>> By the way, set yourself on fire.
>
> Wouldn't you like the pleasure of doing that yourself?
Rather than engaging in such behavior, why not simply take the time and
effort to learn something about evolution?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
> the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support.
As science, yes.
> This
> nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
As are many creationist tracts. What else is new?
>
> Here is what the 'textual evidence' says the Current Pope believes
> about evolution:
>
> Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution
>
> An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance" -- zenit.org
>
> ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
>
> <quote>
> Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
> meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
> inadequate. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people
> have tried to extend it to a "philosophia universalis," has in fact
> been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this
> evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model
> of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the
> fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when
> people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately
> remains a bloodthirsty ethic. Here, the attempt to distill rationality
> out of what is in itself irrational quite visibly fails. All this is
> of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical love
> of one's neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of oneself, which
> is what we need.</quote>
Note that Cardinal Ratzinger doesn't dispute evolution as science, but
criticizes those who would "extend it to a "philosophia universalis""
As Dawkins himself has acknowledged, evolutionary theory is not a good guide
for moral behavior in human populations.
>
> There is the textual evidence. The Pope says:
>
> 1) Every explanation of reality should provide a meaningful and
> comprehensible basis for ethics.
No, what he said was that "every explanation of reality that cannot at the
same time provide a meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics
necessarily remains inadequate". At worst, he believes evolution is
inadequate as a basis for ethics. Since evolution is science, not a basis
for ethics, what's the problem?
>
> evolution fails
It fails to be a basis for ethics. It is, however, a fine scientific
theory.
>
> 2) The explaination should offer comfort
Again, you are are confusing the science of evolution, with an attempt to
make it a basis for ethics. No scientific theory offers "comfort", and
that's not the purpose of a scientific theory in the first place.
>
> evolution fails
Once more, as a basis for ethical behavior, not as science.
>
> 3) Even when people try to make evolution more attractive, it
> ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic
Again, as a guide for ethical behavior. The science of evolution is
solid, but as a guide for treating your neighbor, it's not a good model.
>
> Jesus' entire ministry addressed meaningful and comprehensible basis
> for ethics. Jesus' ministry explained offering comfort, compassion and
> love. jesus warned about others that would use his name to teach
> attractive and false doctrines.
Funny. Just yesterday you were sayin that the Bible's entire message was
warfare, and violence. Also, no one is teaching evolution as a moral
guide, either in Jesus' name, or on the authority of others.
>
> So despite the fact that the pope has to be a politicial figure, his
> views on evolution remain well within the parameters that the Original
> Christian, Jesus of Nazareth taught.
The Pope agrees that evolution is science, not religion. No surprises
there.
>
> Evolution is in direct conflict with what Jesus, The Pope and the
> Bible teaches.
No it's not. What would be in conflict would be teaching evolution as a
religion, and a moral guide. Science doesn't do that.
> Therefore it is impossible to be a "theist-
> evolutionist" without coming in Jesus' name teaching false doctrin.
Evolution isn't a religious doctrine. It's a scientific theory. There's no
one who is teaching evolution in the name of Jesus.
DJT
Ye Old One
Which few supporters of evolution would attempt to do.
[snip more I totally agree with.]
--
Bob.
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> 1) Every explanation of reality should provide a meaningful and
> comprehensible basis for ethics.
That is just asinine and insane. How ice forms from water, or how
life evolves, or how like charges repell, having nothing to say
about "ethics."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
All-seeing-I
Do you LIKE lying to yourself everyday?
You also seem to forgotten a condition that the Pope says has to be
met:
"Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
inadequate."
It was the very first sentence.
Evolution remains inadequate as an explanation for man's origins
because it cannot provide a "meaningful and comprehensible basis for
ethics" within it's explanation.
It has to fall back on the mantra that says science does not deal with
the supernatural therefore science does not pertain to religion. Well.
nothing could be further from the truth. Man is in-fact a spiritual
creature or spirituality would not even exist on this planet.
Therefore science will remain inadequate until it can show that it's
explanations are relevant to mankind on all levels of his existence.
Which includes his spiritual side.
It is a dangerous theory that removes ethics based on what it
considers to be truth without being 100% sure of that truth. Are you
prepared to state right now that the Toe is complete, needs no further
revision and, that no other data will be discovered? If not, then you
are replacing the belief that God created man with a theory that is
not even conclusive. Nor is it a "meaningful and comprehensible basis
for ethics".
Now, let me be clear about one thing. Evolution itself has done, and
will do, some very positive things for mankind. Evolution, en-total,
is not an invalid theory. Many here claim it is all or nothing.
Well,that is nonsense. Evolution can in fact be rejected for it's bad
parts while well received for it's good parts.
OK. What are the a good parts and what is a bad parts? Let's go with
what the 'exact' and observable evidence says. Variation or micro-
evolution seems to be an every day occurrence that lines up with the
biblical explanation "each after his own kind" and it can be observed
happening by anyone.
Macro-Evolution and the science fiction idea of complete speciation
divergence has not been observed by anyone and is based on the
subjective interpretations of the evidence. Divergence is inferred.
Not observed.
It is this form of evolution that supersedes God as the creator of
mankind while not line up with anything biblical and, it lacks a
meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics as outlined by the
Pope.
Believing man evolved from fish is not biblical, it is not
observeable; And, it certainly has nothing to do with a meaningful and
comprehensible basis for ethics.
Therefore it defies logic itself for anyone to believe the bible's
version of man's origins and evo-science's version of man's origins
can be compatible enough to be believe in at the same time as long as
science's version includes species divergence. Why? Because science's
version with divergence lacks a meaningful and comprehensible basis
for ethics.
So the Pope is correct and well within the boundries of what the
Original Christian Jesus Of Nazareth and the bible teaches when he
states that any scientific discovery must contain within it's
explaination " a meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics".
Currently evolution fails that test.
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> Subject: Evolution: "remains a bloodthirsty ethic"
Just as much as gravity is a bloodthirsty ethic.
Mark Evans
> the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support. �This
> nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>
> Here is what the 'textual evidence' says the Current Pope believes
> about evolution:
>
> Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution
>
> An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance" -- zenit.org
>
> ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
>
> <quote>
> Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
> meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
> inadequate. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people
> have tried to extend it to a "philosophia universalis," has in fact
> been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this
> evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model
> of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the
> fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when
> people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately
> remains a bloodthirsty ethic. Here, the attempt to distill rationality
> out of what is in itself irrational quite visibly fails. All this is
> of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical love
> of one's neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of oneself, which
> is what we need.</quote>
>
You seem to think that moral judgements like "bloodthirsty ethic" mean
anything with respect to natural processes. You want bloodthirst?
Look at a cell invaded by the ebola virus. Or try standing under a
ton or so of rock as it falls off a cliff. Heck, let a burning match
fall in the wrong place and see what happens. It does not matter one
bit what you think of the material world. It is what it is and does
not seek or need or respect your opinion.
And by the way, evolution is an observed process, not an "ethic". It
has no morals, no thoughts, no goals. It simply is. Applying human
constructs like morality to it is not only doomed to failure, it is
actually quite stupid.
You know, it seems that for a fellow who claims not to be a member of
a church, the church you are not a member of is the Roman Catholic
Church. Ever think of not changing to some other faith and blackening
their image?
Mark Evans
Ye Old One
You seem to.
>
>You also seem to forgotten a condition that the Pope says has to be
>met:
>
>"Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
>meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
>inadequate."
Evolution, like cosmology or chemistry has nothing whatsoever to do
with ethics. Are cosmology and chemistry inadequate as well?
>
>It was the very first sentence.
>
>Evolution remains inadequate as an explanation for man's origins
>because it cannot provide a "meaningful and comprehensible basis for
>ethics" within it's explanation.
Doesn't need to.
>
>It has to fall back on the mantra that says science does not deal with
>the supernatural therefore science does not pertain to religion. Well.
>nothing could be further from the truth. Man is in-fact a spiritual
>creature
Nah!
> or spirituality would not even exist on this planet.
>Therefore science will remain inadequate until it can show that it's
>explanations are relevant to mankind on all levels of his existence.
>Which includes his spiritual side.
He doesn't have one.
>
>It is a dangerous theory that removes ethics based on what it
>considers to be truth without being 100% sure of that truth.
Evolution doesn't involve ethics. It doesn't need to.
