Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
how religions change their mind
260 views
Skip to first unread message
Burkhard
May 21, 2013, 6:44:02 PM5/21/13
to
Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
cool)
changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
cool)
Thrinaxodon
May 21, 2013, 6:54:47 PM5/21/13
to
Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
eridanus
May 21, 2013, 6:57:58 PM5/21/13
to
El martes, 21 de mayo de 2013 23:54:47 UTC+1, Thrinaxodon escribi�:
he could had converted to hair Krishna.
eridanus
eridanus
jillery
May 21, 2013, 7:11:55 PM5/21/13
to
Paul J Gans
May 21, 2013, 9:17:25 PM5/21/13
to
Thrinaxodon <biol...@gmail.com> wrote:
I just now found a loose screw on the floor. Is it yours?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Robert Carnegie
May 21, 2013, 9:30:17 PM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 23:54:47 UTC+1, Thrinaxodon wrote:
> RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
> Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
> bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
> to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
If you know that story, you probably also know that
> RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
> Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
> bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
> to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
it's a lie. Quite a detailed one, if I remember right.
Anyway, his changing his mind on his deathbed doesn't
necessarily mean that he was wrong before.
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2013, 9:46:24 PM5/21/13
to
Jesuit astronomer as was Teilhard as Jesuit paleontologist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Coyne#Intelligent_Design
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-11-18-vaticanastronomer_x.htm
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/coyne-frame.html
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2013, 9:51:03 PM5/21/13
to
former Vatican astronomer George Coyne in case anyone cares. He has had
a thing or two to say about intelligent design.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Thrinaxodon
May 21, 2013, 10:20:14 PM5/21/13
to
clever one. The myth, was deemed as false, By Darwin's children, and
by historians. Darwin's daughter, Henrietta Litchfield deemed, that
Hope had never seen Darwin, and he never recanted his *purely*
scientific views. I read a lot on this while, getting my Bachelor's in
the History of Science.
jillery
May 21, 2013, 10:33:59 PM5/21/13
to
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2013, 10:35:23 PM5/21/13
to
One of the forces exerting pressure on religion to change is science.
The Copernican Revolution - when scholars grasped that the earth
revolves around the sun, rather than vice-versa - is an obvious example.
This clashed with the church's own teaching on the subject. The
Inquisition found Copernicus's successor Galileo "vehemently suspect of
heresy" and he spent the last decade of his life under house arrest.
As well as his works on physics and astronomy Galileo wrote two tracts
on the interpretation of scripture.
"He essentially said the scriptures were written to tell us how to go to
heaven and not how the heavens go," says George Coyne, a Jesuit priest
who ran the Vatican's own observatory for 28 years.
The Catholic church now admits that Galileo was right and in 1992 Pope
John Paul II formally exonerated him. But science continues to raise
difficult questions for the church.
"The whole area of genetics, molecular biology and evolution in general
are quite a challenge to the church," says Coyne. "Does the ghost of
Galileo come back to speak? Yes it does. My loving church! What you did
in the Galileo period was not listen to science."
For Coyne, it is the role of scientifically trained believers to throw
themselves into the muddy, difficult process of squaring the church's
teachings with the discoveries of science and the opportunities they
offer for humanity.
[/quote]
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2013, 10:38:04 PM5/21/13
to
[quote]Once upon a time, animal sacrifice was an important part of Hindu
life, Catholic priests weren't celibate and visual depictions of the
Prophet Muhammad were part of Islamic art. And soon some churches in the
UK may be marrying gay couples. How do religions manage to change their
mind?[/quote]
--
*Hemidactylus*
Robert Camp
May 21, 2013, 11:55:50 PM5/21/13
to
John Harshman
May 22, 2013, 12:56:04 AM5/22/13
to
Mike Dworetsky
May 22, 2013, 2:12:15 AM5/22/13
to
respected in scientific circles.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Burkhard
May 22, 2013, 2:44:29 AM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 7:12�am, "Mike Dworetsky"
Yes, I know that - it is just for the first time that I realised that
"Jerry" is the diminutive for "Georg", so I had that mental image of
the atheist-in- chief living a double live as a Jesuit priest,
probably wearing a yellow wig, as US agents seem to do,
Mind you, it would explain a lot - I often felt thatJerry is the type
of atheist who could turn me into a theist just to annoy him - and the
Jesuits are devious like that.
"Jerry" is the diminutive for "Georg", so I had that mental image of
the atheist-in- chief living a double live as a Jesuit priest,
probably wearing a yellow wig, as US agents seem to do,
Mind you, it would explain a lot - I often felt thatJerry is the type
of atheist who could turn me into a theist just to annoy him - and the
Jesuits are devious like that.
SkyEyes
May 22, 2013, 4:22:59 AM5/22/13
to
Darwin's daughter, who tended him during his final illness and was
scarcely out of his room, thoroughly refuted the put-up stories of his
conversion. Nothing of the sort ever happened.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
eridanus
May 22, 2013, 4:35:17 AM5/22/13
to
El mi�rcoles, 22 de mayo de 2013 09:22:59 UTC+1, SkyEyes escribi�:
the chaplain of my school was also telling a story horrible about
death that had the impious Voltaire. He died among horrible pains,
and vomiting and eating their own feces and vomits. Other stories
about famous impious were probably that of Darwin, that I do not
remember for if it was Darwin... I had never had read the name of
this man and did not know of whom he was talking. Some famous impious
converted when he was about to die. This sort of stories were rather
common.
Eridanus
death that had the impious Voltaire. He died among horrible pains,
and vomiting and eating their own feces and vomits. Other stories
about famous impious were probably that of Darwin, that I do not
remember for if it was Darwin... I had never had read the name of
this man and did not know of whom he was talking. Some famous impious
converted when he was about to die. This sort of stories were rather
common.
Eridanus
AlwaysAskingQuestions
May 22, 2013, 6:46:05 AM5/22/13
to
"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d47198cc-fc8c-4c85...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Church has a problem with science and can only find one 400 year old
incident to back up their argument; and, as usual, they give a grossly
simplified version of that single incident.
Robert Carnegie
May 22, 2013, 7:03:17 AM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 05:56:04 UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/21/13 7:20 PM, Thrinaxodon wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 9:30 pm, Robert Carnegie<rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 23:54:47 UTC+1, Thrinaxodon wrote:
>
> >>> RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI,
> >>> NASA, and Dawkins.
>
> On 5/21/13 7:20 PM, Thrinaxodon wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 9:30 pm, Robert Carnegie<rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 23:54:47 UTC+1, Thrinaxodon wrote:
>
> >>> RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI,
> >>> NASA, and Dawkins.
>
> Are you the same Thrinaxodon who keeps posting bizarre
> nonsense about Obama?
...Apparently so?
> nonsense about Obama?
(And I believe that's "crossposting" - so I hope that
Google Groups is dropping the other groups.)
John S. Wilkins
May 22, 2013, 7:10:49 AM5/22/13
to
AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> > changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
> >
> > The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
> > George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
> > rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
> > cool)
> >
>
> The latest in a long line of people trying to make out that the Catholic
> Church has a problem with science and can only find one 400 year old
> incident to back up their argument; and, as usual, they give a grossly
> simplified version of that single incident.
I agree. While there's a lot of toing and froing between the Catholic
> > changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
> >
> > The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
> > George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
> > rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
> > cool)
> >
>
> The latest in a long line of people trying to make out that the Catholic
> Church has a problem with science and can only find one 400 year old
> incident to back up their argument; and, as usual, they give a grossly
> simplified version of that single incident.
Church and science, it is generally not opposed to it, unless it
contradicts dogma (there was a set to about Daltonian chemistry in the
late 19th century as it conflicted with the species/substance doctrine
of transsubstantiation).
The best source of the relation of western religion and science is John
Hedley Brooke's _Science and Religion_ to begin with.
But George Coyne is a Vatican cleric who ran the Vatican observatory for
many years. He's a Jesuit if memory serves. And he is unstinting in his
defence of science.
But doctrine does change in religions, all the time, and that has been
clear ever since Harnack's _History of Dogma_ in the 19th century.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Robert Carnegie
May 22, 2013, 7:11:30 AM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 11:46:05 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> The latest in a long line of people trying to make out that the Catholic
>
> Church has a problem with science and can only find one 400 year old
>
> incident to back up their argument; and, as usual, they give a grossly
>
> simplified version of that single incident.
These days, the Church's "problem" seems to be usually
> The latest in a long line of people trying to make out that the Catholic
>
> Church has a problem with science and can only find one 400 year old
>
> incident to back up their argument; and, as usual, they give a grossly
>
> simplified version of that single incident.
with human reproduction, and human cell biology, and
medical matters.
For instance vaccines - guess why:
<http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm>
(Although I think this isn't the Church as a whole,
but some of its members. As may or may not be the case
with "pharmacists denying the existence of birth control".)
J. J. Lodder
May 22, 2013, 7:18:29 AM5/22/13
to
and is still bothered by it.
See for example
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/16/catholicism.internationaled
ucationnews>
for one of the latest outbreaks.
The George Coyne S.J. mentioned above has been forthright
in criticizing his Church's lukewarm admission of responsibility
for its prosecution of Galileo in the early seventeenth century,
Jan
Robert Carnegie
May 22, 2013, 7:27:24 AM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 09:35:17 UTC+1, eridanus wrote:
> the chaplain of my school was also telling a story horrible about
> death that had the impious Voltaire. He died among horrible pains,
> and vomiting and eating their own feces and vomits.
Is this what happens in a church hospital if you don't recant?
> the chaplain of my school was also telling a story horrible about
> death that had the impious Voltaire. He died among horrible pains,
> and vomiting and eating their own feces and vomits.
An early British Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger,
has various reports of his last words spoken before death,
but one is, "I think I could eat one of Bellamy's veal pies."
That's more satisfactory.
<http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/03/famous-last-words/>
And goodness me: "Voltaire, a leading figure of the Enlightenment,
was asked to renounce the Devil as his death approached. He replied
'This is no time for making new enemies'."
I suppose that probably isn't true, either.
Perhaps he said "Bugger Bellamy". :-)
*Hemidactylus*
May 22, 2013, 7:30:51 AM5/22/13
to
--
*Hemidactylus*
AlwaysAskingQuestions
May 22, 2013, 7:46:23 AM5/22/13
to
"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1d88b755-b196-4348...@googlegroups.com...
rejecting science.
Robert Carnegie
May 22, 2013, 8:52:43 AM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 12:46:23 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1d88b755-b196-4348...@googlegroups.com...
>
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1d88b755-b196-4348...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > These days, the Church's "problem" seems to be usually
> > with human reproduction, and human cell biology, and
> > medical matters.
> >
> > For instance vaccines - guess why:
> > <http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm>
> >
> > (Although I think this isn't the Church as a whole,
> > but some of its members.)
> > with human reproduction, and human cell biology, and
> > medical matters.
> >
> > For instance vaccines - guess why:
> > <http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm>
> >
> > (Although I think this isn't the Church as a whole,
> >
> Arguing the morals of how science gets applied is not
> the same thing as rejecting science.
There's a word for an argument like that - Jesuity.
> Arguing the morals of how science gets applied is not
> the same thing as rejecting science.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
May 22, 2013, 9:08:33 AM5/22/13
to
news:2cdba52c-0f66-4aaf...@googlegroups.com...
As it so happens, I disagree with several aspects of the Church's teaching
on human reproduction, and human cell biology, and medical matters. I'm not
aware, however, of any of those teachings that contradict science. Feel free
to give examples that might enlighten me.
on human reproduction, and human cell biology, and medical matters. I'm not
aware, however, of any of those teachings that contradict science. Feel free
to give examples that might enlighten me.
Robert Carnegie
May 22, 2013, 10:03:39 AM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 14:08:33 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:2cdba52c-0f66-4aaf...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 12:46:23 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> >> Arguing the morals of how science gets applied is not
> >> the same thing as rejecting science.
> >
> > There's a word for an argument like that - Jesuity.
>
> As it so happens, I disagree with several aspects of the
> Church's teaching on human reproduction, and human cell
> biology, and medical matters. I'm not aware, however, of
> any of those teachings that contradict science. Feel free
> to give examples that might enlighten me.
Transubstantiation, and, can we count the one about how
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:2cdba52c-0f66-4aaf...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 12:46:23 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> >> Arguing the morals of how science gets applied is not
> >> the same thing as rejecting science.
> >
> > There's a word for an argument like that - Jesuity.
>
> As it so happens, I disagree with several aspects of the
> Church's teaching on human reproduction, and human cell
> biology, and medical matters. I'm not aware, however, of
> any of those teachings that contradict science. Feel free
> to give examples that might enlighten me.
electronically tested condoms have little holes in them that
let through, well, everything? (Except, for instance, water.)
Since you asked. But I don't want to argue about it.
But, apparently the Church could clone Jesus, and chooses not to.
But what I'd rather know, and, meaning no disrespect, I expect
you can't tell me, is where the s went, so that transubtantiation
is spelled with "transub-" and not "transsub-".