> Are you
>prepared to state right now that the Toe is complete,
No.
> needs no further
>revision and, that no other data will be discovered?
Of course not.
> If not, then you
>are replacing the belief that God created man
Man created god. Why must you always forget that?
> with a theory that is
>not even conclusive.
Because it doesn't need to be. However, it is far more complete than
any other theory so far proposed - and by comparison creationism fails
the first test by not even being a theory.
> Nor is it a "meaningful and comprehensible basis
>for ethics".
Nor would I want it to be.
[snip more abject stupidity.]
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
bpuharic
>>
>> DJT
>
>Do you LIKE lying to yourself everyday?
>
>You also seem to forgotten a condition that the Pope says has to be
>met:
>
>"Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
>meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
>inadequate."
science doesn't form the basis of ethics. so the pope's description is
true. this is true of chemistry and physics
you ignore this fact. because you're a liar
>
>It was the very first sentence.
>
>Evolution remains inadequate as an explanation for man's origins
>because it cannot provide a "meaningful and comprehensible basis for
>ethics" within it's explanation.
which is true for chemistry and physics as well. there is a difference
between being INADEQUATE and being FALSE
you're too stupid to know the difference
>
>It has to fall back on the mantra that says science does not deal with
>the supernatural therefore science does not pertain to religion. Well.
>nothing could be further from the truth. Man is in-fact a spiritual
>creature or spirituality would not even exist on this planet.
>Therefore science will remain inadequate until it can show that it's
>explanations are relevant to mankind on all levels of his existence.
>Which includes his spiritual side.
wrong. science no more has to deal with the supernatural than it has
to deal with ballet dancing. you keep insisting science has to form
the basis of life. it doesn't
the job of science is to explain how nature works. that's it. that's
all.
it does not explain truth. it does not explain beauty. its method is
consistent across all sciences.
YOU create a 'spiritual side'. THAT is meaningful to YOU. it's
meaningLESS to science.
>
>It is a dangerous theory that removes ethics based on what it
>considers to be truth without being 100% sure of that truth
it removes YOUR view of ethics
again and again we keep running into the ASI wall. you insist YOUR
view of nature, YOUR view of ethics, YOUR view of religion, YOUR view
of the bible
is the only one in existence, or is the only one that's true. and that
is WRONG.
.. Are you
>prepared to state right now that the Toe is complete, needs no further
>revision and, that no other data will be discovered?
meaningless question. you keep inserting yourself into an area you
know nothing about: science
evolution is a fact. it's observed. so it's as certain as any other
theory in science.
If not, then you
>are replacing the belief that God created man with a theory that is
>not even conclusive. Nor is it a "meaningful and comprehensible basis
>for ethics".
and you are replacing science with YOUR OPINION about how god works.
science works. YOUR VIEW IS YOUR VIEW. it's ONLY your view. nothing
more. you do not have a veto over science
THAT'S the problem; for thousands of years fanatics have thought THEY
should have a veto over knowledge. the taliban believes that today
it's OFFENSIVE. it's violates MY ETHICS. it violates the constitution.
there is NOTHING in western civilization that gives you this power
because of your religion
>
> Now, let me be clear about one thing. Evolution itself has done, and
>will do, some very positive things for mankind. Evolution, en-total,
>is not an invalid theory. Many here claim it is all or nothing.
>Well,that is nonsense. Evolution can in fact be rejected for it's bad
>parts while well received for it's good parts.
meaningless. the methodology of science leads to the conclusion
evolution is a fact. if you toss out evolution you toss out ALL of
science including chemsitry and physics
>
>OK. What are the a good parts and what is a bad parts? Let's go with
>what the 'exact' and observable evidence says. Variation or micro-
>evolution seems to be an every day occurrence that lines up with the
>biblical explanation "each after his own kind" and it can be observed
>happening by anyone.
no scientist cares what the 'bibilical evidence' is. that is
subjective.
science cares only about what it can TEST. and YOUR VIEW OF THE BIBLE
IS NOT TESTABLE.
evolution IS testable.
>
>Macro-Evolution and the science fiction idea of complete speciation
>divergence has not been observed by anyone and is based on the
>subjective interpretations of the evidence. Divergence is inferred.
>Not observed.
this is your view of science. no scientist uses this view. none. so,
again, you have your personal religoiusly based view of science.
you're welcome to it
you do not have the right to tell me how to do science.
>
>It is this form of evolution that supersedes God as the creator of
>mankind while not line up with anything biblical and, it lacks a
>meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics as outlined by the
>Pope.
wrong. i was a catholic seminarian. the catholic catechism NOWHERE
teaches what you say. it does not mention EITHER evolution OR
creationism as being requried for catholics to believe
>
>Believing man evolved from fish is not biblical, it is not
>observeable; And, it certainly has nothing to do with a meaningful and
>comprehensible basis for ethics.
the MECHANISM IS OBSERVABLE. that's how science works. and that's why
scientists use MECHANISMS rather than 'observations' to test their
theories
if YOUR view of science is right, then science would be confined to
laboratories and to time periods in the lifespans of scientists
NO SCIENTIST BELIEVES THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS
>
>Therefore it defies logic itself for anyone to believe the bible's
>version of man's origins and evo-science's version of man's origins
>can be compatible enough to be believe in at the same time as long as
>science's version includes species divergence. Why? Because science's
>version with divergence lacks a meaningful and comprehensible basis
>for ethics.\\
the bible's meanin has changed radically in 2000 years. and no one
cares what the bible teaches regarding science.
atheists dont care
catholics dont
jews dont'
muslims dont
buddhists dont
you arrogant fundie christians pretend YOU get to determine for ALL
MANKIND what they should believe
and that is evil
>
>So the Pope is correct and well within the boundries of what the
>Original Christian Jesus Of Nazareth and the bible teaches when he
>states that any scientific discovery must contain within it's
>explaination " a meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics".
wrong. the pope is not a scientist. his view of science is merely
that.
his view
Burkhard
Nothing about man's origin in the quote
>
> It has to fall back on the mantra that says science does not deal with
> the supernatural therefore science does not pertain to religion. Well.
> nothing could be further from the truth. Man is in-fact a spiritual
> creature or spirituality would not even exist on this planet.
Fine. For people who believe this religion can deal with how man
acquired spirituality, a non-scientific issue, and science deals with
how we evolved form other creatures. Different issues, different topics,
no conflict
> Therefore science will remain inadequate until it can show that it's
> explanations are relevant to mankind on all levels of his existence.
> Which includes his spiritual side.
>
> It is a dangerous theory that removes ethics
Science does not remove ethics, it just says it has nothing interesting
to say about it - that is left depending on your preferences to
religion, political leaders, professional ethicists etc etc
based on what it
> considers to be truth without being 100% sure of that truth. Are you
> prepared to state right now that the Toe is complete, needs no further
> revision and, that no other data will be discovered?
Nobody ever claimed this nonsense, this is entirely your strawman, all
science is provisional and open to revision. All science, and always.
If not, then you
> are replacing the belief that God created man with a theory that is
> not even conclusive.
Only if you have a piss poor theory of god, for the rest there is n such
problem
<snip drivel>
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 13, 4:23 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>
>>> What Augustine has said has been misused and abused by atheists for
>>> so lomg it is not even funny. The Pope has made that clear too..
>>
>> How has Augstine been "misused" or "abused" by atheists? The Pope
>> hasn't claimed that atheists have misused Augustine.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Do you LIKE lying to yourself everyday?
Of course not. That's why I'm not a creationist. Apparently, you do enjoy
lying to yourself and others.
>
> You also seem to forgotten a condition that the Pope says has to be
> met:
>
> "Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
> meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
> inadequate."
>
> It was the very first sentence.
Yes, he was talking about as a basis for ethics. Evolution is a
scientific theory, not a religious belief, or a guide for morality.
>
> Evolution remains inadequate as an explanation for man's origins
> because it cannot provide a "meaningful and comprehensible basis for
> ethics" within it's explanation.
It's inadequate as a moral guide. It's quite adequate as science.
Science doesn't provide a basis for ethics.
>
> It has to fall back on the mantra that says science does not deal with
> the supernatural therefore science does not pertain to religion.
That's not a 'mantra' but just a truism.
> Well.
> nothing could be further from the truth. Man is in-fact a spiritual
> creature or spirituality would not even exist on this planet.
Apparently you don't feel that God is spiritual then......
> Therefore science will remain inadequate until it can show that it's
> explanations are relevant to mankind on all levels of his existence.
> Which includes his spiritual side.
Science doesn't deal with "spiritual side" of things. That's why we have
religion. Your complaint is that science isn't religion. I don't see
why that's a problem.
>
> It is a dangerous theory that removes ethics based on what it
> considers to be truth without being 100% sure of that truth.
Evolution does not "remove" ethics at all. No scientific theory claims
it's "100% sure". It is, however the best, most useful explanation of the
evidence.
> Are you
> prepared to state right now that the Toe is complete, needs no further
> revision and, that no other data will be discovered?
If it were, it wouldn't be science. This, of course is no impediment to
scientific theories. No scientific theory is ever complete, or incapable
of revision.
>If not, then you
> are replacing the belief that God created man with a theory that is
> not even conclusive. Nor is it a "meaningful and comprehensible basis
> for ethics".
Again, you are falling into the same error. Evolution does not replace
the belief that God created man. It simply explains the evidence in a way
that doesn't require supernatural intervention. If you wish to believe
that God created, it's obvious that's how God created. Evolution never
claimed to be a basis for ethics, and the Pope is quite correct to castigate
those who try to make it one.
>
> Now, let me be clear about one thing. Evolution itself has done, and
> will do, some very positive things for mankind.
Evolution is a fact of nature. Deny it at your own peril.
> Evolution, en-total,
> is not an invalid theory. Many here claim it is all or nothing.
Of course, that would be the creationists. Evolution is a valid theory,
in it's entirety.
> Well,that is nonsense. Evolution can in fact be rejected for it's bad
> parts while well received for it's good parts.
You haven't shown that there are any "bad parts" to reject. You've made
some very foolish claims about evolution, and about science in general, but
have never shown any reason to reject ANY of evolutionary science.
>
> OK. What are the a good parts and what is a bad parts?
I'd suggest that you don't know enough about the theory to judge.
> Let's go with
> what the 'exact' and observable evidence says.
The "exact and observable evidence" says that populations change over time.
That includes macroevolutionary change as well.
> Variation or micro-
> evolution seems to be an every day occurrence that lines up with the
> biblical explanation "each after his own kind" and it can be observed
> happening by anyone.
As does the rest of evolution. You just don't seem to be able to grasp
that.
>
> Macro-Evolution and the science fiction idea of complete speciation
> divergence has not been observed by anyone and is based on the
> subjective interpretations of the evidence. Divergence is inferred.
> Not observed.
All observation is a form of inference. "Species divergence" has been
observed, both directly, and by objective inference. By refering to
"subjective interpretation" you show you don't understand how science works.
>
> It is this form of evolution that supersedes God as the creator of
> mankind while not line up with anything biblical and, it lacks a
> meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics as outlined by the
> Pope.
This is where you are wrong. None of evolution "supersedes God" as
creator. You accuse science of having 'subjective interpetations" but you
use your own entirely subjective interpretation of the Bible to decide what
"lines up" with the Bible. As for a "basis for ethics", no scientific
theory is a basis for ethics. That's not the purpose of science.
>
> Believing man evolved from fish is not biblical, it is not
> observeable; And, it certainly has nothing to do with a meaningful and
> comprehensible basis for ethics.
The fact that all tetrapods, including humans, are descended from fish, and
beyond that, for earlier vertabrates, going back to the last common
ancestor, is just as "Biblical" as accepting the the Earth to be round.
What do you find "Biblical" about denying clear conclusions drawn from the
evidence? Again, the purpose of science is to provide answers to
questions, not to provide a basis for ethics. The Pope doesn't expect
science to do so.
>
> Therefore it defies logic itself for anyone to believe the bible's
> version of man's origins and evo-science's version of man's origins
> can be compatible enough to be believe in at the same time as long as
> science's version includes species divergence.
You are twisting "logic" to fit your own prejudice. The version in the
Bible is a religious belief, not a scientific investigation of the evidence.
Treating it like one totally destroys the meaning of the text. On the
other hand, science is about providing objective answers, not providng a
guide for how one should treat one's neighbors.
> Why? Because science's
> version with divergence lacks a meaningful and comprehensible basis
> for ethics.
One more time: Science is not supposed to provide a basis for ethics.
The Pope understands that, which is why he wrote what he did. He doesn't
however feel that science's version is wrong.
>
> So the Pope is correct and well within the boundries of what the
> Original Christian Jesus Of Nazareth and the bible teaches when he
> states that any scientific discovery must contain within it's
> explaination " a meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics".
Again, the Pope didn't say that any scientific discovery must contain a
basis for ethics. He said that science isn't a basis for ethics, and
shouldn't be treated as one.
>
> Currently evolution fails that test.
None of science would ever pass such a test. The Vatican doesn't oppose
science, and doesn't declare that evolution is wrong. That should tell
you that the Pope isn't demanding that all science must provide a basis for
ethics.
DJT
heekster
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:18:33 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
><ap...@email.com>:
>
>>In the "atheists love Jesus and Lies" catagory
>>
>>On Dec 13, 3:02�pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>>> In the "illiterate imbecilities" category,
>>>
>>> Part One
>>>
>>> >Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
>>> >the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support.
>>>
>>> Part Two
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > This nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>
>OK, I give up. Where's the Chez Watt?
Part one, the sentence is grammatically grotesque. It is incoherent.
It has been subjected to an icepick lobotomy. It has apparently been
waterboarded, had the soles of its feet flogged with a bamboo cane,
and had a 12 volt car battery attached to its nipples.
Part two, nonsesense?
The continued and plentiful misspellings and malapropisms, render the
postings unintelligible.
chris thompson
All-seeing-I
[cut]
>
> The fact that all tetrapods, including humans, are descended from fish, and
> beyond that, for earlier vertabrates, going back to the last common
> ancestor, is just as "Biblical" as accepting the the Earth to be round.
> What do you find "Biblical" about denying clear conclusions drawn from the
> evidence? � � Again, the purpose of science is to provide answers to
> questions, not to provide a basis for ethics. � �The Pope doesn't expect
> science to do so.
I have not read this much rationalization with so much denial in one
post in my life. There was too much bullshit to even attempt a
rational responce. But one point did overwealm the others, which i
retained above.
Please show how humans come from a SCA and how THAT is "Biblical".
Show your work.
All-seeing-I
In the "Children Have No Patience" catagory...
On Dec 13, 6:35�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 13, 6:03 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> [cut]
>>
>> The fact that all tetrapods, including humans, are descended from
>> fish, and beyond that, for earlier vertabrates, going back to the
>> last common ancestor, is just as "Biblical" as accepting the the
>> Earth to be round. What do you find "Biblical" about denying clear
>> conclusions drawn from the evidence? Again, the purpose of science
>> is to provide answers to questions, not to provide a basis for
>> ethics. The Pope doesn't expect science to do so.
> [cut]
>
> I have not read this much rationalization with so much denial in one
> post in my life.
Where? I didn't use any rationalization, or denial. Humans are
tetrapods. Tetrapods evolved from fish. That can be seen in both the
fossil record, and the genetic record. That conclusion follows from the
evidence.
> There was too much bullshit to even attempt a
> rational responce.
You have shown you are not capable of a rational response. That's why
you have not attempted one. If you are too lazy to address the issues,
don't try to dismiss them as "bullshit". Just admit you can't address.
> But one point did overwealm the others, which i
> retained above.
>
> Please show how humans come from a SCA and how THAT is "Biblical".
You want me to show how humans come from a medieval re-creation group?
www.sca.org
My point was that tetrapods evolving from previous life forms is just as
"Biblical" as the Earth being round. Both are scientific conclusions, and
both do not contradict the message of the Bible. There are "Flat Earthers"
who cliam that a round Earth is not "Biblical" but they are just as wrong as
you are.
> Show your work.
Presumably, you disagree with the Flat Earthers that accepting the round
Earth is not Biblical. For the same reason, it's just as biblical to
accept evolution as it is to accept the Earth being round.
DJT
Dave Oldridge
29422f...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
>the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support. This
>nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>
>Here is what the 'textual evidence' says the Current Pope believes
>about evolution:
>
>Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution
>
>An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance" -- zenit.org
>
>ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
>
><quote>
>Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
>meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
>inadequate. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people
>have tried to extend it to a "philosophia universalis," has in fact
>been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this
He is correct. However, the fact that some people have used evolution as
an excuse for their sins does not justify YOU using your antipathy to it
as an excuse for yours.