Burkhard
May 22, 2013, 11:37:36 AM5/22/13
to
On 22 May, 11:46, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
Sorry, whom are you talking about? George Coyne argues pretty much the
opposite there (though he also remained suitably critical of his own
team when it deviates from that standard)
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
opposite there (though he also remained suitably critical of his own
team when it deviates from that standard)
Kalkidas
May 22, 2013, 11:41:49 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
>changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
If that's true, then religion is science! After all, the "theory" of
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
>changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
evolution is constantly evolving, and its leading proponents always
insist that the latest version of it is a FACT.
Burkhard
May 22, 2013, 12:11:43 PM5/22/13
to
On 22 May, 16:41, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
> If that's true, then religion is science!
Why would that follow? Lots of things evolve without becoming
> >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
> If that's true, then religion is science!
necessarily science. Jazz has evolved quite a lot for instance
After all, the "theory" of
> evolution is constantly evolving, and its leading proponents always
> insist that the latest version of it is a FACT.
>
fact, that seems to be more a strawman created by people who are
themselves scientifically illiterate, The reason people work as
scientists in biology (or nay other discipline for that matter) is
precisely because they believe that they can change the theory .
Doesn't make science arbitrary though - the current theories should
explain all the available data better than any precursor theory, or
any current competitor.
Kalkidas
May 22, 2013, 12:31:31 PM5/22/13
to
usually in order to adjust it to fit new evidence that would not have
been predicted by the previous version of the "theory". This should
indicate that there is really no "theory" there at all. Yet which of
the current propagandists for ToE will admit it?
Burkhard
May 22, 2013, 12:42:15 PM5/22/13
to
sentence, or that the ToE changed over time? All scientific theories
change over time, it is called "learning", and typically encouraged.
In case of the ToE, the first thing anyone who actually reads a
textbook in biology with a short historical introduction will e.g. get
pointed to the modern evolutionary synthesis as one of the key dates
where the theory changed quite massively.
jillery
May 22, 2013, 12:54:40 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:41:49 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
><b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
>>changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
>If that's true, then religion is science! After all, the "theory" of
>evolution is constantly evolving, and its leading proponents always
>insist that the latest version of it is a FACT.
It sounds like you're conflating the fact of evolution with the
>On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
><b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
>>changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
>If that's true, then religion is science! After all, the "theory" of
>evolution is constantly evolving, and its leading proponents always
>insist that the latest version of it is a FACT.
theories of evolution. Unless you're a species immutabilist, you
recognize the fact that the organisms which exist today are not the
same as those which existed in the past. The theories help explain
that fact.
RAM
May 22, 2013, 12:57:05 PM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 11:31�am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On 22 May, 16:41, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >> >changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
> >> If that's true, then religion is science!
>
> >Why would that follow? Lots of things evolve without becoming
> >necessarily science. Jazz has evolved quite a lot for instance
>
> >After all, the "theory" of
> >> evolution is constantly evolving, and its leading proponents always
> >> insist that the latest version of it is a FACT.
>
> >I doubt that any competent scientists claims the latest theory is a
> >fact, that seems to be more a strawman created by people who are
> >themselves scientifically illiterate, �The reason people work as
> >scientists in biology (or nay other discipline for that matter) �is
> >precisely because they believe that they can change the theory .
> >Doesn't make science arbitrary though - the current theories should
> >explain all the available data better than any precursor theory, or
> >any current competitor.
>
> Many core doctrinal points of ToE have changed over the decades,
Specify what you mean by doctrinal points.
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On 22 May, 16:41, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >> >changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
> >> If that's true, then religion is science!
>
> >Why would that follow? Lots of things evolve without becoming
> >necessarily science. Jazz has evolved quite a lot for instance
>
> >After all, the "theory" of
> >> evolution is constantly evolving, and its leading proponents always
> >> insist that the latest version of it is a FACT.
>
> >I doubt that any competent scientists claims the latest theory is a
> >fact, that seems to be more a strawman created by people who are
> >themselves scientifically illiterate, �The reason people work as
> >scientists in biology (or nay other discipline for that matter) �is
> >precisely because they believe that they can change the theory .
> >Doesn't make science arbitrary though - the current theories should
> >explain all the available data better than any precursor theory, or
> >any current competitor.
>
> Many core doctrinal points of ToE have changed over the decades,
> usually in order to adjust it to fit new evidence that would not have
> been predicted by the previous version of the "theory".
nature of science.
"That would not have been predicted by the previous version of the
'theory'. " So what?
> This should
> indicate that there is really no "theory" there at all.
there was no 'theory' there at all."
> Yet which of
> the current propagandists for ToE will admit it?
to understand science as practiced by scientists.
You have no "science" substance but you have a surface level anti-
science screed that amounts to "propaganda." Until you can provide
specifics to the above assertions; you remain what you have always
been: irrelevant to the understanding and practice of science, much
less the ToE.
eridanus
May 22, 2013, 1:07:34 PM5/22/13
to
El mi�rcoles, 22 de mayo de 2013 17:31:31 UTC+1, Kalkidas escribi�:
do be silly. It only means that not any theory is perfect. And that is
the main reason that most theories are changing.
Theory of evolution had not changed in its main concept,but only in some
details. It is like we are describing what we see with our bare eyes,
and later, after inventing the microscope, it changes a little what we
are seeing, and our theory also changes.
we have not any bible as a reference to know the truth. In science "we
are writing the bible". But as we have not any god that tells us what
to write, we are changing the words of the bible as times passes. The
bible of science is not the same bible today that it was in 1900, just
to put an arbitrary year.
We are constantly erasing lines in our bible, and putting new words in
it. But the "basic concept" of evolution is the same when Darwin wrote
his book, as it is today.
Eridanus
the main reason that most theories are changing.
Theory of evolution had not changed in its main concept,but only in some
details. It is like we are describing what we see with our bare eyes,
and later, after inventing the microscope, it changes a little what we
are seeing, and our theory also changes.
we have not any bible as a reference to know the truth. In science "we
are writing the bible". But as we have not any god that tells us what
to write, we are changing the words of the bible as times passes. The
bible of science is not the same bible today that it was in 1900, just
to put an arbitrary year.
We are constantly erasing lines in our bible, and putting new words in
it. But the "basic concept" of evolution is the same when Darwin wrote
his book, as it is today.
Eridanus
AlwaysAskingQuestions
May 22, 2013, 2:00:47 PM5/22/13
to
news:ba0412cf-4851-4b80...@googlegroups.com...
> and, can we count the one about how
> electronically tested condoms have little holes in them that
> let through, well, everything? (Except, for instance, water.)
If you're reduced to clutching that sort of straw, it's perhaps time to
simply climb out of the water :)
> On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 14:08:33 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:2cdba52c-0f66-4aaf...@googlegroups.com...
>> > On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 12:46:23 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> >> Arguing the morals of how science gets applied is not
>> >> the same thing as rejecting science.
>> >
>> > There's a word for an argument like that - Jesuity.
>>
>> As it so happens, I disagree with several aspects of the
>> Church's teaching on human reproduction, and human cell
>> biology, and medical matters. I'm not aware, however, of
>> any of those teachings that contradict science. Feel free
>> to give examples that might enlighten me.
>
> Transubstantiation,
What science does it contradict.
>> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:2cdba52c-0f66-4aaf...@googlegroups.com...
>> > On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 12:46:23 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> >> Arguing the morals of how science gets applied is not
>> >> the same thing as rejecting science.
>> >
>> > There's a word for an argument like that - Jesuity.
>>
>> As it so happens, I disagree with several aspects of the
>> Church's teaching on human reproduction, and human cell
>> biology, and medical matters. I'm not aware, however, of
>> any of those teachings that contradict science. Feel free
>> to give examples that might enlighten me.
>
> Transubstantiation,
> and, can we count the one about how
> electronically tested condoms have little holes in them that
> let through, well, everything? (Except, for instance, water.)
simply climb out of the water :)
Robert Carnegie
May 22, 2013, 3:43:31 PM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 17:11:43 UTC+1, Burkhard wrote:
> On 22 May, 16:41, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
> > <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> > >changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happene
> >
> On 22 May, 16:41, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
> > <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> > >changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happene
> >
> > If that's true, then religion is science!
>
> Why would that follow? Lots of things evolve without
> become necessarily science. Jazz has evolved quite a lot
>
> Why would that follow? Lots of things evolve without
> for instance
He means "science is religion", I think. He's accusing
scientists of changing a theory and then lying about ever
having had the old, wrong theory, and also lying by
not acknowledging that they only invented the new theory
/because/ they were caught out with the old one being wrong.
And he's wrong.
Several ways wrong; I haven't counted.
Now, where scientists often go wrong, as frail human beings,
is to cling individually to a failed theory till the end of
their career, so that a superseded theory only dies when
that generation of scientists dies. Not everyone does this,
and it doesn't happen every time, and people /are/ entitled
to hold independent opinions, but, overall, it's a pity.
Robert Carnegie
May 22, 2013, 4:29:21 PM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 19:00:47 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:ba0412cf-4851-4b80...@googlegroups.com...
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> > [The Church vs. Science]
> > Transubstantiation,
>
> What science does it contradict.
Well, er, it's a miracle. Bread doesn't turn into human flesh.
>
> What science does it contradict.
And... how much alcohol can you have in your blood, and survive? (I don't know if this is a problem.)
> > and, can we count the one about how
> > electronically tested condoms have little holes in them that
> > let through, well, everything? (Except, for instance, water.
>
> If you're reduced to clutching that sort of straw, it's perhaps time to
> simply climb out of the water :)
Well, it happened. Bishops claimed that that was real.
> simply climb out of the water :)
If we limit it to current Catholic teaching, then I can't
bring in things like "where black people come from".
Probably. Anyway, "everyone else" had some unpleasant
ideas about that. I found a black guy saying he was
told in Catholic school that it's the mark of Cain,
but that isn't exclusively a Catholic idea. Anyway,
in Catholic school, everybody is a condemned sinner?
Kalkidas
May 22, 2013, 5:04:17 PM5/22/13
to
AlwaysAskingQuestions
May 22, 2013, 5:05:01 PM5/22/13
to
news:21a7e372-ee0f-46cd...@googlegroups.com...
about explaining *how things happen*, not making claims about things that
*cannot* happen.
>
> And... how much alcohol can you have in your blood, and survive? (I don't
> know if this is a problem.)
>
>> > and, can we count the one about how
>> > electronically tested condoms have little holes in them that
>> > let through, well, everything? (Except, for instance, water.
>>
>> If you're reduced to clutching that sort of straw, it's perhaps time to
>> simply climb out of the water :)
>
> Well, it happened. Bishops claimed that that was real.
So the best you can offer is one badly informed cardinal talking about
something that actually has nothing to do with religion ... definitely time
to climb out of the water.
> If we limit it to current Catholic teaching, then I can't
> bring in things like "where black people come from".
> Probably. Anyway, "everyone else" had some unpleasant
> ideas about that. I found a black guy saying he was
> told in Catholic school that it's the mark of Cain,
> but that isn't exclusively a Catholic idea.
Gotta love it when people claiming to support science fall back on anecdote
> Anyway,
> in Catholic school, everybody is a condemned sinner?
So science has now formulated an idea on how many people are and aren't
sinners?
.
> On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 19:00:47 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:ba0412cf-4851-4b80...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > [The Church vs. Science]
>> > Transubstantiation,
>>
>> What science does it contradict.
>
> Well, er, it's a miracle. Bread doesn't turn into human flesh.
Must be my misunderstanding of science, I had this weird idea that it was
>> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:ba0412cf-4851-4b80...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > [The Church vs. Science]
>> > Transubstantiation,
>>
>> What science does it contradict.
>
> Well, er, it's a miracle. Bread doesn't turn into human flesh.
about explaining *how things happen*, not making claims about things that
*cannot* happen.
>
> And... how much alcohol can you have in your blood, and survive? (I don't
> know if this is a problem.)
>
>> > and, can we count the one about how
>> > electronically tested condoms have little holes in them that
>> > let through, well, everything? (Except, for instance, water.
>>
>> If you're reduced to clutching that sort of straw, it's perhaps time to
>> simply climb out of the water :)
>
> Well, it happened. Bishops claimed that that was real.
something that actually has nothing to do with religion ... definitely time
to climb out of the water.
> If we limit it to current Catholic teaching, then I can't
> bring in things like "where black people come from".
> Probably. Anyway, "everyone else" had some unpleasant
> ideas about that. I found a black guy saying he was
> told in Catholic school that it's the mark of Cain,
> but that isn't exclusively a Catholic idea.
> Anyway,
> in Catholic school, everybody is a condemned sinner?
sinners?
.
Burkhard
May 22, 2013, 5:18:15 PM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 10:04�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
should answer your questions
Robert Carnegie
May 22, 2013, 5:23:56 PM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 22:05:01 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:21a7e372-ee0f-46cd...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 19:00:47 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> >> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> >> news:ba0412cf-4851-4b80...@googlegroups.com...
> >> > [The Church vs. Science]
> >> > Transubstantiation,
> >>
> >> What science does it contradict.
> >
> > Well, er, it's a miracle. Bread doesn't turn into human flesh.