In point of fact, I hear more creationists expounding evolution as a
basis of ethics than I hear scientists who accept it an whose work is
largely about studying it. I have to keep wondering why you don't accuse
physicists of wanting to push people off cliffs because gravity would
cause them to fall to their deaths. It would be just as logical. I
suspect the reason is that it's more obvious that it's absurd and
wouldn't go over well with your target audience.
I suspect that you will not tire of false witness until you find yourself
reaping the reward for it. It will then be too late.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Boikat
> On Dec 13, 6:03�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> [cut]
>
> > The fact that all tetrapods, including humans, are descended from fish, and
> > beyond that, for earlier vertabrates, going back to the last common
> > ancestor, is just as "Biblical" as accepting the the Earth to be round.
> > What do you find "Biblical" about denying clear conclusions drawn from the
> > evidence? � � Again, the purpose of science is to provide answers to
> > questions, not to provide a basis for ethics. � �The Pope doesn't expect
> > science to do so.
>
> [cut]
>
> I have not read this much rationalization with so much denial in one
> post in my life. There was too much bullshit to even attempt a
> rational responce.
You could not present a "rational response" anyway.
> But one point did overwealm the others, which i
> retained above.
>
> Please show how humans come from a SCA and how THAT is "Biblical".
The topic was "ethics". I know you are ignorant of the concept, but
the least you could do is look up the definition.
>
> Show your work.
Why bother with evidence for common ancestry. The evidence is too
dificult for you to understand, even though most high schoolers can
grasp the principles involved.
Boikat
Burkhard
> On Dec 13, 7:19 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
>> the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support. This
>> nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>>
>> Here is what the 'textual evidence' says the Current Pope believes
>> about evolution:
>>
>> Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution
>>
>> An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance" -- zenit.org
>>
>> ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
>>
>> <quote>
>> Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
>> meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
>> inadequate. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people
>> have tried to extend it to a "philosophia universalis," has in fact
>> been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this
>> of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the
>> fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when
>> people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately
>> remains a bloodthirsty ethic. Here, the attempt to distill rationality
>> out of what is in itself irrational quite visibly fails. All this is
>> of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical love
>> of one's neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of oneself, which
>> is what we need.</quote>
>>
>>
>> comprehensible basis for ethics.
>>
>> evolution fails
>>
>> 2) The explaination should offer comfort
>>
>>
>> 3) Even when people try to make evolution more attractive, it
>> ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic
>>
>> for ethics. Jesus' ministry explained offering comfort, compassion and
>> love. jesus warned about others that would use his name to teach
>> attractive and false doctrines.
>>
>> views on evolution remain well within the parameters that the Original
>> Christian, Jesus of Nazareth taught.
>>
>> evolutionist" without coming in Jesus' name teaching false doctrin.
>>
>> Take the truth from...
>>
>> The All Seeing I
>>
>> Credits
>> ZE05090123 - 2005-09-01
>> Permalink:http://www.zenit.org/article-13872?l=english
>
> "Yet this evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept
> the model of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the
> victory of the fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to
> offer. Even when people try to make it more attractive in various
> ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic."
>
Well, yes, but isn't that his point? When people tried to use the ToE as
basis of philosophy or ethics, it inevitably gave them bad science and
bad philosophy.
> perhaps the Pope is better at religion? Or perhaps it sounded better
> in German.
>
> Side note; I wonder if the Pope eats beef, or whether he sticks to
> three square meals a day on the Body of Christ?
>
All-Seeing-I
SCA = Single Common Ancestor.
You believe the evidence for evolution and do not know what the
accronym for Single Common Ancestor is?
>
> � �My point was that tetrapods evolving from previous life forms is just as
> "Biblical" as the Earth being round. � Both are scientific conclusions, and
> both do not contradict the message of the Bible. �There are "Flat Earthers"
> who cliam that a round Earth is not "Biblical" but they are just as wrong as
> you are.
>
> > Show your work.
>
> Presumably, you disagree with the Flat Earthers that accepting the round
> Earth is not Biblical. � For the same reason, it's just as biblical to
> accept evolution as it is to accept the Earth being round.
Presumably, you cannot show your work or even why you believe fish
gave rise to mammals
>
> DJT
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You obviously missed his point Dana.
The point was the Toe is inadaquate as an explaination for reality:
Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide
meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
inadequate
get it?
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in news:492cdf83-449e-43be-8bf8-
> 29422fbd9...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
> >nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>
> >Here is what the 'textual evidence' says the Current Pope believes
> >about evolution:
>
> >Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution
>
> >An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance" -- zenit.org
>
> >ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
>
> ><quote>
> >Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
> >meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
> >inadequate. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people
> >have tried to extend it to a "philosophia universalis," has in fact
> >been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this
>
> an excuse for their sins does not justify YOU using your antipathy to it
> as an excuse for yours.
>
> In point of fact, I hear more creationists expounding evolution as a
> basis of ethics than I hear scientists who accept it an whose work is
> physicists of wanting to push people off cliffs because gravity would
> suspect the reason is that it's more obvious that it's absurd and
> wouldn't go over well with your target audience.
>
> I suspect that you will not tire of false witness until you find yourself
Same old stuff.. bla bla bla.
After more then 12 years on Usenet, do you ever get tired of typing
the same inanities just because there are those that disagree with
evolution?
That aside. I think you are the only one that understood what the man
was saying.
I'm intrested in one of your points however. How do people us
evolution as
an excuse for their sins?
Mark Evans
SNIP
>
> The point was the Toe is inadaquate as an explaination for reality:
>
> Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide
> meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
> inadequate
>
> get it?
Never read a ASI post while ingesting a fluid. Getting the keyboard
clean is difficult.
Explaining reality has nothing to do with providing a basis for
ethics. Ethics are a human invention and vary from culture to culture
and individual to individual. They change with time for cultures.
Heck, they often change for an individual over a person's lifetime.
Yours seem to be especially fluid, changing from post to post as they
do.
BTW, the ToE describes an aspect reality that has been observed. It
does not explain reality per se. It also does not explain the
alternat reality you inhabit.
Mark Evans
Kilmir
So the theory of gravity is inadequate because it doesn't account for
ethics?
That article, as well as your comment, reeks of ignorance.
All-Seeing-I
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
> > nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>
> > about evolution:
>
> > Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution
>
> > An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance" -- zenit.org
>
> > ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
>
> > <quote>
> > Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
> > meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
> > inadequate. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people
> > have tried to extend it to a "philosophia universalis," has in fact
> > been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this
> > evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model
> > of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the
> > fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when
> > people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately
> > remains a bloodthirsty ethic. Here, the attempt to distill rationality
> > out of what is in itself irrational quite visibly fails. All this is
> > of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical love
> > of one's neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of oneself, which
> > is what we need.</quote>
>
>
> > 1) Every explanation of reality should provide a meaningful and
> > comprehensible basis for ethics.
>
>
> Neither does the theory of gravity. So, we have
>
> a) the pope thinks the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't
> provide a theory of ethics
>
> b) you misunderstand the Pope
>
> since the pope is now fool, and your track record is less from
> distinguished, I go with b)
Utter nonsense. The theory of Gravity is not attempting an explanation
of the origins of man
Try an apple to apple comparison next time.
>
> More specifically, the pope in above passage simply points out the
> (since Hume, one woudl have thought) common place that descriptive
> scientific theories cannot be �an account of _all_ of reality since by
> definition, they have nothing to say about the "ought". �And where
> science tries to move into this territory, it transgresses its own
> methodological rules. So since including the ToE is just fine as long as
> it does to get "religious" aspirations to offer a theory of "all of
> reality".
>
> No sensible person would disagree with that.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 2) �The explaination should offer comfort
>
> > evolution fails
>
> > 3) Even when people try to make evolution more attractive, it
> > ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic
>
> > Jesus' entire ministry addressed meaningful and comprehensible basis
> > for ethics. Jesus' ministry explained offering comfort, compassion and
> > love. jesus warned about others that would use his name to teach
> > attractive and false doctrines.
>
> > So despite the fact that the pope has to be a politicial figure, his
> > views on evolution remain well within the parameters that the Original
> > Christian, Jesus of Nazareth taught.
>
> > Evolution is in direct conflict with what Jesus, The Pope and the
> > Bible teaches. Therefore it is impossible to be a "theist-
> > evolutionist" without coming in Jesus' name teaching false doctrin.
>
> > --
> > Take the truth from...
>
> > The All Seeing I
>
> > Credits
> > ZE05090123 - 2005-09-01
> > Permalink:http://www.zenit.org/article-13872?l=english- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Burkhard
about origins of man. Gravity is a theory of (parts of) reality that
does not provide for ethics. The way you (mis)read the pope, that alone
would disqualify it
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Utter nonsense. The theory of Gravity is not attempting an explanation
>of the origins of man
irrelevant. it doesn't matter. either the universe, including man, is
subject to natural processes, or it's not. there's no reason to give
your subjective beliefs objective status by allowing you to veto
sciencde
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>The point was the Toe is inadaquate as an explaination for reality:
>
>Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide
>meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
>inadequate
>
>get it?
that includes physics.
so evolution is just as scientific as physics?
i agree.
you just are unable to read for comprehension. no doubt due to having
language skills crippled by religion
Richard Smol
> Yet this evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model
> of selectivity
There is no such thing as "evolutionary ethic".
RS
TomS
<hg55mq$7lr$2...@news.albasani.net>, Burkhard stated..."
>
>All-Seeing-I wrote:
[...snip...]
>> Utter nonsense. The theory of Gravity is not attempting an explanation
>> of the origins of man
>>
>See the quote you gave: EVERY explanation of reality. nothing said there
>about origins of man. Gravity is a theory of (parts of) reality that
>does not provide for ethics. The way you (mis)read the pope, that alone
>would disqualify it
Rather than a theory of gravity, I suggest a comparison with a
theory of reproduction or development.
And I suggest being careful, when speaking of "man", not to take a
metaphor of synecdoche literally (or committing a fallacy of
comosition or division).
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
All-seeing-I
See? This is how the evo's rationalize their positions and the entire
theory for that matter.
The topic under discussion was "evolution" and NOT science in general.
So there is an "implied" meaning that "EVERY" explanation of reality
means every explanation involving evolution or at the very least man's
origins.
That implied meaning would make gravity an apple to orange comparison.
Now, if someone reads your post without reading the OP and
understanding exactly what was being discussed by the Pope you would
appear to be correct when in actuality you are wrong with your
analogy.
> >>> Permalink:http://www.zenit.org/article-13872?l=english-Hide quoted text -
Mark Evans
> of the origins of man
>
> Try an apple to apple comparison next time.
>
>
SNIP
Um, actually gravity has a lot to do with origins of man. It is the
glue that holds the planet together, keeps the air and water in place,
smashes hydrogen atoms together to keep the sun running and all that
stuff. Without gravity we would not exist and the universe would be a
very different place.
One of your problems is that you are incapable of understanding that
science is an interlocking system. It all ties together. While
there are individual areas of study they all connect at some level. I
blame your parents for this. They clearly allowed you to skip getting
an education. Or having much contact with reality.
Mark Evans
half...@bfe.inc
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>If everything in the bible is true, then the person that coined the
>phrase "theist-evolutionist" will have some real issues to face one
>day before God. So will those that insist on teaching others that
>evolution is compatable with the bible.
When you stand before God and are asked "Why did you tell lies in my
name?", what will you do then?
Ye Old One
Because it is a term not often used.
What you may have been thinking of is Most Recent Common Ancestor
(MRCA).
>
>>
>> � �My point was that tetrapods evolving from previous life forms is just as
>> "Biblical" as the Earth being round. � Both are scientific conclusions, and
>> both do not contradict the message of the Bible. �There are "Flat Earthers"
>> who cliam that a round Earth is not "Biblical" but they are just as wrong as
>> you are.
>>
>> > Show your work.
>>
>> Presumably, you disagree with the Flat Earthers that accepting the round
>> Earth is not Biblical. � For the same reason, it's just as biblical to
>> accept evolution as it is to accept the Earth being round.
>
>Presumably, you cannot show your work or even why you believe fish
>gave rise to mammals
The fossil record.
DNA analysis.
What more work do you want? Darwin worked it out without even having
the DNA to go by.
>
>>
>> DJT
>
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
He did. You were just toooooo stupid to see it.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
You changed topic when you posted the extract which did not refer to
evolution.
>So there is an "implied" meaning that "EVERY" explanation of reality
>means every explanation involving evolution or at the very least man's
>origins.
You may think it is implied, but then you are a raving nutter.
>
>That implied meaning would make gravity an apple to orange comparison.
Nope.
>
>Now, if someone reads your post without reading the OP and
>understanding exactly what was being discussed by the Pope you would
>appear to be correct when in actuality you are wrong with your
>analogy.
He is correct. Once again you are wrong.
>
[learn to snip you pathetic arsehole.]
Ye Old One
Wrong. One of the main reasons for its great success over the last 150
years is that it is such a good explanation of the reality of life on
Earth. What has failed, constantly over the last 2,500 years, is your
fairy tale creationism.
>
>Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide
>meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
>inadequate
>
>get it?
No. Ethics has nothing whatsoever to do with an explanation of any
part of reality.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Boikat
> Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
> nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>
> about evolution:
>
> Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution
>
> An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance" -- zenit.org
>
> ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
>
> <quote>
> Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
> meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
> inadequate. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people
> have tried to extend it to a "philosophia universalis," has in fact
> been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this
> evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model
> of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the
> fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when
> people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately
> remains a bloodthirsty ethic. Here, the attempt to distill rationality
> out of what is in itself irrational quite visibly fails. All this is
> of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical love
> of one's neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of oneself, which
> is what we need.</quote>
>
>
> 1) Every explanation of reality should provide a meaningful and
> comprehensible basis for ethics.
Your interpretation of what the pope said is wrong.
>
> evolution fails
Which is whay the pope was saying. Evolution is *not* , nor should
ever be used as basis for ethics.
>
> 2) �The explaination should offer comfort
No scientific theory is required to offer comfort. Where the hell did
you get that bullshit, aside from misunerstanding thwat the Pope said
because you're a blindingly illiterate moron?
>
> evolution fails
"Providing comfort" is not a requirement to validate any scientific
theory.
>
> 3) Even when people try to make evolution more attractive, it
> ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic
The ToE is a scientific theory, not an rntry in a beauty contest, and
is not an "ethic" of any sort. You, however, are an illiterate boob.
>
> Jesus' entire ministry addressed meaningful and comprehensible basis
> for ethics. Jesus' ministry explained offering comfort, compassion and
> love. jesus warned about others that would use his name to teach
> attractive and false doctrines.
And death and eternal damnation if you do not follow his teachings.
>
> So despite the fact that the pope has to be a politicial figure, his
> views on evolution remain well within the parameters that the Original
> Christian, Jesus of Nazareth taught.
If that is what you belive, fine. Now STFU, asshole.
>
> Evolution is in direct conflict with what Jesus, The Pope and the
> Bible teaches.
Just in conflict with your ignorant and illiterate interpretaion of
what thw pope said, as for Jesus and the Bible, Jesus was no bilogist,
and the Bible is not science book.
> Therefore it is impossible to be a "theist-
> evolutionist" without coming in Jesus' name teaching false doctrin.
If that's what you believe, that's your problem.
>
> --
> Take the truth from...
You haven't offered any, dirtbag.
>
> The All Sniveling-I(diot)
>
> Credits
> ZE05090123 - 2005-09-01
> Permalink:http://www.zenit.org/article-13872?l=english
Learn to comprehend.
Boikat
Desertphile
The Bible says what happens to such people. Job 13:2-14.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Reddfrogg
Ah, so you also are mistaken about that. The last common ancestor of
all life wasn't a single organism, but a population of organisms.
There was no single common ancestor.
>
> You believe the evidence for evolution and do not know what the
> accronym for Single Common Ancestor is?
No one in biology uses the term "single common ancestor". The term
sometimes used is LCA, as in "Last Common Ancestor".
>
>
>
> > � �My point was that tetrapods evolving from previous life forms is just as
> > "Biblical" as the Earth being round. � Both are scientific conclusions, and
> > both do not contradict the message of the Bible. �There are "Flat Earthers"
> > who cliam that a round Earth is not "Biblical" but they are just as wrong as
> > you are.
>
> > > Show your work.