>
> Must be my misunderstanding of science, I had this weird
> idea that it was about explaining *how things happen*,
> not making claims about things that *cannot* happen.
I wouldn't say that. But part of how things happen
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:21a7e372-ee0f-46cd...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 19:00:47 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> >> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> >> news:ba0412cf-4851-4b80...@googlegroups.com...
> >> > [The Church vs. Science]
> >> > Transubstantiation,
> >>
> >> What science does it contradict.
> >
> > Well, er, it's a miracle. Bread doesn't turn into human flesh.
>
> Must be my misunderstanding of science, I had this weird
> idea that it was about explaining *how things happen*,
> not making claims about things that *cannot* happen.
is that bread doesn't turn into human flesh. Many, many
scientists who take a bag lunch to work have observed this.
> >> > and, can we count the one about how
> >> > electronically tested condoms have little holes in them that
> >> > let through, well, everything? (Except, for instance, water.
> >>
> >> If you're reduced to clutching that sort of straw, it's perhaps time to
> >> simply climb out of the water :)
> >
> > Well, it happened. Bishops claimed that that was real.
>
> So the best you can offer is one badly informed cardinal
> talking about something that actually has nothing to do
> with religion ... definitely time to climb out of the water.
When a bishop speaks you're supposed to listen, I bet.
I think I also read one version that said several
Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
this about condoms.
But I don't care very much about it.
Kalkidas
May 22, 2013, 5:36:19 PM5/22/13
to
to their own theory, it's about their objections to *critics* of their
theory.
To paraphrase your original statement, its a section "on how
evolutionists have adapted by changing core doctrinal points, while
claiming it never happened".
Burkhard
May 22, 2013, 5:46:14 PM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 10:36锟絧m, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:18:15 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:18:15 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 22, 10:04锟絧m, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >On 22 May, 17:31, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >On 22 May, 16:41, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> >> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >> >> >> >changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
> >> >> >> If that's true, then religion is science!
>
> >> >> >Why would that follow? Lots of things evolve without becoming
> >> >> >necessarily science. Jazz has evolved quite a lot for instance
>
> >> >> >After all, the "theory" of
> >> >> >> evolution is constantly evolving, and its leading proponents always
> >> >> >> insist that the latest version of it is a FACT.
>
> >> >> >I doubt that any competent scientists claims the latest theory is a
> >> >> >fact, that seems to be more a strawman created by people who are
> >> >> >themselves scientifically illiterate, 锟絋he reason people work as
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >On 22 May, 17:31, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >On 22 May, 16:41, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> >> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >> >> >> >changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
> >> >> >> If that's true, then religion is science!
>
> >> >> >Why would that follow? Lots of things evolve without becoming
> >> >> >necessarily science. Jazz has evolved quite a lot for instance
>
> >> >> >After all, the "theory" of
> >> >> >> evolution is constantly evolving, and its leading proponents always
> >> >> >> insist that the latest version of it is a FACT.
>
> >> >> >I doubt that any competent scientists claims the latest theory is a
> >> >> >fact, that seems to be more a strawman created by people who are
> >> >> >scientists in biology (or nay other discipline for that matter) 锟絠s
> >> >> >precisely because they believe that they can change the theory .
> >> >> >Doesn't make science arbitrary though - the current theories should
> >> >> >explain all the available data better than any precursor theory, or
> >> >> >any current competitor.
>
> >> >> Many core doctrinal points of ToE have changed over the decades,
> >> >> usually in order to adjust it to fit new evidence that would not have
> >> >> been predicted by the previous version of the "theory". This should
> >> >> indicate that there is really no "theory" there at all. Yet which of
> >> >> the current propagandists for ToE will admit it?
>
> >> >Admit what, the blatant non sequitur between your second 锟絘nd third
> >> >> >Doesn't make science arbitrary though - the current theories should
> >> >> >explain all the available data better than any precursor theory, or
> >> >> >any current competitor.
>
> >> >> Many core doctrinal points of ToE have changed over the decades,
> >> >> usually in order to adjust it to fit new evidence that would not have
> >> >> been predicted by the previous version of the "theory". This should
> >> >> indicate that there is really no "theory" there at all. Yet which of
> >> >> the current propagandists for ToE will admit it?
>
> >> >sentence, or that the ToE changed over time? All scientific theories
> >> >change over time, it is called "learning", and typically encouraged.
> >> >In case of the ToE, the first thing anyone who actually reads a
> >> >textbook in biology with a short historical introduction will e.g. get
> >> >pointed to the 锟絤odern evolutionary synthesis as one of the key dates
> >> >change over time, it is called "learning", and typically encouraged.
> >> >In case of the ToE, the first thing anyone who actually reads a
> >> >textbook in biology with a short historical introduction will e.g. get
> >> >where the theory changed quite massively.
>
> >> I recommend the following page :http://www.darwinspredictions.com/
>
> >Yep, the section with "objections by evolutionists" is quite good. It
> >should answer your questions
>
> And yours. That section is not about the "objections" of evolutionists
> to their own theory, it's about their objections to *critics* of their
> theory.
>
> To paraphrase your original statement, its a section "on how
> evolutionists have adapted by changing core doctrinal points, while
> claiming it never happened".
Only that nobody claimed it never happened. Entire careers are based
>
> >> I recommend the following page :http://www.darwinspredictions.com/
>
> >Yep, the section with "objections by evolutionists" is quite good. It
> >should answer your questions
>
> And yours. That section is not about the "objections" of evolutionists
> to their own theory, it's about their objections to *critics* of their
> theory.
>
> To paraphrase your original statement, its a section "on how
> evolutionists have adapted by changing core doctrinal points, while
> claiming it never happened".
on not only making these changes, but making them as publicly as
possible - citation counts are important for promotion purposes. If
anything, you'll find the opposite, that the changes that are entailed
by a new revision are exaggerated for effect, and every small
improvement is labeled "paradigm shift".
eridanus
May 22, 2013, 6:11:59 PM5/22/13
to
El mi�rcoles, 22 de mayo de 2013 20:43:31 UTC+1, Robert Carnegie escribi�:
but not all scientists share the same theories. There is always a
minority that do not accept a theory or other, or at least some
aspects of a theory. Then, it is not a whole generation, but a crowd
of conformists, that do not have enough "skepticism". What really
drives science forward is this skepticism. There is always a minority
that do not like some aspects or parts of theory. Perhaps they had not
yet found a better explanation for that offensive parts, but they are
working to find a better explanation. Sometimes, a better explanation
exists already, but it would take like 50 or 70 years to be accepted.
Why? Because the crowd of scientists are mostly a bunch of conformists.
Eridanus
t
minority that do not accept a theory or other, or at least some
aspects of a theory. Then, it is not a whole generation, but a crowd
of conformists, that do not have enough "skepticism". What really
drives science forward is this skepticism. There is always a minority
that do not like some aspects or parts of theory. Perhaps they had not
yet found a better explanation for that offensive parts, but they are
working to find a better explanation. Sometimes, a better explanation
exists already, but it would take like 50 or 70 years to be accepted.
Why? Because the crowd of scientists are mostly a bunch of conformists.
Eridanus
t
eridanus
May 22, 2013, 6:24:02 PM5/22/13
to
El mi�rcoles, 22 de mayo de 2013 21:29:21 UTC+1, Robert Carnegie escribi�:
the theory about the blacks is different. Noe invented the
wine and one of his children make him drink till he fell on
the ground drunk. Then he was mocking his father for he was
naked and drunk on the floor. Then, when the other children
of Noah saw their father laying on the floor naked, they covered
him with a tunic. Then, when Noe heard the story, he coursed
his son "Ham" to be the lowest of all humans. The children of Noah
were Shem, Ham and Japheth The people descendant from Shem were
the Semites, the Europeans were Japhethites, the habitants of
Africa were Hamites. The habitants of extreme Asia like Chineses
do not existed in the bible. Nor the natives of America, of course.
Eridanus
wine and one of his children make him drink till he fell on
the ground drunk. Then he was mocking his father for he was
naked and drunk on the floor. Then, when the other children
of Noah saw their father laying on the floor naked, they covered
him with a tunic. Then, when Noe heard the story, he coursed
his son "Ham" to be the lowest of all humans. The children of Noah
were Shem, Ham and Japheth The people descendant from Shem were
the Semites, the Europeans were Japhethites, the habitants of
Africa were Hamites. The habitants of extreme Asia like Chineses
do not existed in the bible. Nor the natives of America, of course.
Eridanus
Kalkidas
May 22, 2013, 6:31:16 PM5/22/13
to
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=darwins-living-legacy
"A Victorian amateur undertook a lifetime pursuit of slow, meticulous
observation and thought about the natural world, producing a theory
150 years ago that still drives the contemporary scientific agenda"
So Darwin's theory is still in the driver's seat. Sounds like nothing
has changed.
(but remember: " evolutionists have adapted by changing core doctrinal
points, while claiming it never happened".)
Or see:
http://blog.23andme.com/23andme-and-you/genetics-101/the-evolution-of-a-theory-darwin-and-evolution-150-year-later/
"Biology has changed a lot over the past 150 years. Scientists have
discovered entirely new forms of life, deciphered the molecular code
of heredity and observed the machinery of life on the smallest
dimensions. And through it all, one scientific theory has stood the
test of time."
So "biology" has changed but not Darwin's theory, which is still as
true now as it ever was (that's what "stood the test of time" means)
(but remember: " evolutionists have adapted by changing core doctrinal
points, while claiming it never happened".)
eridanus
May 22, 2013, 6:47:53 PM5/22/13
to
El mi�rcoles, 22 de mayo de 2013 22:04:17 UTC+1, Kalkidas escribi�:
Predictions, you said? I have a small book called Pocket Guide to
the Apocalypse, the Official Field Manual for The End of the World.
It covers since 2000 BC to 2000 AC.
During the 20 century, on average each ten years or so, there was a
prophet announcing the End of the World. The last end of the World was
quite recent and was predicted for December 2012 Then, in fact we
are living in a post-apocalyptic period.
But I was a child of 12 when I realized that the gospel of Mathew had
made fake prediction. It occurs in chapter 24 predicting the end of
the World.
Read Mathew: Chapter 24
24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and
then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the
Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet,
and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from
one end of heaven to the other.
24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet
tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know
that it is near, even at the doors.
-------------
24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till
all these things be fulfilled.
-------------------
<This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.>
Do you like predictions? This is the best one of them all.
Eridanus
the Apocalypse, the Official Field Manual for The End of the World.
It covers since 2000 BC to 2000 AC.
During the 20 century, on average each ten years or so, there was a
prophet announcing the End of the World. The last end of the World was
quite recent and was predicted for December 2012 Then, in fact we
are living in a post-apocalyptic period.
But I was a child of 12 when I realized that the gospel of Mathew had
made fake prediction. It occurs in chapter 24 predicting the end of
the World.
Read Mathew: Chapter 24
24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and
then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the
Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet,
and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from
one end of heaven to the other.
24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet
tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know
that it is near, even at the doors.
-------------
24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till
all these things be fulfilled.
-------------------
<This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.>
Do you like predictions? This is the best one of them all.
Eridanus
Paul J Gans
May 22, 2013, 7:36:06 PM5/22/13
to
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Thrinaxodon <biol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
>>>bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
>>>to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
>>
>>I just now found a loose screw on the floor. Is it yours?
>While you're at it, check for any marbles he might have lost.
I save marbles. I may need them soon.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Thrinaxodon <biol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On May 21, 6:44?pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
>>>> changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>>>>
>>>> Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
>>>> changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>>>>
>>>> The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
>>>> George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
>>>> rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
>>>> cool)
>>
>>>RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
>>>>
>>>> The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
>>>> George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
>>>> rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
>>>> cool)
>>
>>>Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
>>>bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
>>>to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
>>
>>I just now found a loose screw on the floor. Is it yours?
>While you're at it, check for any marbles he might have lost.
I save marbles. I may need them soon.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
May 22, 2013, 7:40:39 PM5/22/13
to
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>[quote]Once upon a time, animal sacrifice was an important part of Hindu
>life, Catholic priests weren't celibate and visual depictions of the
>Prophet Muhammad were part of Islamic art. And soon some churches in the
>UK may be marrying gay couples. How do religions manage to change their
>mind?[/quote]
We know the answer for a celibate priesthood. Roman catholicism
(which is in fact not the only form of catholicism) banned the
previously accepted married priesthood in around the 11th century.
Greek Orthodoxy, for example, allows married priests and a limited
number of divorces, among many other differences with the Romans.
I asked a Greek Orthodox friend who is moderately knowlegeable
about this and she insisted that the Greek Church *always* had
accepted a married priesthood. It's a 2000 year old tradition.
>[quote]Once upon a time, animal sacrifice was an important part of Hindu
>life, Catholic priests weren't celibate and visual depictions of the
>Prophet Muhammad were part of Islamic art. And soon some churches in the
>UK may be marrying gay couples. How do religions manage to change their
>mind?[/quote]
We know the answer for a celibate priesthood. Roman catholicism
(which is in fact not the only form of catholicism) banned the
previously accepted married priesthood in around the 11th century.
Greek Orthodoxy, for example, allows married priests and a limited
number of divorces, among many other differences with the Romans.
I asked a Greek Orthodox friend who is moderately knowlegeable
about this and she insisted that the Greek Church *always* had
accepted a married priesthood. It's a 2000 year old tradition.
Robert Camp
May 22, 2013, 7:52:35 PM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 8:41�am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
> If that's true, then religion is science! After all, the "theory" of
> evolution is constantly evolving, and its leading proponents always
> insist that the latest version of it is a FACT.
The qualifier "...while claiming it never happened," is pretty
> >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
> If that's true, then religion is science! After all, the "theory" of
> evolution is constantly evolving, and its leading proponents always
> insist that the latest version of it is a FACT.
important here. Not only does its surface meaning distinguish religion
from science right from the get-go, but wrapped up in it are plenty of
deeper epistemological implications that militate against your
argument.
Paul J Gans
May 22, 2013, 8:14:53 PM5/22/13
to
seems to have been a rather complex interaction for many reasons and
did not hinge on the "but it still moves" meme.
Mark Isaak
May 22, 2013, 8:27:57 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/13 1:22 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
> On May 21, 3:54 pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Darwin's daughter, who tended him during his final illness and was
> scarcely out of his room, thoroughly refuted the put-up stories of his
> conversion. Nothing of the sort ever happened.
I think the "he" who converted on his death bed refers to Obama.
"Doesn't make sense", you say? Exactly my point.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (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
> On May 21, 3:54 pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 6:44 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
>>> changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>>
>>> The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
>>> George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
>>> rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
>>> cool)
>>
>>
>>> Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
>>> changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>>
>>> The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
>>> George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
>>> rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
>>> cool)
>>
>> RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
>> Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
>> bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
>> to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
>
> It would have been amazing had it actually happened. It didn't.
>> Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
>> bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
>> to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
>
> Darwin's daughter, who tended him during his final illness and was
> scarcely out of his room, thoroughly refuted the put-up stories of his
> conversion. Nothing of the sort ever happened.
I think the "he" who converted on his death bed refers to Obama.
"Doesn't make sense", you say? Exactly my point.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (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
Thrinaxodon
May 22, 2013, 8:37:53 PM5/22/13
to
Ethiopian). You see, decades ago, Obama was kidnapped during the
Crusades. The Muslims, flogged him, over and over again, to try to
force him to convert to Shiite Islam. He refused. But, just before
they were to kill him, the Crusaders came, in and slaughtered the
Muslims.
Thrinaxodon is now on twitter.
Walter Bushell
May 22, 2013, 8:50:38 PM5/22/13
to
In article <njbop8dv8ci83etab...@4ax.com>,
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >Thrinaxodon <biol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>On May 21, 6:44?pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>> Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >>> changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
> >>>
> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
> >>>
> >>> The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
> >>> George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
> >>> rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
> >>> cool)
> >
> >>RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
> >>Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
> >>bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
> >>to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
> >
> >>> Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >>> changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
> >>>
> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
> >>>
> >>> The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
> >>> George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
> >>> rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
> >>> cool)
> >
> >>RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
> >>Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
> >>bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
> >>to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
> >
> >I just now found a loose screw on the floor. Is it yours?
>
>
> While you're at it, check for any marbles he might have lost.
And if you get the chance see if his elevator reaches the penthouse.
>
>
> While you're at it, check for any marbles he might have lost.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Walter Bushell
May 22, 2013, 8:54:14 PM5/22/13
to
In article <sNqdnQbZQJ0QsgHM...@giganews.com>,
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 10:33 PM, jillery wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> > <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thrinaxodon <biol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On May 21, 6:44?pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >>>> changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
> >>>>
> >>>> The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
> >>>> George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
> >>>> rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
> >>>> cool)
> >>
> >>> RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
> >>> Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
> >>> bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
> >>> to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
> >>
> >> I just now found a loose screw on the floor. Is it yours?
> >
> >
> > While you're at it, check for any marbles he might have lost.
>
>
what sense is it the same religion?
In what sense can a religion be considered an entity?
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 10:33 PM, jillery wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> > <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thrinaxodon <biol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On May 21, 6:44?pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >>>> changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
> >>>>
> >>>> The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
> >>>> George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
> >>>> rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
> >>>> cool)
> >>
> >>> RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
> >>> Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
> >>> bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
> >>> to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
> >>
> >> I just now found a loose screw on the floor. Is it yours?
> >
> >
> > While you're at it, check for any marbles he might have lost.
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>
> [quote]Once upon a time, animal sacrifice was an important part of Hindu
> life, Catholic priests weren't celibate and visual depictions of the
> Prophet Muhammad were part of Islamic art. And soon some churches in the
> UK may be marrying gay couples. How do religions manage to change their
> mind?[/quote]
With great difficulty. If a religion changes it's dogmas and ritual in
>
> [quote]Once upon a time, animal sacrifice was an important part of Hindu
> life, Catholic priests weren't celibate and visual depictions of the
> Prophet Muhammad were part of Islamic art. And soon some churches in the
> UK may be marrying gay couples. How do religions manage to change their
> mind?[/quote]
what sense is it the same religion?
In what sense can a religion be considered an entity?
Walter Bushell
May 22, 2013, 8:55:22 PM5/22/13
to
In article
<2d595da8-7506-4078...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 7:20 pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 21, 9:30 pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > it's a lie. Quite a detailed one, if I remember right.
> > > Anyway, his changing his mind on his deathbed doesn't
> > > necessarily mean that he was wrong before.
> >
> > The myth was created by, "Elizabeth "Lady Hope" Reid Cotton". Quite a
> > clever one. The myth, was deemed as false, By Darwin's children, and
> > by historians. Darwin's daughter, Henrietta Litchfield deemed, that
> > Hope had never seen Darwin, and he never recanted his *purely*
> > scientific views. I read a lot on this while, getting my Bachelor's in
> > the History of Science.
>
> On which planet was that university located?
S/planet/universe/
<2d595da8-7506-4078...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 7:20 pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 21, 9:30 pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 23:54:47 UTC+1, Thrinaxodon wrote:
> > > > RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
> > > > Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
> > > > bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
> > > > to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
> >
> > > If you know that story, you probably also know that
> > > On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 23:54:47 UTC+1, Thrinaxodon wrote:
> > > > RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
> > > > Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
> > > > bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
> > > > to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
> >
> > > it's a lie. Quite a detailed one, if I remember right.
> > > Anyway, his changing his mind on his deathbed doesn't
> > > necessarily mean that he was wrong before.
> >
> > The myth was created by, "Elizabeth "Lady Hope" Reid Cotton". Quite a
> > clever one. The myth, was deemed as false, By Darwin's children, and
> > by historians. Darwin's daughter, Henrietta Litchfield deemed, that
> > Hope had never seen Darwin, and he never recanted his *purely*
> > scientific views. I read a lot on this while, getting my Bachelor's in
> > the History of Science.
>
> On which planet was that university located?
S/planet/universe/
Walter Bushell
May 22, 2013, 8:58:55 PM5/22/13
to
In article
<66ee627e-2cd4-40c3...@li6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> On May 21, 3:54 pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
In any event, do we expect people to be more rational on their
deathbed or even as rational as before? One expects a diminished blood
flow to the brain and perhaps other physiological and chemical
changes, stokes and mini strokes associated with incorrect thinking.
<66ee627e-2cd4-40c3...@li6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> On May 21, 3:54 pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 21, 6:44 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> > > changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
> >
> > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
> >
> > > The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
> > > George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
> > > rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
> > > cool)
> >
> >
> > > Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> > > changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
> >
> > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
> >
> > > The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
> > > George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
> > > rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
> > > cool)
> >
> > RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
> > Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
> > bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
> > to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
>
> > Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
> > bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
> > to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
>
> It would have been amazing had it actually happened. It didn't.
> Darwin's daughter, who tended him during his final illness and was
> scarcely out of his room, thoroughly refuted the put-up stories of his
> conversion. Nothing of the sort ever happened.
>
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> Darwin's daughter, who tended him during his final illness and was
> scarcely out of his room, thoroughly refuted the put-up stories of his
> conversion. Nothing of the sort ever happened.
>
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
In any event, do we expect people to be more rational on their
deathbed or even as rational as before? One expects a diminished blood
flow to the brain and perhaps other physiological and chemical
changes, stokes and mini strokes associated with incorrect thinking.
Walter Bushell
May 22, 2013, 9:01:01 PM5/22/13
to
In article <201a9923-6aba-4668...@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> And goodness me: "Voltaire, a leading figure of the Enlightenment,
> was asked to renounce the Devil as his death approached. He replied
> 'This is no time for making new enemies'."
>
> I suppose that probably isn't true, either.
>
> Perhaps he said "Bugger Bellamy". :-)
I thought it was, "I will accept Jesus, but as for renouncing the
Devil, I am no position to make enemies.", IIRC this is not an exact
quotation, because he was speaking French at the time.
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> And goodness me: "Voltaire, a leading figure of the Enlightenment,
> was asked to renounce the Devil as his death approached. He replied
> 'This is no time for making new enemies'."
>
> I suppose that probably isn't true, either.
>
> Perhaps he said "Bugger Bellamy". :-)
I thought it was, "I will accept Jesus, but as for renouncing the
Devil, I am no position to make enemies.", IIRC this is not an exact
quotation, because he was speaking French at the time.
Walter Bushell
May 22, 2013, 9:05:11 PM5/22/13
to
In article <1d88b755-b196-4348...@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> These days, the Church's "problem" seems to be usually
> with human reproduction, and human cell biology, and
> medical matters.
>
> For instance vaccines - guess why:
> <http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm>
>
> (Although I think this isn't the Church as a whole,
> but some of its members. As may or may not be the case
> with "pharmacists denying the existence of birth control".)
Neurology is or will be the big bugaboo.
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> These days, the Church's "problem" seems to be usually
> with human reproduction, and human cell biology, and
> medical matters.
>
> For instance vaccines - guess why:
> <http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm>
>
> (Although I think this isn't the Church as a whole,
> but some of its members. As may or may not be the case
> with "pharmacists denying the existence of birth control".)
Neurology is or will be the big bugaboo.
Walter Bushell
May 22, 2013, 9:09:29 PM5/22/13
to
In article <b03ua7...@mid.individual.net>,
their designer for behaving according to design specs, as it were. You
have a bunch of not to bright apes and they are going to behave like
not to bright apes.
Or that anyone else's merit can absolve you of the results of your
actions.
"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:2cdba52c-0f66-4aaf...@googlegroups.com...
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 12:46:23 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> >> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1d88b755-b196-4348...@googlegroups.com...
> >> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> > These days, the Church's "problem" seems to be usually
> >> > with human reproduction, and human cell biology, and
> >> > medical matters.
> >> >
> >> > For instance vaccines - guess why:
> >> > <http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm>
> >> >
> >> > (Although I think this isn't the Church as a whole,
> >> > but some of its members.)
> >> > These days, the Church's "problem" seems to be usually
> >> > with human reproduction, and human cell biology, and
> >> > medical matters.
> >> >
> >> > For instance vaccines - guess why:
> >> > <http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm>
> >> >
> >> > (Although I think this isn't the Church as a whole,
> >> >
> >> Arguing the morals of how science gets applied is not
> >> the same thing as rejecting science.
> >
> > There's a word for an argument like that - Jesuity.
> >
>
> As it so happens, I disagree with several aspects of the Church's teaching
> on human reproduction, and human cell biology, and medical matters. I'm not
> aware, however, of any of those teachings that contradict science. Feel free
> to give examples that might enlighten me.
The doctrine of original sin and that people should be sent to Hell by
> >> Arguing the morals of how science gets applied is not
> >> the same thing as rejecting science.
> >
> > There's a word for an argument like that - Jesuity.
> >
>
> As it so happens, I disagree with several aspects of the Church's teaching
> on human reproduction, and human cell biology, and medical matters. I'm not
> aware, however, of any of those teachings that contradict science. Feel free
> to give examples that might enlighten me.
their designer for behaving according to design specs, as it were. You
have a bunch of not to bright apes and they are going to behave like
not to bright apes.
Or that anyone else's merit can absolve you of the results of your
actions.
Walter Bushell
May 22, 2013, 9:13:20 PM5/22/13
to
In article <61f6bbfe-527f-4178...@googlegroups.com>,
Calvinist and Lutheran scientists get different results? One gets very
suspicious about such results. Maybe someone sticks a pin up the
Vatican condom machine.
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> A cardinal? I said bishops.
>
> When a bishop speaks you're supposed to listen, I bet.
>
> I think I also read one version that said several
> Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
> this about condoms.
>
> But I don't care very much about it.
And the work has not been replicated outside the Vatican? And secular
> A cardinal? I said bishops.
>
> When a bishop speaks you're supposed to listen, I bet.
>
> I think I also read one version that said several
> Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
> this about condoms.
>
> But I don't care very much about it.
Calvinist and Lutheran scientists get different results? One gets very
suspicious about such results. Maybe someone sticks a pin up the
Vatican condom machine.