>
> > Presumably, you disagree with the Flat Earthers that accepting the round
> > Earth is not Biblical. � For the same reason, it's just as biblical to
> > accept evolution as it is to accept the Earth being round.
>
> Presumably, you cannot show your work or even why you believe fish
> gave rise to mammals
You seem to have forgotten what I said. My comment was that
evolution is just as "Biblical" as the fact of the round Earth. Both
are scientific concepts, not biblical ones. The Bible doesn't
mention either, because they were later scientific discoveries.
You seem to accept the Earth is round, even though the Bible doesn't
say it is. Why should this be any different from my accepting
evolution, even if the Bible doesn't mention it.
What "work" you think needs to be shown is anyone's guess.
As for why I accept the fact that humans are descendants of fish,
that's easy. It's because the evidence clearly shows that's what
happened.
DJT
Reddfrogg
In what way? Do you think the Pope is a fool? Do you really think
your 'track record' is not shoddy at best?
>The theory of Gravity is not attempting an explanation
> of the origins of man
Why would that matter? It's a scientific theory, that doesn't require
the action of any supernatural being. It conflicts with the Bible
just as much as evolution does.
>
> Try an apple to apple comparison next time.
Why do you imagine this not to be one?
DJT
Reddfrogg
I don't see any rationalizations here, only your position getting
splattered.
>
> The topic under discussion was "evolution" and NOT science in general.
Yet your claim was that the Pope said that "every explanation", not
just evolution.
> So there is an "implied" meaning that "EVERY" explanation of reality
> means every explanation involving evolution or at the very least man's
> origins.
Ah, so you have to add something he didn't actually say, to get him to
say what you wanted.... That's distorting the quote.
>
> That implied meaning would make gravity an apple to orange comparison.
That 'implied meaning' is just a dodge, as your point was crushed.
>
> Now, if someone reads your post without reading the OP and
> understanding exactly what was being discussed by the Pope you would
> appear to be correct when in actuality you are wrong with your
> analogy.
Like, if someone took the quote for what it actually said, not what
you wanted it to mean....
DJT
Reddfrogg
It's not obvious to me. It's not obvious to anyone else. How is it
obvioius?
>
> The point was the Toe is inadaquate as an explaination for reality:
What he's saying is that science is inadequate to provide a basis for
morality. That of course is correct. The point he appears to be
making is that science alone can't explain everything, and of course,
that too is correct.
Evolution, or gravity, or germ theory are not guides for how to live a
moral life. What Ratzinger was saying is that science describes the
processes, but it's not adequate to provide a guide for how one should
live. He never claims that the theory of evolution is not correct,
just that it's not enough to provide a basis for a moral code.
>
> Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide
> meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
> inadequate
Which doesn't mean that evolution is wrong, or that it's bad. It
means that one can't take it as a guide for moral behavior. It's
inadequate for that particular role.
>
> get it
Apparently I get it much better than you do. Evolution is a quite
adequate explanation for how life developed, and diversified. It's
not adequate for telling people how they should interact with their
fellow man.
DJT
Ken Denny
>
> 1) Every explanation of reality should provide a meaningful and
> comprehensible basis for ethics.
>
As does gravity, electricity, germ theory, mathematics, chemistry,
astronomy, geology, anatomy, and any other branch of science you can
think of.
So what?
hersheyh
> On Dec 14, 5:07�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> SNIP
>
>
>
> > The point was the Toe is inadaquate as an explaination for reality:
>
> > Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide
> > meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
> > inadequate
All science, not just evolution, is *descriptive* and not
*proscriptive*. Science makes no claim to provide a basis for human
ethics. Science may provide insight into the reality of human nature,
for that is *descriptive*. But that does not mean that what *is* is
what *ought to be*. The job of science is to describe the real,
material world we live in and how it works now and how it worked in
the past to reach now. It is not the role of science to determine
what is ethical.
For a historical example, it is *reality* that many American
Christians supported slavery and racial segregation for Biblical
reasons. That is accurate *description* of an empirical reality.
That does not imply that that belief was right nor that Christians
should continue to support slavery and racial segregation for Biblical
reasons in the future, despite Biblical support for slavery.
Mark Isaak
> [nothing, really]
You were arguing just a day or two ago that the religion behind
creationism is also a bloodthirsty ethic. So what's your problem?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Steven L.
news:92d6bbff-c943-4e10...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 13, 9:54�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> wrote:
> > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in news:492cdf83-449e-43be-8bf8-
> > 29422fbd9...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
> > >the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support. �This
> > >nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
> >
> > >Here is what the 'textual evidence' says the Current Pope believes
> > >about evolution:
> >
> > >Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution
> >
> > >An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance" -- zenit.org
> >
> > >ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
> >
> > ><quote>
> > >Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
> > >meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
> > >inadequate. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people
> > >have tried to extend it to a "philosophia universalis," has in fact
> > >been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this
> >
> > He is correct. �However, the fact that some people have used evolution as
> > an excuse for their sins does not justify YOU using your antipathy to it
> > as an excuse for yours.
> >
> > In point of fact, I hear more creationists expounding evolution as a
> > basis of ethics than I hear scientists who accept it an whose work is
> > largely about studying it. �I have to keep wondering why you don't accuse
> > physicists of wanting to push people off cliffs because gravity would
> > cause them to fall to their deaths. �It would be just as logical. �I
> > suspect the reason is that it's more obvious that it's absurd and
> > wouldn't go over well with your target audience.
> >
> > I suspect that you will not tire of false witness until you find yourself
> > reaping the reward for it. �It will then be too late.
>
> Same old stuff.. bla bla bla.
>
> After more then 12 years on Usenet, do you ever get tired of typing
> the same inanities just because there are those that disagree with
> evolution?
>
> That aside. I think you are the only one that understood what the man
> was saying.
>
> I'm intrested in one of your points however. How do people us
> evolution as
> an excuse for their sins?
I wasn't aware that they did use evolution as an excuse.
O.J. Simpson was acquitted without it.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Kermit
<snip>
Physics is a hard ethic.
Chemistry is a fiery and caustic ethic.
Gravity is a ponderous ethic.
Medicine is a pathological ethic.
Meteorology is a storm ethic.
Library science is an orderly ethic.
Hey! This is fun!
Kermit
heekster
Still haven't been able to lick your world class learning disabity,
have you?
Martin Andersen
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:30:28 -0700, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:18:33 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
>> <ap...@email.com>:
>>
>>> In the "atheists love Jesus and Lies" catagory
>>>
>>> On Dec 13, 3:02 pm, heekster<heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>>>> In the "illiterate imbecilities" category,
>>>>
>>>> Part One
>>>>
>>>>> Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
>>>>> the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>>
>
> Part one, the sentence is grammatically grotesque. It is incoherent.
> It has been subjected to an icepick lobotomy. It has apparently been
> waterboarded, had the soles of its feet flogged with a bamboo cane,
> and had a 12 volt car battery attached to its nipples.
>
> Part two, nonsesense?
>
> The continued and plentiful misspellings and malapropisms, render the
> postings unintelligible.
>
I think he was referring to the nomination of the nomination.
heekster
wrote:
Thus far, all of ASI's nominations have been wrong. If you know of
one that he managed to stumble across correctly, please identify it.
Such happenings are extraordinarily rare.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by heekster <heek...@ifiwxtc.net>:
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:30:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:18:33 -0800 (PST), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
>><ap...@email.com>:
>>
>>>In the "atheists love Jesus and Lies" catagory
>>>
>>>On Dec 13, 3:02�pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>>>> In the "illiterate imbecilities" category,
>>>>
>>>> Part One
>>>>
>>>> >Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church and
>>>> >the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support.
>>>>
>>>> Part Two
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > This nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>>
>>OK, I give up. Where's the Chez Watt?
>
>Part one, the sentence is grammatically grotesque. It is incoherent.
>It has been subjected to an icepick lobotomy. It has apparently been
>waterboarded, had the soles of its feet flogged with a bamboo cane,
>and had a 12 volt car battery attached to its nipples.
Yeah, I got that; my question should have been "Where's the
Cheezy Watt?".
>Part two, nonsesense?
>
>The continued and plentiful misspellings and malapropisms, render the
>postings unintelligible.
Can't argue about that...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Stephen
> On Dec 13, 2:11�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church
> > > and the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support.
> > > �This nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out
> > > of context.