Robert Carnegie
May 22, 2013, 10:10:12 PM5/22/13
to
On Thursday, 23 May 2013 02:13:20 UTC+1, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <61f6bbfe-527f-4178...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > I think I also read one version that said several
> > Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
> > this about condoms.
> >
> > But I don't care very much about it.
>
> And the work has not been replicated outside the Vatican? And secular
> Calvinist and Lutheran scientists get different results? One gets very
> suspicious about such results. Maybe someone sticks a pin up the
> Vatican condom machine.
I expect they have workbooks with a hundred condoms neatly stapled in place.
> In article <61f6bbfe-527f-4178...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > I think I also read one version that said several
> > Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
> > this about condoms.
> >
> > But I don't care very much about it.
>
> And the work has not been replicated outside the Vatican? And secular
> Calvinist and Lutheran scientists get different results? One gets very
> suspicious about such results. Maybe someone sticks a pin up the
> Vatican condom machine.
Richard Norman
May 22, 2013, 10:27:03 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:13:20 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:
>In article <61f6bbfe-527f-4178...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> A cardinal? I said bishops.
>>
>> When a bishop speaks you're supposed to listen, I bet.
>>
>> I think I also read one version that said several
>> Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
>> this about condoms.
>>
>> But I don't care very much about it.
>
>And the work has not been replicated outside the Vatican? And secular
>Calvinist and Lutheran scientists get different results? One gets very
>suspicious about such results. Maybe someone sticks a pin up the
>Vatican condom machine.
I believe that natural lambskin condoms are porous enough to let
viruses through. Other materials don't have that problem.
wrote:
>In article <61f6bbfe-527f-4178...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> A cardinal? I said bishops.
>>
>> When a bishop speaks you're supposed to listen, I bet.
>>
>> I think I also read one version that said several
>> Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
>> this about condoms.
>>
>> But I don't care very much about it.
>
>And the work has not been replicated outside the Vatican? And secular
>Calvinist and Lutheran scientists get different results? One gets very
>suspicious about such results. Maybe someone sticks a pin up the
>Vatican condom machine.
viruses through. Other materials don't have that problem.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
May 23, 2013, 4:38:05 AM5/23/13
to
news:61f6bbfe-527f-4178...@googlegroups.com...
> But part of how things happen
> is that bread doesn't turn into human flesh. Many, many
> scientists who take a bag lunch to work have observed this.
Whoopee, I always hankered to be a scientist, now it seems that I don't need
all that study and training, all I have to do is sit at lunchtime and watch
my sandwich doing nothing.
>
>> >> > and, can we count the one about how
>> >> > electronically tested condoms have little holes in them that
>> >> > let through, well, everything? (Except, for instance, water.
>> >>
>> >> If you're reduced to clutching that sort of straw, it's perhaps time
>> >> to
>> >> simply climb out of the water :)
>> >
>> > Well, it happened. Bishops claimed that that was real.
>>
>> So the best you can offer is one badly informed cardinal
>> talking about something that actually has nothing to do
>> with religion ... definitely time to climb out of the water.
>
> A cardinal? I said bishops.
It was a cardinal - Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo to be precise.
science, or football, or the weather, or anything else that has nothing to
do with religion and where they have no particular qualifications or
expertise. The same applies to the Pope, BTW.
they read somewhere.
> On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 22:05:01 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:21a7e372-ee0f-46cd...@googlegroups.com...
>> > On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 19:00:47 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> >> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:ba0412cf-4851-4b80...@googlegroups.com...
>> >> > [The Church vs. Science]
>> >> > Transubstantiation,
>> >>
>> >> What science does it contradict.
>> >
>> > Well, er, it's a miracle. Bread doesn't turn into human flesh.
>>
>> Must be my misunderstanding of science, I had this weird
>> idea that it was about explaining *how things happen*,
>> not making claims about things that *cannot* happen.
>
> I wouldn't say that.
So what would you say?
>> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:21a7e372-ee0f-46cd...@googlegroups.com...
>> > On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 19:00:47 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> >> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:ba0412cf-4851-4b80...@googlegroups.com...
>> >> > [The Church vs. Science]
>> >> > Transubstantiation,
>> >>
>> >> What science does it contradict.
>> >
>> > Well, er, it's a miracle. Bread doesn't turn into human flesh.
>>
>> Must be my misunderstanding of science, I had this weird
>> idea that it was about explaining *how things happen*,
>> not making claims about things that *cannot* happen.
>
> I wouldn't say that.
> But part of how things happen
> is that bread doesn't turn into human flesh. Many, many
> scientists who take a bag lunch to work have observed this.
all that study and training, all I have to do is sit at lunchtime and watch
my sandwich doing nothing.
>
>> >> > and, can we count the one about how
>> >> > electronically tested condoms have little holes in them that
>> >> > let through, well, everything? (Except, for instance, water.
>> >>
>> >> If you're reduced to clutching that sort of straw, it's perhaps time
>> >> to
>> >> simply climb out of the water :)
>> >
>> > Well, it happened. Bishops claimed that that was real.
>>
>> So the best you can offer is one badly informed cardinal
>> talking about something that actually has nothing to do
>> with religion ... definitely time to climb out of the water.
>
> A cardinal? I said bishops.
>
> When a bishop speaks you're supposed to listen, I bet.
Yes, when they talk about Faith and Morals, not when they talk about
> When a bishop speaks you're supposed to listen, I bet.
science, or football, or the weather, or anything else that has nothing to
do with religion and where they have no particular qualifications or
expertise. The same applies to the Pope, BTW.
>
> I think I also read one version that said several
> Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
> this about condoms.
Never heard of it but that's often the case with things that people reckon
> I think I also read one version that said several
> Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
> this about condoms.
they read somewhere.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
May 23, 2013, 4:41:38 AM5/23/13
to
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-040E25....@news.panix.com...
that original sin had become an area of scientific study.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
May 23, 2013, 4:42:51 AM5/23/13
to
"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1984c995-7c1c-45b0...@a6g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On 22 May, 11:46, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d47198cc-fc8c-4c85...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d47198cc-fc8c-4c85...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
>> > changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>>
>> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>>
>> > The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
>> > George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
>> > rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
>> > cool)
>>
>> > changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>>
>> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>>
>> > The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
>> > George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
>> > rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
>> > cool)
>>
>> The latest in a long line of people trying to make out that the Catholic
>> Church has a problem with science and can only find one 400 year old
>> incident to back up their argument; and, as usual, they give a grossly
>> simplified version of that single incident.
>
> Sorry, whom are you talking about?
The author of the article.
>> Church has a problem with science and can only find one 400 year old
>> incident to back up their argument; and, as usual, they give a grossly
>> simplified version of that single incident.
>
> Sorry, whom are you talking about?
J. J. Lodder
May 23, 2013, 4:57:40 AM5/23/13
to
Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
> <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
-progressive- change is -the- characteristic of real science,
as opposed to pseudo-science and religion.
No doubt religions change too.
If you want to argue that religion is like sciece
you have to argue that the changes in dogma are progressive,
and not merely rear-guard acttions to save what can be saved
of outdated and no longer defendable beliefs.
> and its leading proponents always
> insist that the latest version of it is a FACT.
Not amongst themselves.
Only when talking down to dumb creationists,
Jan
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
> <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
> If that's true, then religion is science! After all, the "theory" of
> evolution is constantly evolving,
According to a well known philosopher of science (Lakatos)
> evolution is constantly evolving,
-progressive- change is -the- characteristic of real science,
as opposed to pseudo-science and religion.
No doubt religions change too.
If you want to argue that religion is like sciece
you have to argue that the changes in dogma are progressive,
and not merely rear-guard acttions to save what can be saved
of outdated and no longer defendable beliefs.
> and its leading proponents always
> insist that the latest version of it is a FACT.
Only when talking down to dumb creationists,
Jan
Burkhard
May 23, 2013, 5:05:31 AM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 1:54�am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <sNqdnQbZQJ0QsgHMnZ2dnUVZ_jGdn...@giganews.com>,
If a species looses its wings and/or tail, how can it be considered
the same clade?
> In article <sNqdnQbZQJ0QsgHMnZ2dnUVZ_jGdn...@giganews.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> �*Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 05/21/2013 10:33 PM, jillery wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> > > <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> �*Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 05/21/2013 10:33 PM, jillery wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> > > <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
the same clade?
Burkhard
May 23, 2013, 5:08:16 AM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 9:42�am, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
And the Galileo trail is just one sentence, in an article that is
neither primarily about Christianity, nor just about science and
religion
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1984c995-7c1c-45b0...@a6g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 May, 11:46, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d47198cc-fc8c-4c85...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >> > changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
> >> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>
> >> > The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
> >> > George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
> >> > rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
> >> > cool)
>
> >> The latest in a long line of people trying to make out that the Catholic
> >> Church has a problem with science and can only find one 400 year old
> >> incident to back up their argument; and, as usual, they give a grossly
> >> simplified version of that single incident.
>
> > Sorry, whom are you talking about?
>
> The author of the article.
>
Who also seems to argue the exact opposite - as the title indicates.
> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1984c995-7c1c-45b0...@a6g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 May, 11:46, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d47198cc-fc8c-4c85...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >> > changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
> >> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>
> >> > The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
> >> > George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
> >> > rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
> >> > cool)
>
> >> The latest in a long line of people trying to make out that the Catholic
> >> Church has a problem with science and can only find one 400 year old
> >> incident to back up their argument; and, as usual, they give a grossly
> >> simplified version of that single incident.
>
> > Sorry, whom are you talking about?
>
> The author of the article.
>
And the Galileo trail is just one sentence, in an article that is
neither primarily about Christianity, nor just about science and
religion
alias Ernest Major
May 23, 2013, 6:22:17 AM5/23/13
to
of Monogenism (that is literal descent from a literal Adam and Eve).
Depending on how exactly they phrase it there may be some wriggle room,
but this is not in accordance with scientific knowledge.
Humani Generis apparently says "No Catholic can hold that after Adam
there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin
through natural generation from his as from the first parent of all",
which implies that Adam was a "true man", but any siblings he had weren't.
>
>>
>> --
>> Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
>> me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
>>
>
>
--
>>
>> --
>> Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
>> me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
>>
>
>
alias Ernest Major
solar penguin
May 23, 2013, 7:50:22 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:31:16 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:46:14 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
of pop-sci writers, and taking it literally. Big mistake. (Mind you,
you probably make the mistake of taking the Bible literally too, so at
least you're consistent!)
When they say it's stood the test of time for 150 years, they _don't_
that mean it literally hasn't developed in all that time. They mean it's
been a useful starting point for further research and discoveries which
have in turn refined and improved the theory, leading to yet more
research and discoveries, etc. etc. in an ongoing, organic process.
That's what science is about.
Burkhard
May 23, 2013, 8:09:19 AM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 11:22�am, alias Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.ukl>
wrote:
> >> "AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote in message
The concept of "person" should do a lot of the wiggling, though better
not to think through some of the implications :o) Simple feudal model:
The King creates a new barony, and makes his trusted John the first
baron of X, and all his descendants i line for the title... That
means trivially at that point, nobody before John, none of his
siblings or contemporaries are "Baron of X or in line to the title",
all his descendants are either baron, or in line to the title however
remotely. This is perfectly intuitive, even though tere is no physical
characteristic that singles John (or his descendants) out
The more obvious problem with this is that at any given point in time,
there will be people who are not descendants from John.... So back to
the theological issue, the implication would be that not all
(biological) humans are persons, and we probably don;t want to go
there (again..)
wrote:
> On 23/05/2013 09:41, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:proto-040E25....@news.panix.com...
> >> In article <b03ua7Fdu1...@mid.individual.net>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:proto-040E25....@news.panix.com...
> >> "AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:2cdba52c-0f66-4aaf...@googlegroups.com...
> >>>> On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 12:46:23 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions �wrote:
> >>>>> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote in message
> >>>> On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 12:46:23 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions �wrote:
not to think through some of the implications :o) Simple feudal model:
The King creates a new barony, and makes his trusted John the first
baron of X, and all his descendants i line for the title... That
means trivially at that point, nobody before John, none of his
siblings or contemporaries are "Baron of X or in line to the title",
all his descendants are either baron, or in line to the title however
remotely. This is perfectly intuitive, even though tere is no physical
characteristic that singles John (or his descendants) out
The more obvious problem with this is that at any given point in time,
there will be people who are not descendants from John.... So back to
the theological issue, the implication would be that not all
(biological) humans are persons, and we probably don;t want to go
there (again..)
Robert Carnegie
May 23, 2013, 8:42:11 AM5/23/13
to
considered to be exceptions of some kind to the biological
transmission of apple-stealing guilt, and/or to the provision
of ordinary individual human souls directly from heaven to
occupy new biologically sinful bodies, /I'm/ not making
this up you know. Is Jesus a true man? It's usually
asserted that he was/is truly a man, but perhaps that
isn't the same thing - for instance, if "true man" also
means "mere man". And of course this came out in 1950
in Latin.