> >
> > > Here is what the 'textual evidence' says the Current Pope believes
> > > about evolution:
> >
> > > Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution
> >
> > > An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance" -- zenit.org
> >
> > > ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
> >
> > > <quote>
> > > Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide
> > > a meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily
> > > remains inadequate. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases
> > > where people have tried to extend it to a "philosophia
> > > universalis," has in fact been used for an attempt at a new ethos
> > > based on evolution. Yet this evolutionary ethic that inevitably
> > > takes as its key concept the model of selectivity, that is, the
> > > struggle for survival, the victory of the fittest, successful
> > > adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when people try to
> > > make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a
> > > bloodthirsty ethic. Here, the attempt to distill rationality out
> > > of what is in itself irrational quite visibly fails. All this is
> > > of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical
> > > love of one's neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of
> > > oneself, which is what we need.</quote>
> >
> > > There is the textual evidence. The Pope says:
> >
> > > 1) Every explanation of reality should provide a meaningful and
> > > comprehensible basis for ethics.
> >
> > > evolution fails
> >
> > Neither does the theory of gravity. So, we have
> >
> > a) the pope thinks the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn't
> > provide a theory of ethics
> >
> > b) you misunderstand the Pope
> >
> > since the pope is now fool, and your track record is less from
> > distinguished, I go with b)
>
> Utter nonsense. The theory of Gravity is not attempting an explanation
> of the origins of man
>
So this is the crux ... you're bothered because the science of
biology, specifically evolution science, comes to conclusions that
conflict with what you've chosen to believe about the origins of man,
and that kinda knocks you sideways. Is that it? Other sciences, which
develop knowledge by the same methodology as evolution science, can be
real and true, and they don't bother you; but biology -- specifically
evolution -- bothers you because you perceive that knowledge
transgresses specific religious tenents you've chosen to believe. Is
that it?
Regards,
Stephen
[...snip rest...]
--
Stephen
> In the "illiterate imbecilities" category,
>
> Part One
> > Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church
> > and the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support.
>
Maybe that should be the "That-sentence-should-be-taken-out-and-shot"
department ... :-)
[...snip...]
--
Eric Root
> On 14 dec, 11:07, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 4:52�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > > the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support.
>
>
> > > > This
> > > > nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>
>
> > > > about evolution:
>
> > > > Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution
>
> > > > An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance" -- zenit.org
>
> > > > ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
>
> > > > <quote>
> > > > Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
> > > > meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
> > > > inadequate. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people
> > > > have tried to extend it to a "philosophia universalis," has in fact
> > > > been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this
> > > > evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model
> > > > of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the
> > > > fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when
> > > > people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately
> > > > remains a bloodthirsty ethic. Here, the attempt to distill rationality
> > > > out of what is in itself irrational quite visibly fails. All this is
> > > > of very little use for an ethic of universal peace, of practical love
> > > > of one's neighbor, and of the necessary overcoming of oneself, which
> > > > is what we need.</quote>
>
> > > criticizes those who would "extend it to a "philosophia universalis""
>
> > > As Dawkins himself has acknowledged, evolutionary theory is not a good guide
> > > for moral behavior in human populations.
>
>
> > > > 1) Every explanation of reality should provide a meaningful and
> > > > comprehensible basis for ethics.
>
> > > same time provide a meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics
>
> > inadequate
>
>
> So the theory of gravity is inadequate because it doesn't account for
> ethics?
>
> That article, as well as your comment, reeks of ignorance.
If you can't abide the stench of ignorance, talk.origins may not be
for you.
Eric Root
heekster
wrote:
Ever notice how Cheezy Watts act only to amplify the egregiousness of
the original imbecility?
Dave Oldridge
news:92d6bbff-c943-4e10...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>On Dec 13, 9:54�pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
>wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in
>> news:492cdf83-449e-43be-8bf8-
>> 29422fbd9...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Many here are under the delusion while claims the Catholic Church
>> >and the current Pope give The Theory of Evolution full support.
>> >�This nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of
>> >context.
>>
>> >Here is what the 'textual evidence' says the Current Pope believes
>> >about evolution:
>>
>> >Cardinal Ratzinger's Thoughts on Evolution
>>
>> >An Excerpt From "Truth and Tolerance" -- zenit.org
>>
>> >ROME, SEPT. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).-
>>
>> ><quote>
>> >Every explanation of reality that cannot at the same time provide a
>> >meaningful and comprehensible basis for ethics necessarily remains
>> >inadequate. Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people
>> >have tried to extend it to a "philosophia universalis," has in fact
>> >been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this
>>
>> He is correct. �However, the fact that some people have used
>> evolution as an excuse for their sins does not justify YOU using your
>> antipathy to it as an excuse for yours.
>>
>> In point of fact, I hear more creationists expounding evolution as a
>> basis of ethics than I hear scientists who accept it an whose work is
>> largely about studying it. �I have to keep wondering why you don't
>> accuse physicists of wanting to push people off cliffs because
>> gravity would cause them to fall to their deaths. �It would be just
>> as logical. �I suspect the reason is that it's more obvious that it's
>> absurd and wouldn't go over well with your target audience.
>>
>> I suspect that you will not tire of false witness until you find
>> yourself reaping the reward for it. �It will then be too late.
>
>Same old stuff.. bla bla bla.
>
>After more then 12 years on Usenet, do you ever get tired of typing
>the same inanities just because there are those that disagree with
>evolution?
>That aside. I think you are the only one that understood what the man
>was saying.
>
>I'm intrested in one of your points however. How do people us
>evolution as an excuse for their sins?
By making out, as you do, that the scientific facts form a desirable
moral goal.
But they are simply mistaken. YOU know that you are LYING.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Kent Paul Dolan
> In the "illiterate imbecilities" category,
> Part One
>> Many here are under the delusion while claims the
>> Catholic Church and the current Pope give The
>> Theory of Evolution full support.
> Part Two
>> This nonsesense is a rationalization based on
>> quotes taken out of context.
There is of course a meta-issue demonstrated here
and in the reams of other incoherent creationist
postings that so often enter as fodder into Chez
Watt postings.
They lock down solidly and with overwhelming
evidence, the conventional wisdom, supported by
extensive polling results, that the least educated,
least intelligent, and most ignorant parts of the
population are the ones most likely to be found to
be creationists.
Are the members of the population meeting those
descriptions those from whom one should accept
advice on _anything_, particularly anything of
modest importance, much less on ways to assure a
joyful life after death if that is an important part
of ones world view?
I wouldn't trust them for instructions on how to
change the oil on a moter scooter; or even on how to
pour water out of a boot with the instructions
written on the bottom of the boot heel.
"Don't take advice from stupid people" is an
excellent life strategy. It will keep one away from
street drugs, cigarettes, alcoholism, jail terms,
bad companions, stump preachers, and a raft of other
unpleasantries.
xanthian.
All-seeing-I
wrote:
I am quite serious and quite honest.
I fear you are going to lose your existence and die a second and final
death if you do not stop selling the concept of divergence from ape-to-
man to the weak-minded that lack knowledge and are easily persuaded.
No. That is not a fundy-religious threat, That is a conclusion based
on textual evidence.
Divergence is not backed by real science and it is not observed. Why
present it as if it were truth?
Kent Paul Dolan
> heekster wrote:
> [...snip...]
The sentence is pied indeed, but by a single point
failure, not a whole litany of problems as suggested
else-thread.
A simple correction of "while" to "which" returns it
to the world of ungarbled, meaningful English.
The sentence still caters to a falsehood (that the
Catholic church has left any wriggle room for
Catholics to be creationists and yet be doctrinally
correct Catholics), but that's the separate issue of
creationist compulsive mendacity.
xanthian.
Mitchell Coffey
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 3:02�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 1:33�pm, Will in New Haven
>
> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 2:19�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > nonsesense is a rationalization based on quotes taken out of context.
>
> > > at least when it is convenient to your arguments.
>
> > Because making the claim that the church and the pope support
> > evolution is a Lie. That's why. However, it is worse then just a lie
> > because the lie itself is being used as a tool to persuade people from
> > the truth.
>
> > If everything in the bible is true, then the person that coined the
> > phrase "theist-evolutionist" will have some real issues to face one
> > day before God. So will those that insist on teaching others that
> > evolution is compatable with the bible.
>
> > need of God. How exactly can the two be compatable when one does not
> > even need the other?