I think the current Catholic accommodation with evolution
is that Adam is just one Cro-Magnon descendant of primates,
but they're sticking to the thing about souls. Biologically,
Adam and presumably Eve (I don't know if they insist that
she's Adam's clone, which surely isn't "natural generation")
and their immediate descendants ought to be able to reproduce
with other Cro-Magnons, and probably had better do that to
avoid the harmful effect of inbreeding - but only those
descended from Adam and Eve (on at least one side of the
family?) receive souls from heaven and become "true men"
(and, I suppose, women).
It seems rather hard on a soul that is presumably created
sinless by God, and then sent into a body that has
"original sin", and then is punished /for/ the "original sin".
But, as God says, "I'm God", so what can you do about it?
Walter Bushell
May 23, 2013, 8:44:08 AM5/23/13
to
In article <knjl1n$169$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
St. Paul dictated that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. So
celibate bishops are heretical. The Bishop of Rome needs a wife. Every
man needs someone to tell him when he's overly full of feces.
celibate bishops are heretical. The Bishop of Rome needs a wife. Every
man needs someone to tell him when he's overly full of feces.
Burkhard
May 23, 2013, 9:03:36 AM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 2:13�am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <61f6bbfe-527f-4178...@googlegroups.com>,
> In article <61f6bbfe-527f-4178...@googlegroups.com>,
> �Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > A cardinal? �I said bishops.
>
> > When a bishop speaks you're supposed to listen, I bet.
>
> > I think I also read one version that said several
> > Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
> > this about condoms.
>
> > But I don't care very much about it.
>
> And the work has not been replicated outside the Vatican? And secular
> Calvinist and Lutheran scientists get different results? One gets very
> suspicious about such results. Maybe someone sticks a pin up the
> Vatican condom machine.
>
> --
as so often, the story is slightly more complicated. I assume that the
>
> > A cardinal? �I said bishops.
>
> > When a bishop speaks you're supposed to listen, I bet.
>
> > I think I also read one version that said several
> > Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
> > this about condoms.
>
> > But I don't care very much about it.
>
> And the work has not been replicated outside the Vatican? And secular
> Calvinist and Lutheran scientists get different results? One gets very
> suspicious about such results. Maybe someone sticks a pin up the
> Vatican condom machine.
>
> --
reference is to the document produced by Cardinal (not bishop)
Trujilo. That one did not cite or carry out any independent research
on condoms, and to the best of my knowledge the vatican never has.
Rather, it takes data from (quite reputable and as far as I can make
out sound) studies and then uses them for a highlight problematic risk
assessment model.
If I recall this correctly, the studies cite failure rates in condoms
for STD prevention from 0-15%. The range might be due to them
measuring different things, in particular, the difference between
laboratory testing of newly minted condoms, and testing them in real
life settings (say a street prostitute in Africa leaving them exposed
to the sun for extended periods of time). That would of course be the
first problem if you then use these figures for risk assessment, as
you'd have to factor in how much you can reduce these problems through
education etc., one of the flaws of the report.
OK, next step is even more problematic: based again on perfectly
secular and mainly sound studies, he points to some countries where
despite the increase in condom use, AIDS did not just not decline, but
increase. Bit of cherry picking data here, as there are also well
documented success stories, Europe, the US and parts of Asia in
particular.
On this basis, an explanation is offered that is based on another well
documented phenomenon, risk compensation (aka Peltzman effect) That
effect explains why units issued with body armour in an armed conflict
often saw an increase in mortality - not just because the armour
slowed them down, and most certainly not because it did not work in
theory, but because they were now taking higher risks, and these were
actually greater than the protection (which never is perfect) offered.
So Trujilo argues that in those cases where we found an increase in
AIDS coinciding with one in greater condom use, risk compensation
meant that the small percentage of faulty condoms increased the
overall rate. Again, problematic for all sorts of reasons (e.g. by not
looking for confounding factors which could indicate that the causal
arrow is the other way round - an increase in prostitution caused
agencies to start distributing condoms, just not enough.
So no "miracle physics", just different risk models, and what you
could accuse the vatican of is to talk up a real, but statistically
small risk, leaving people exposed to much greater risks instead.
Having said that. it also had the effect that epidemiologists looked
a bit harder at the data, mainly to refute the idea, and some have
come to a "well, actually..." conclusion. Ed Green is of course
a ...controversial... figure, but I don't think you can accuse him of
religious motivations, and his research at Harvard and later John
Hopkins was peer reviewed etc His line is much more nuanced - it
depends a lot on other social and cultural factors if condoms decrease
AIDS or don;t have an effect (and under very specific conditions can
increase it) If you have good distribution and quality control systems
and educated users (Europe, US), and/or when the spread is mainly
through prostitution, and you can enforce a close to 100% use
(Cambodia, Thailand) the beneficial effects are massive. If on the
other and spread is mainly along "stable affairs", where most people
have several, but stable partners, usage declines due to the mutual
(misplaced) trust, and can then even be harmful (when man start in
addition to see prostitutes, and think they are perfectly safe f they
use a condom.
This all of course assumes that the vatican report should be read as
a risk management document. If you don't, things get even more
complicated and also a bit paradoxical,both for the vatican and its
detractors.
Burkhard
May 23, 2013, 9:07:00 AM5/23/13
to
> <66ee627e-2cd4-40c3-aef6-e6bdd6c85...@li6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Just as an aside - common law countries typically exclude "dying
declarations" form the hearsay prohibition (ever since an English case
from 1202 that established the idea of Nemo moriturus praesumitur
mentir - those about to die don't lie) and in the US also from the
confrontation clause. The rationale seems similar, and similarly
unfounded
declarations" form the hearsay prohibition (ever since an English case
from 1202 that established the idea of Nemo moriturus praesumitur
mentir - those about to die don't lie) and in the US also from the
confrontation clause. The rationale seems similar, and similarly
unfounded
Kalkidas
May 23, 2013, 11:10:47 AM5/23/13
to
Darwinist circles, as you seem to think. They mean what they say.
And "taking the Bible literally" is a meaningless phrase. How else
would one take written words? In any case I am not a fundamentalist
Christian.
>When they say it's stood the test of time for 150 years, they _don't_
>that mean it literally hasn't developed in all that time. They mean it's
>been a useful starting point for further research and discoveries which
>have in turn refined and improved the theory, leading to yet more
>research and discoveries, etc. etc. in an ongoing, organic process.
it has developed so much that Darwin's "theory" is no longer in
existence except as an ancient flag to rally around and to praise with
"over-the-top, melodramatic rhetoric".
In other words, " evolutionists have adapted by changing core
doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened"."
>That's what science is about.
That's what dogma is about.
RAM
May 23, 2013, 12:41:07 PM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 10:10�am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:50:22 +0000 (UTC), solar penguin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:31:16 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:46:14 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:50:22 +0000 (UTC), solar penguin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:31:16 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
>
Then you will be taken seriously.
>
> And �"taking the Bible literally" is a meaningless phrase. How else
> would one take written words?
Dismissing the classic fundamentalist dilemma is typical of you.
> And �"taking the Bible literally" is a meaningless phrase. How else
> would one take written words?
> In any case I am not a fundamentalist
> Christian.
>
> >When they say it's stood the test of time for 150 years, they _don't_
> >that mean it literally hasn't developed in all that time. �They mean it's
> >been a useful starting point for further research and discoveries which
> >have in turn refined and improved the theory, leading to yet more
> >research and discoveries, etc. etc. in an ongoing, organic process.
>
> I think you missed my point. Yes, the "theory" has developed. In fact,
> it has developed so much that Darwin's "theory" is no longer in
> existence except as an ancient flag to rally around and to praise with
> "over-the-top, melodramatic rhetoric".
>
> In other words, " evolutionists have adapted by changing core
> doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened"."
You refuse to empirically identify those "core doctrinal points;" or
> In other words, " evolutionists have adapted by changing core
> doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened"."
any change in those "core doctrinal points." Why is that?
>
> >That's what science is about.
>
> That's what dogma is about.
No that is what an anti-science religious dogmatist claims.
> >That's what science is about.
>
> That's what dogma is about.
And when you provide substantive documentation from biological
journals you might be taken seriously.
Otherwise it is more of the same. Rhetoric over substance.
Kermit
May 23, 2013, 1:53:03 PM5/23/13
to
On 22 May, 14:36, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:18:15 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On May 22, 10:04�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >On 22 May, 17:31, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >On 22 May, 16:41, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> >> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >> >> >necessarily science. Jazz has evolved quite a lot for instance
> >> >> >fact, that seems to be more a strawman created by people who are
> >> >> >themselves scientifically illiterate, �The reason people work as
> >> >> >scientists in biology (or nay other discipline for that matter) �is
> >> >> >precisely because they believe that they can change the theory .
> >> >> >Doesn't make science arbitrary though - the current theories should
> >> >> >explain all the available data better than any precursor theory, or
> >> >> >any current competitor.
>
> >> >> Many core doctrinal points of ToE have changed over the decades,
> >> >> usually in order to adjust it to fit new evidence that would not have
> >> >> been predicted by the previous version of the "theory". This should
> >> >> indicate that there is really no "theory" there at all. Yet which of
> >> >> the current propagandists for ToE will admit it?
>
> >> >Admit what, the blatant non sequitur between your second �and third
> >> >sentence, or that the ToE changed over time? All scientific theories
> >> >change over time, it is called "learning", and typically encouraged.
> >> >In case of the ToE, the first thing anyone who actually reads a
> >> >textbook in biology with a short historical introduction will e.g. get
> >> >pointed to the �modern evolutionary synthesis as one of the key dates
> >> >where the theory changed quite massively.
>
> >> I recommend the following page :http://www.darwinspredictions.com/
>
> >Yep, the section with "objections by evolutionists" is quite good. It
> >should answer your questions
>
> And yours. That section is not about the "objections" of evolutionists
> to their own theory, it's about their objections to *critics* of their
> theory.
of science" books out there. Many discarded or greatly modified
theories were excellent science at the time, but as we learned more
(AKA acquired more evidence) we have had to change or replace them. I
don't believe you have yet explained why refusing to learn should be
considered a virtue.
kermit
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:18:15 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On May 22, 10:04�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >On 22 May, 17:31, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >On 22 May, 16:41, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
>
> >> >> >> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
> >> >> >> >changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>
>
> >> >> >> If that's true, then religion is science!
>
> >> >> >Why would that follow? Lots of things evolve without becoming
>
> >> >> >necessarily science. Jazz has evolved quite a lot for instance
>
> >> >> >After all, the "theory" of
> >> >> >> evolution is constantly evolving, and its leading proponents always
> >> >> >After all, the "theory" of
> >> >> >> insist that the latest version of it is a FACT.
>
> >> >> >I doubt that any competent scientists claims the latest theory is a
>
> >> >> >fact, that seems to be more a strawman created by people who are
> >> >> >themselves scientifically illiterate, �The reason people work as
> >> >> >scientists in biology (or nay other discipline for that matter) �is
> >> >> >precisely because they believe that they can change the theory .
> >> >> >Doesn't make science arbitrary though - the current theories should
> >> >> >explain all the available data better than any precursor theory, or
> >> >> >any current competitor.
>
> >> >> Many core doctrinal points of ToE have changed over the decades,
> >> >> usually in order to adjust it to fit new evidence that would not have
> >> >> been predicted by the previous version of the "theory". This should
> >> >> indicate that there is really no "theory" there at all. Yet which of
> >> >> the current propagandists for ToE will admit it?
>
> >> >Admit what, the blatant non sequitur between your second �and third
> >> >sentence, or that the ToE changed over time? All scientific theories
> >> >change over time, it is called "learning", and typically encouraged.
> >> >In case of the ToE, the first thing anyone who actually reads a
> >> >textbook in biology with a short historical introduction will e.g. get
> >> >pointed to the �modern evolutionary synthesis as one of the key dates
> >> >where the theory changed quite massively.
>
> >> I recommend the following page :http://www.darwinspredictions.com/
>
> >Yep, the section with "objections by evolutionists" is quite good. It
> >should answer your questions
>
> And yours. That section is not about the "objections" of evolutionists
> to their own theory, it's about their objections to *critics* of their
> theory.
>
> To paraphrase your original statement, its a section "on how
> evolutionists have adapted by changing core doctrinal points, while
> claiming it never happened".
Nobody has claimed it "never happened". There are plenty of "history
> To paraphrase your original statement, its a section "on how
> evolutionists have adapted by changing core doctrinal points, while
> claiming it never happened".
of science" books out there. Many discarded or greatly modified
theories were excellent science at the time, but as we learned more
(AKA acquired more evidence) we have had to change or replace them. I
don't believe you have yet explained why refusing to learn should be
considered a virtue.
kermit
Kermit
May 23, 2013, 1:57:14 PM5/23/13
to
On 23 May, 04:50, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:31:16 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:46:14 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:31:16 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
humans are hundreds of millions of years old. (Correct me if I'm
wrong, K.) He thinks spiritual sources of information (whatever the
heck that would be) are more reliable than verifiable data and
testable models.
>
> When they say it's stood the test of time for 150 years, they _don't_
> that mean it literally hasn't developed in all that time. �They mean it's
> been a useful starting point for further research and discoveries which
> have in turn refined and improved the theory, leading to yet more
> research and discoveries, etc. etc. in an ongoing, organic process.
>
> That's what science is about.
Kermit
May 23, 2013, 2:14:22 PM5/23/13
to
On 23 May, 08:10, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:50:22 +0000 (UTC), solar penguin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:31:16 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:46:14 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:50:22 +0000 (UTC), solar penguin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:31:16 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
>
could be a coded political communication, or a coded spy message. They
could be a morality tale, a parable, a joke. They could be a lie, or
an attempt to provoke a desired reaction. They could be word play,
like a pun cascade. They could be practice for a writing class, or for
calligraphy, They could be a keyboard test, a computer program, a
mistranslation, or a poem. Perhaps an attempt to slyly help a student
see the light about a particular problem that's been bogging him down.
Just off the top of my head...
> In any case I am not a fundamentalist
> Christian.
>
> >When they say it's stood the test of time for 150 years, they _don't_
> >that mean it literally hasn't developed in all that time. �They mean it's
> >been a useful starting point for further research and discoveries which
> >have in turn refined and improved the theory, leading to yet more
> >research and discoveries, etc. etc. in an ongoing, organic process.
>
> I think you missed my point. Yes, the "theory" has developed. In fact,
> it has developed so much that Darwin's "theory" is no longer in
> existence except as an ancient flag to rally around and to praise with
> "over-the-top, melodramatic rhetoric".
by the natural selection favoring certain inherited traits in a pool
of inheritable variations. That is the core of it,
>
> In other words, " evolutionists have adapted by changing core
> doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened"."
theory was never modified, nor replaced (when it was).
>
> >That's what science is about.
>
> That's what dogma is about.
You have a unique use of language at times.
kermit
Paul J Gans
May 23, 2013, 4:03:43 PM5/23/13
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <sNqdnQbZQJ0QsgHM...@giganews.com>,
>> > On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>> > <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thrinaxodon <biol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On May 21, 6:44?pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>>> Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
Others are more difficult. In many cases individual
congregations can be considered entities.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
>In article <sNqdnQbZQJ0QsgHM...@giganews.com>,
>> > On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>> > <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thrinaxodon <biol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On May 21, 6:44?pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>>> Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
>> >>>> changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
>> >>>> George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
>> >>>> rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
>> >>>> cool)
>> >>
>> >>> RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
>> >>> Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
>> >>> bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
>> >>> to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
>> >>>> George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
>> >>>> rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
>> >>>> cool)
>> >>
>> >>> RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
>> >>> Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
>> >>> bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
>> >>> to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
>> >>
>> >> I just now found a loose screw on the floor. Is it yours?
>> >
>> >
>> > While you're at it, check for any marbles he might have lost.
>>
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>>
>> [quote]Once upon a time, animal sacrifice was an important part of Hindu
>> life, Catholic priests weren't celibate and visual depictions of the
>> Prophet Muhammad were part of Islamic art. And soon some churches in the
>> UK may be marrying gay couples. How do religions manage to change their
>> mind?[/quote]
>With great difficulty. If a religion changes it's dogmas and ritual in
>what sense is it the same religion?
>In what sense can a religion be considered an entity?
Those with an official doctrine would seem to be an entity.
>> >
>> >
>> > While you're at it, check for any marbles he might have lost.
>>
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>>
>> [quote]Once upon a time, animal sacrifice was an important part of Hindu
>> life, Catholic priests weren't celibate and visual depictions of the
>> Prophet Muhammad were part of Islamic art. And soon some churches in the
>> UK may be marrying gay couples. How do religions manage to change their
>> mind?[/quote]
>With great difficulty. If a religion changes it's dogmas and ritual in
>what sense is it the same religion?
>In what sense can a religion be considered an entity?
Others are more difficult. In many cases individual
congregations can be considered entities.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
May 23, 2013, 4:05:28 PM5/23/13
to
><66ee627e-2cd4-40c3...@li6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On May 21, 3:54??pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
admissible in court if the dying guy knew he (or she) was dying.
I never understood that.
> SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On May 21, 3:54??pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On May 21, 6:44??pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
>> > > changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>> >
>> > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>> >
>> > > The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
>> > > George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
>> > > rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
>> > > cool)
>> >
>> > RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
>> > Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
>> > bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
>> > to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
>>
>> >
>> > > Nice piece on the BBC website, on how religions have adapted by
>> > > changing core doctrinal points, while claiming it never happened
>> >
>> > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
>> >
>> > > The Theory of evolution features only very briefly in some quotes by
>> > > George Coyne, (who probably is not Jerry Coyne, Moonlighting with a
>> > > rather transparent pseudonym for the Vatican, though that would be way
>> > > cool)
>> >
>> > RELIGION, has just exposed the works of Obama, SETI, NASA, and
>> > Dawkins. When Darwin, found out, that RELIGION has debunked, his
>> > bullshit "theory" of common descent. He, on his death bed, converted
>> > to the RELIGION of Christianity. Amazing!
>>
>> It would have been amazing had it actually happened. It didn't.
>> Darwin's daughter, who tended him during his final illness and was
>> scarcely out of his room, thoroughly refuted the put-up stories of his
>> conversion. Nothing of the sort ever happened.
>>
>> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
>> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
>In any event, do we expect people to be more rational on their
>deathbed or even as rational as before? One expects a diminished blood
>flow to the brain and perhaps other physiological and chemical
>changes, stokes and mini strokes associated with incorrect thinking.
Yup. Of course at one time deathbed confessions were considered
>> Darwin's daughter, who tended him during his final illness and was
>> scarcely out of his room, thoroughly refuted the put-up stories of his
>> conversion. Nothing of the sort ever happened.
>>
>> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
>> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
>In any event, do we expect people to be more rational on their
>deathbed or even as rational as before? One expects a diminished blood
>flow to the brain and perhaps other physiological and chemical
>changes, stokes and mini strokes associated with incorrect thinking.
admissible in court if the dying guy knew he (or she) was dying.
I never understood that.
Paul J Gans
May 23, 2013, 4:08:55 PM5/23/13
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <61f6bbfe-527f-4178...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> A cardinal? I said bishops.
>>
>> When a bishop speaks you're supposed to listen, I bet.
>>
>> I think I also read one version that said several
>> Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
>> this about condoms.
>>
>> But I don't care very much about it.
>And the work has not been replicated outside the Vatican? And secular
>Calvinist and Lutheran scientists get different results? One gets very
>suspicious about such results. Maybe someone sticks a pin up the
>Vatican condom machine.
I call it the "selective miracle" effect. If God wanted you
>In article <61f6bbfe-527f-4178...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> A cardinal? I said bishops.
>>
>> When a bishop speaks you're supposed to listen, I bet.
>>
>> I think I also read one version that said several
>> Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
>> this about condoms.
>>
>> But I don't care very much about it.
>And the work has not been replicated outside the Vatican? And secular
>Calvinist and Lutheran scientists get different results? One gets very
>suspicious about such results. Maybe someone sticks a pin up the
>Vatican condom machine.
to be pregnant, He could arrange that, condom or not.
AlwaysAskingQuestions
May 23, 2013, 4:32:22 PM5/23/13
to
"alias Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote in message
news:95mnt.118373$0F7....@fx27.fr7...
organism?
[...]
AlwaysAskingQuestions
May 23, 2013, 4:40:12 PM5/23/13
to
news:b59852fa-57ee-4d91...@c7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
it's only fundies who get jumped upon for giving unsubstantiated claims or
anecdotal evidence; when non-fundies do it, they are assumed to be right.
> On May 23, 2:13 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <61f6bbfe-527f-4178...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> > A cardinal? I said bishops.
>>
>> > When a bishop speaks you're supposed to listen, I bet.
>>
>> > I think I also read one version that said several
>> > Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
>> > this about condoms.
>>
>> > But I don't care very much about it.
>>
>> And the work has not been replicated outside the Vatican? And secular
>> Calvinist and Lutheran scientists get different results? One gets very
>> suspicious about such results. Maybe someone sticks a pin up the
>> Vatican condom machine.
>>
>> --
>
> as so often, the story is slightly more complicated. I assume that the
> reference is to the document produced by Cardinal (not bishop)
> Trujilo. That one did not cite or carry out any independent research
> on condoms, and to the best of my knowledge the vatican never has.
You must be wrong, Robert read it somewhere. You should know by now that
>> In article <61f6bbfe-527f-4178...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> > A cardinal? I said bishops.
>>
>> > When a bishop speaks you're supposed to listen, I bet.
>>
>> > I think I also read one version that said several
>> > Vatican science laboratories had repeatedly proved
>> > this about condoms.
>>
>> > But I don't care very much about it.
>>
>> And the work has not been replicated outside the Vatican? And secular
>> Calvinist and Lutheran scientists get different results? One gets very
>> suspicious about such results. Maybe someone sticks a pin up the
>> Vatican condom machine.
>>
>> --
>
> as so often, the story is slightly more complicated. I assume that the
> reference is to the document produced by Cardinal (not bishop)
> Trujilo. That one did not cite or carry out any independent research
> on condoms, and to the best of my knowledge the vatican never has.
it's only fundies who get jumped upon for giving unsubstantiated claims or
anecdotal evidence; when non-fundies do it, they are assumed to be right.
John S. Wilkins
May 23, 2013, 7:45:51 PM5/23/13
to
evolved from a single *species*, probably consisting of tens of
thousands of organisms. In other words, a population of organisms. A
single organism would not have sufficient genetic diversity to explain
the variety now seen (at least, not without a rate of mutation and
selection way above anything now seen in any organisms, including us).
Monogenism was contrasted in the nineteenth century with polygenism,
which effectively was the claim that some human races were *not*
descended from one population, especially Africans. Consequently
polygenists used this idea to defend the claim that some races were
subhuman, because they were not Homo sapiens. Monogenism won out among
all but a few denominations.
As to the Catholic Church being literalists about Adam and Eve, that is
ambiguous. I think it has not been Catholic dogma for a long time, and
probably not in that period (post-Darwin). The polygenists were
creationists of a kind, such as Louis Agassiz. I think they treat the
source of original sin to to Adam and Even literally, but I don't think
they ever said that the origin of the human species was those two
individuals, at least in doctrinal statements. Anyone know to the
contrary?
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John Harshman
May 23, 2013, 8:01:22 PM5/23/13
to
interpret it as the MRCA of H. sapiens, but unless the author is
proposing that Eve was Adam's clone, not even creationists would believe
this. It's possible that by "single organism", the author may have
intended to refer to the MRCA of all life. Or, and I assign this a
higher probability, the author was making some kind of confused joke.
> Monogenism was contrasted in the nineteenth century with polygenism,
> which effectively was the claim that some human races were *not*
> descended from one population, especially Africans. Consequently
> polygenists used this idea to defend the claim that some races were
> subhuman, because they were not Homo sapiens. Monogenism won out among
> all but a few denominations.
>
> As to the Catholic Church being literalists about Adam and Eve, that is
> ambiguous. I think it has not been Catholic dogma for a long time, and
> probably not in that period (post-Darwin). The polygenists were
> creationists of a kind, such as Louis Agassiz. I think they treat the
> source of original sin to to Adam and Even literally, but I don't think
> they ever said that the origin of the human species was those two
> individuals, at least in doctrinal statements. Anyone know to the
> contrary?
originated in two individuals and later became fixed within the human
population, even though fixation took a large number of generations in a
population numbering in the thousands? And here I would have thought
that sin would be strongly deleterious.
The official doctrine is that we are all descended from two individuals.
There may be some ambiguity over whether we are *exclusively* descended
from them. But to create that ambiguity you have to propose some mighty
weird scenarios. Even by comparison with the talking snake theory.
Robert Carnegie
May 23, 2013, 8:40:37 PM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, 23 May 2013 21:40:12 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:b59852fa-57ee-4d91...@c7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:b59852fa-57ee-4d91...@c7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> > as so often, the story is slightly more complicated.
> > I assume that the reference is to the document produced
> > by Cardinal (not bishop) Trujilo. That one did not cite
> > or carry out any independent research on condoms, and to
> the best of my knowledge the vatican never has.
>
> You must be wrong, Robert read it somewhere. You should
> know by now that it's only fundies who get jumped upon
> for giving unsubstantiated claims or anecdotal evidence;
> when non-fundies do it, they are assumed to be right.
I said I thought I read it. But maybe I dreamed I read it.
> > I assume that the reference is to the document produced
> > by Cardinal (not bishop) Trujilo. That one did not cite
> > or carry out any independent research on condoms, and to
> the best of my knowledge the vatican never has.
>
> You must be wrong, Robert read it somewhere. You should
> know by now that it's only fundies who get jumped upon
> for giving unsubstantiated claims or anecdotal evidence;
> when non-fundies do it, they are assumed to be right.
Having said that, there's this list:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/condoms4life/resources/anti-condom.asp
I assume it's broadly accurate. And it says,
"Cardinal Trujillo also denied that Pope Benedict XVI
ordered a study on condoms", implying that Pope Benedict XVI
did indeed do that. But I don't know what "study" is
referred to.