>
> I have written Haiku and broken a man's arm in the same afternoon.
> They did not need each other. They did not _reference_ one another.
> The ToE explains reality but not all of reality. This is better than
> creationism, which explains all of reality but not very well. That is
> because the different flavors of creationism attempt to explain the
> unknowable and describe the indescribable. They will not let the
> mysteries BE.
>
> > > I snipped a bunch of what you posted because I wasn't responding to it
> > > piece by piece.
>
> > > > Evolution is in direct conflict with what Jesus, The Pope and the
> > > > evolutionist" without coming in Jesus' name teaching false doctrin.
>
> and still act as a Christian. However, the study of evolution does not
> PROPOSE that evolution be a model for ones behavior. Those who believe
> that they SHOULD use evolution as a guide for their behavior make very
> bad neighbors, as bad as some Christians.
[snip]
This post is proof that concision and literary achievement are not
antithetical; it is Hemingway with more vivid analogies. The "I have
written Haiku and broken a man's arm in the same afternoon" passage
should be chiseled in granite.
Mitchell Coffey
Kleuskes & Moos
That would be a first...
> I fear you are going to lose your existence and die a second and final
> death if you do not stop selling the concept of divergence from ape-to-
> man to the weak-minded that lack knowledge and are easily persuaded.
If acceptance of current scientific finding gets you excluded from
heaven, so be it. However, i do not think that is one of the criteria
and i challenge you to provide chapter and verse to support that
claim.
> No. That is not a fundy-religious threat, That is a conclusion based
> on textual evidence.
Indeed. It's a fundie-religious posturing, claiming a level of
biblical authority you simply do not have.
> Divergence is not backed by real science and it is not observed. Why
> present it as if it were truth?
Because it's backed up by real science and is observed.
Kermit
I believe you. Creationists do not understand that there is a reality
external to them and independent o ftheir wishes. They *think they do,
but they never act like it.
>
> I fear you are going to lose your existence and die a second and final
> death if you do not stop selling the concept of divergence from ape-to-
> man to the weak-minded that lack knowledge and are easily persuaded.
Why serve a God that lies? The god you describe creates a world that
*looks as though he created us using evolution, but he really didn't,
ha ha big joke, reality is what some random guy on the internet says
it is, and we'll be tortured forever if we don't think he's telling
the truth. Why on Earth would we do that, and more pertinent - HOW
could we do that? Most sane people really can't change their ideas of
how the world works by an act of will.
Also, you haven't established that he is a god, and if there is, that
his name is Yahweh. You might want to do that first before you tell us
that he really, really wants us to do this impossible thing (believe
your imagination instead of what we see), which isn't mentioned in the
bible.
>
> No. That is not a fundy-religious threat, That is a conclusion based
> on textual evidence.
See above.
>
> Divergence is not backed by real science and it is not observed. Why
> present it as if it were truth?
Yes, it is observed, as are the expected consequences. It won't go
away because you deny it; it really won't. This is one of those
examples where you act as though the world is a result of your wishful
thinking. You will say "No, I don't think that!", but then you go and
say something like this.
You have already stated that you do not think that reality trumps your
interpretation of the bible. That's not science, that's religious
prophecy, and it's not my problem if you can't convince anyone that
you know what you're talking about. Where are the prophecies that
show what you are talking about?
Science makes predictions which come true. When is the next solar
eclipse, and where? Beats me. But you pray, and I'll search an
astronomy site on the web, Who do you think will come up with the
answer first?
Kermit
Mark Evans
SSNIP
> > Dave Oldridge
>
> I am quite serious and quite honest.
>
> I fear you are going to lose your existence and die a second and final
> death if you do not stop selling the concept of divergence from ape-to-
> man to the weak-minded that lack knowledge and are easily persuaded.
>
> No. That is not a fundy-religious threat, That is a conclusion based
> on textual evidence.
>
> Divergence is not backed by real science and it is not observed. Why
> present it as if it were truth?
Let's see. One of my ancestral traditions specifies a "life after
death" pretty much like this one, although later versions specify a
lack of Europeans. Another tradition, from the European line, calls
for reincarnation, although not always as a human or animal. i must
confess that coming back as the spring rain has a certain poetry to
it. Other traditions in the family specify that you are not gone from
the world while people still remember you. Nope, not a thing about a
second and final death. Guess you are looking at the wrong
traditions.
I sort of side with the not gone until forgotten view. Looking at
how much influence people long dead still have on life today I have to
agree. In fact, looking at things, people who never lived are
influential. How many kids are inspired by tales of Arthur, Merlin,
the Lone Ranger and Sherlock Holmes? Heck, Luke Skywalker and Yoda
have shaped a generation.
You pick your imaginary friends and I will pick mine.
Mark Evans
Richard Harter
I am my own imaginary friend.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Infinity is one of those things that keep philosophers busy when they
could be more profitably spending their time weeding their garden.
Bob Casanova
Yep. Of course, that's to be expected, given the source.
heekster
Put it out of its misery.
Christopher Denney
[snip]
> Divergence is not backed by real science and it is not observed. Why
> present it as if it were truth?
In it's simplest form, if there is variation, there is divergence;
unless you can think of something that prevents it.
Everything that uses DNA as it's genome is just a variation of
everything else, some variations are simple, some complex.
Martin Andersen
Ye Old One
Because it is real science, it is observed and it is the truth.
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
>
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
heh...
In it's simplest form if there is chicken soup, there is apple pie.
You atheists crack me up...
bpuharic
>I am quite serious and quite honest.
>
>I fear you are going to lose your existence and die a second and final
>death if you do not stop selling the concept of divergence from ape-to-
>man to the weak-minded that lack knowledge and are easily persuaded.
>
>No. That is not a fundy-religious threat, That is a conclusion based
>on textual evidence.
subjected to a fundy religious interpretation.
>
>Divergence is not backed by real science and it is not observed. Why
>present it as if it were truth?
those of us who are scientists, as opposed to you religuous fanatics,
disagree.
but you've been wrong for 2000 years. why should this be any
different?
>
Will in New Haven
How about the majority of theists who also accept that evolution
happened and is happening? Doesn't it reduce your terror, even a
little, that it is possible to accept reality in the case of evolution
and still believe in whatsitsname?
--
Will in New Haven
chris thompson
> In the "Children Have No Patience" catagory...
>
> On Dec 13, 6:35 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In the category, "I would, but the line is too darned long."
>
> > > > By the way, set yourself on fire.
>
> > > Wouldn't you like the pleasure of doing that yourself
Are you a fondue, that you want to invite others to set you on fire
and call it cheezy watt?
Chris
Boikat
Variation is part of what can lead to "divergence", if by that you
mean speciation.
How does chicken soup lead to apple pie?
>
> You atheists crack me up...
What does atheism have to do with it?
Boikat
Dave Oldridge
news:ee0ff1d3-8e4d-4525...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
Another obvious LIE.
>
>I fear you are going to lose your existence and die a second and final
>death if you do not stop selling the concept of divergence from ape-to-
>man to the weak-minded that lack knowledge and are easily persuaded.
You have it upside down. And you do that on purpose.
>
>No. That is not a fundy-religious threat, That is a conclusion based
>on textual evidence.
No, it is a conclusion based on your cult mindset. The text is
interpreted so as to support that.
>
>Divergence is not backed by real science and it is not observed. Why
>present it as if it were truth?
More lies from the devout disciple of the father of all lies.
Divergence is backed by ALL the science and, if you refuse to see it,
then maybe your pseudonym is also a LIE!
What is YOUR explanation for the GULO gene in humans and chimps?
1. Humans and chims share a common genetic heritage.
2. A god made chimps and humans deliberately and implanted the exact
same useless GULO gene to deceive intellignet people.
3. Some other plausible explanation that makes sense (be specific).
Remember, the gene is badly broken (mutated) and generates no protein.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Christopher Denney
I am unsure how you equate variation and divergence, as was being
discussed with foods, which were not.
Perhaps the uncontrolled laughter is a response to the cognitive
dissonance cause but your inability to come up with any reason that
"variation" could be stopped short of the "divergence" that you seem
to fear so.
haiku jones
Atheists? Why atheists?
According to a rather famous recent survey of
regular workaday scientists, around
40% to 45% of biologists believe in God.
Yet only a tiny fraction of everyday biologists
have the slightest problem with the theory
of evolution.
Again, why "atheists"?