John S. Wilkins
May 23, 2013, 9:50:19 PM5/23/13
to
back.
>
> > Monogenism was contrasted in the nineteenth century with polygenism,
> > which effectively was the claim that some human races were *not*
> > descended from one population, especially Africans. Consequently
> > polygenists used this idea to defend the claim that some races were
> > subhuman, because they were not Homo sapiens. Monogenism won out among
> > all but a few denominations.
> >
> > As to the Catholic Church being literalists about Adam and Eve, that is
> > ambiguous. I think it has not been Catholic dogma for a long time, and
> > probably not in that period (post-Darwin). The polygenists were
> > creationists of a kind, such as Louis Agassiz. I think they treat the
> > source of original sin to to Adam and Even literally, but I don't think
> > they ever said that the origin of the human species was those two
> > individuals, at least in doctrinal statements. Anyone know to the
> > contrary?
>
> Are you proposing the doctrine that there is a sin allele that
> originated in two individuals and later became fixed within the human
> population, even though fixation took a large number of generations in a
> population numbering in the thousands? And here I would have thought
> that sin would be strongly deleterious.
Only if it has deleterious effects upon fitness, and if you read your
> > Monogenism was contrasted in the nineteenth century with polygenism,
> > which effectively was the claim that some human races were *not*
> > descended from one population, especially Africans. Consequently
> > polygenists used this idea to defend the claim that some races were
> > subhuman, because they were not Homo sapiens. Monogenism won out among
> > all but a few denominations.
> >
> > As to the Catholic Church being literalists about Adam and Eve, that is
> > ambiguous. I think it has not been Catholic dogma for a long time, and
> > probably not in that period (post-Darwin). The polygenists were
> > creationists of a kind, such as Louis Agassiz. I think they treat the
> > source of original sin to to Adam and Even literally, but I don't think
> > they ever said that the origin of the human species was those two
> > individuals, at least in doctrinal statements. Anyone know to the
> > contrary?
>
> Are you proposing the doctrine that there is a sin allele that
> originated in two individuals and later became fixed within the human
> population, even though fixation took a large number of generations in a
> population numbering in the thousands? And here I would have thought
> that sin would be strongly deleterious.
Tanakh you'll find plenty of evidence to the contrary, about how the
wicked flourish and the righteous suffer.
>
> The official doctrine is that we are all descended from two individuals.
> There may be some ambiguity over whether we are *exclusively* descended
> from them. But to create that ambiguity you have to propose some mighty
> weird scenarios. Even by comparison with the talking snake theory.
Humani Generis said in 1950: "The Church does not forbid that ...
> The official doctrine is that we are all descended from two individuals.
> There may be some ambiguity over whether we are *exclusively* descended
> from them. But to create that ambiguity you have to propose some mighty
> weird scenarios. Even by comparison with the talking snake theory.
research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields,
take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it
inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent
and living matter."
John Paul II wrote: "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my
predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict
between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his
vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical,
some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more
than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had
progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following
a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The
convergence in the results of these independent studies--which was
neither planned nor sought--constitutes in itself a significant argument
in favor of the theory." and then followed up with "Theories of
evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard
the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a
simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth
about man."
So as long as a Catholic accepts that spirit and souls do not evolve,
evolution is kosher, so to speak. However the last guy says that humans
are not the result of "chance and error". Nevertheless, as pope, he
says" "Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and
biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of
evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on
earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of
evolution."
Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
I conclude from this that Catholics are not literalists (we already knew
this anyway) about the Genesis account, although they were in the 19th
century.
Walter Bushell
May 23, 2013, 9:55:41 PM5/23/13
to
In article <ooadnbwUh8F...@giganews.com>,
Adam side?
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> but unless the author is
> proposing that Eve was Adam's clone, not even creationists would believe
> this. It's possible that by "single organism"
Isn't that exactly the Biblical story, with Eve being taken out of
> but unless the author is
> proposing that Eve was Adam's clone, not even creationists would believe
> this. It's possible that by "single organism"
Adam side?
Walter Bushell
May 23, 2013, 9:57:57 PM5/23/13
to
> And here I would have thought
> that sin would be strongly deleterious.
Perhaps sin is necessary to reproduction? Martin Luther taught that
> that sin would be strongly deleterious.
even between married couples it was, but D-G forgave it.
"I'm not making this up, you know." -- Anna Russell.
James Beck
May 23, 2013, 10:31:33 PM5/23/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:45:51 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:
>AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "alias Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote in message
>> news:95mnt.118373$0F7....@fx27.fr7...
>> > On 23/05/2013 09:41, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> >> "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:proto-040E25....@news.panix.com...
>> >>> In article <b03ua7...@mid.individual.net>,
>> >>> "AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:2cdba52c-0f66-4aaf...@googlegroups.com...
>> >>>>> On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 12:46:23 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>> news:1d88b755-b196-4348...@googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Wilkins) wrote:
>AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "alias Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote in message
>> news:95mnt.118373$0F7....@fx27.fr7...
>> > On 23/05/2013 09:41, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> >> "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:proto-040E25....@news.panix.com...
>> >>> In article <b03ua7...@mid.individual.net>,
>> >>> "AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:2cdba52c-0f66-4aaf...@googlegroups.com...
>> >>>>> On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 12:46:23 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>> news:1d88b755-b196-4348...@googlegroups.com...
>> Is it no longer general consensus that Man probably evolved from a single
>> organism?
>>
>> [...]
>
>Never was. The consensus is that humans (man and woman, by the way)
>evolved from a single *species*, probably consisting of tens of
>thousands of organisms. In other words, a population of organisms. A
>single organism would not have sufficient genetic diversity to explain
>the variety now seen (at least, not without a rate of mutation and
>selection way above anything now seen in any organisms, including us).
>
>Monogenism was contrasted in the nineteenth century with polygenism,
>which effectively was the claim that some human races were *not*
>descended from one population, especially Africans. Consequently
>polygenists used this idea to defend the claim that some races were
>subhuman, because they were not Homo sapiens. Monogenism won out among
>all but a few denominations.
>
>As to the Catholic Church being literalists about Adam and Eve, that is
>ambiguous. I think it has not been Catholic dogma for a long time, and
>probably not in that period (post-Darwin). The polygenists were
>creationists of a kind, such as Louis Agassiz. I think they treat the
>source of original sin to to Adam and Even literally, but I don't think
>they ever said that the origin of the human species was those two
>individuals, at least in doctrinal statements. Anyone know to the
>contrary?
Adam and Eve is symbolic. Augustine of Hippo describes them as
allegorical. Catholic doctrine is that the Bible must be read in
several senses. The two main senses are literal and spiritual. The
spiritual sense is futher subdivided into three sub-senses:
allegorical, moral, and anagogical.
That is not to say that the RC church does not think that scripture
has a literal meaning, but that the literal meaning is discovered from
the figurative through thoughtful exegesis. That process yields a
highly refined narrative. It also means that, given sufficient time
and sufficiently solid empirical results, the Catholic church can be
relatively flexible with regard to the physical sciences.
John Harshman
May 23, 2013, 10:48:17 PM5/23/13
to
>>> Monogenism was contrasted in the nineteenth century with polygenism,
>>> which effectively was the claim that some human races were *not*
>>> descended from one population, especially Africans. Consequently
>>> polygenists used this idea to defend the claim that some races were
>>> subhuman, because they were not Homo sapiens. Monogenism won out among
>>> all but a few denominations.
>>>
>>> As to the Catholic Church being literalists about Adam and Eve, that is
>>> ambiguous. I think it has not been Catholic dogma for a long time, and
>>> probably not in that period (post-Darwin). The polygenists were
>>> creationists of a kind, such as Louis Agassiz. I think they treat the
>>> source of original sin to to Adam and Even literally, but I don't think
>>> they ever said that the origin of the human species was those two
>>> individuals, at least in doctrinal statements. Anyone know to the
>>> contrary?
>>
>> Are you proposing the doctrine that there is a sin allele that
>> originated in two individuals and later became fixed within the human
>> population, even though fixation took a large number of generations in a
>> population numbering in the thousands? And here I would have thought
>> that sin would be strongly deleterious.
>
> Only if it has deleterious effects upon fitness, and if you read your
> Tanakh you'll find plenty of evidence to the contrary, about how the
> wicked flourish and the righteous suffer.
humans are descended from a literal first couple. That's necessary for
the doctrine of original sin. I merely point out that they have two
options: 1) reject science and assume a bottleneck in which the
population was reduced to two or 2) come up with a bizarre theory in
which sin and/or souls are inherited like alleles and spread through the
existing population, becoming fixed long ago. Do you see any other
options? I suppose there would also be 3) Let's not think about it and
4) "Shut up", he explained.
John Harshman
May 23, 2013, 10:53:41 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/13 6:55 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article<ooadnbwUh8F...@giganews.com>,
> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> but unless the author is
>> proposing that Eve was Adam's clone, not even creationists would believe
>> this. It's possible that by "single organism"
>
> Isn't that exactly the Biblical story, with Eve being taken out of
> Adam side?
>
The bible doesn't specify the genetics. Oddly, the bible doesn't appear
> In article<ooadnbwUh8F...@giganews.com>,
> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> but unless the author is
>> proposing that Eve was Adam's clone, not even creationists would believe
>> this. It's possible that by "single organism"
>
> Isn't that exactly the Biblical story, with Eve being taken out of
> Adam side?
>
to be aware of any biology except those bits known by ancient pastoralists.
Now, if Eve is indeed a clone, there are consequences. Human original
genetic variation would be limited to at most two alleles per locus,
half that generall assumed by creationists. And probably to a single
allele on the X chromosome, assuming God just duplicated Adam's single X
(except for the pseudoautosomal region).
solar penguin
May 24, 2013, 5:15:12 AM5/24/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:10:47 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:50:22 +0000 (UTC), solar penguin
> <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>You seem to be taking the over-the-top, melodramatic rhetoric of a
>>couple of pop-sci writers, and taking it literally. Big mistake. (Mind
>>you, you probably make the mistake of taking the Bible literally too, so
>>at least you're consistent!)
>
> Unfortunately, "over-the-top, melodramatic rhetoric" is not rare in
> Darwinist circles, as you seem to think. They mean what they say.
Well, maybe you've just been unlucky in your choice of pop-sci reading.
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:50:22 +0000 (UTC), solar penguin
> <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>You seem to be taking the over-the-top, melodramatic rhetoric of a
>>couple of pop-sci writers, and taking it literally. Big mistake. (Mind
>>you, you probably make the mistake of taking the Bible literally too, so
>>at least you're consistent!)
>
> Unfortunately, "over-the-top, melodramatic rhetoric" is not rare in
> Darwinist circles, as you seem to think. They mean what they say.
Let's not tarnish a whole branch of science because of that.
(Don't forget, this kind of rhetoric can appear in _all_ forms of pop-sci
writing, not just on evolution. You wouldn't dismiss special relativity
just because of some bad writing, would you?)
>
> And "taking the Bible literally" is a meaningless phrase. How else
> would one take written words?
> In any case I am not a fundamentalist Christian.
>
>>When they say it's stood the test of time for 150 years, they _don't_
>>that mean it literally hasn't developed in all that time. They mean
>>it's been a useful starting point for further research and discoveries
>>which have in turn refined and improved the theory, leading to yet more
>>research and discoveries, etc. etc. in an ongoing, organic process.
>
> I think you missed my point. Yes, the "theory" has developed. In fact,
> it has developed so much that Darwin's "theory" is no longer in
> existence except as an ancient flag to rally around and to praise with
> "over-the-top, melodramatic rhetoric".
You're no longer a newborn baby. Does that mean you no longer exist?
>
> In other words, " evolutionists have adapted by changing core doctrinal
> points, while claiming it never happened"."
saying here.
solar penguin
May 24, 2013, 5:27:28 AM5/24/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:57:14 -0700, Kermit wrote:
> On 23 May, 04:50, solar penguin <solar....@googlemail.com>
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
> On 23 May, 04:50, solar penguin <solar....@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You seem to be taking the over-the-top, melodramatic rhetoric of a
>> couple of pop-sci writers, and taking it literally. Big mistake.
>> (Mind you, you probably make the mistake of taking the Bible
>> literally too, so at least you're consistent!)
>
> Kalkidas is, IIRC, a Hindu. He believes, for example, that modern
> humans are hundreds of millions of years old. (Correct me if I'm
> wrong, K.) He thinks spiritual sources of information (whatever
> the heck that would be) are more reliable than verifiable data
> and testable models.
OK. Thanks for clearing that up.
>
>> You seem to be taking the over-the-top, melodramatic rhetoric of a
>> couple of pop-sci writers, and taking it literally. Big mistake.
>> (Mind you, you probably make the mistake of taking the Bible
>> literally too, so at least you're consistent!)
>
> Kalkidas is, IIRC, a Hindu. He believes, for example, that modern
> humans are hundreds of millions of years old. (Correct me if I'm
> wrong, K.) He thinks spiritual sources of information (whatever
> the heck that would be) are more reliable than verifiable data
> and testable models.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages