Vatican Dumps Darwinist-Boosting Astronomer
Sound of Trumpet
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06082104.html
Monday August 21, 2006
Vatican Dumps Darwinist-Boosting Astronomer
By Hilary White
ROME, August 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Jesuit
priest-astronomer who vocally opposed the Catholic understanding of
God-directed creation, has been removed from his post as head of the
Vatican observatory.
Fr. George Coyne has been head of the Vatican observatory for 25 years
is an expert in astrophysics with an interest in the interstellar
medium, stars with extended atmospheres and Seyfert galaxies. He also
appointed himself as an expert in evolutionary biology and theology
last summer in an article for the UK's liberal Catholic magazine, The
Tablet.
Fr. Coyne was writing against Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, a principal
author of the Catholic catechism, who said that an "unplanned process
of random variation and natural selection," both important parts of
evolutionary thinking, are incompatible with Catholic belief in God's
ordering and guiding of creation.
Coyne, retiring after 25 years of service for the Vatican observatory,
said, "The classical question as to whether the human being came
about by chance, and so has no need of God, or by necessity, and so
through the action of a designer God, is no longer valid."
Schonborn had written in the New York Times that "neo-Darwinian
evolution is not compatible with Catholic doctrine."
Fr. Coyne is being replaced at the Vatican Observatory by Father Funes,
43, a native of Cordoba, Argentina.
Vatican Astronomer Contradicts Cardinal's Support of Catholic
Teaching on Evolution
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/05080901.html
Visit the website of the Vatican Observatory
http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VO.html
Double-A
Double-A
The Mormon Church has its own dilemma when confronted by modern
science:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
Double-A
Raving
" Atheist who sued priest over Jesus' reality "
See http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50890
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Cascioli for further information)
Cordially,
R.
Jon Schild
Well, nobody sane ever claimed that either the Vatican or the mormon big
brethren were hotbeads of liberal thinking or free inquiry.
Brad Guth
stun-gun, will even go so far as to dare to appreciate upon what the
unlikely as Catholic nor Jewish Venusian environment as having been only
a touch physically hot and somewhat nasty as hell, because it's so
geothermally alive and kicking. At least there's been no other physics
nor available science proving otherwise.
Professor Grinspoon and actually many others as having a much better
grasp of the laws of physics and thereby of having an open mindset upon
planetology and of the sorts of harsh environment capable forms of other
life that could be possible, as typically these folks having less often
if ever having been formally published, haven't actually verbatim
excluded the possibility of there having been other life on Venus,
though much less having bothered as to exclude upon intelligent ETs as
making any go of it at their form of coexisting efforts.
By way of folks merely excluding whatever observationology has
uncovered, and further excluding the usage of the regular laws of
physics (AKA imposing selective or conditional physics) and of merely
excluding upon whatever else is derived from the best available science
is what makes it rather easy for most folks to exclude the notions of
other life having existed/coexisted on Venus, or for that matter upon
any other planet or moon becomes a status quo done deal of our being
entirely alone in the foreseeable universe, or at least until we've
managed to run our global warming selves out of fossil and yellowcake
fuel. Unfortunately, such multi-faced bigots-R-us says it all, and then
some.
By way of their stopping just short of directly saying it's entirely
possible for other life (especially of intelligent other life) to have
existed/coexisted is the same as folks having stopped short of saying
that Iraq doesn't actually have WMD, and just look at what an absolute
fiasco that little bit of LLPOF lack of proper disclosure has had such a
horrific impact upon real people of honest souls, and of the collateral
damage as to very real property that obviously didn't belong to us in
the first place.
"The Case for Life on Venus" is not a joke that this naysay Usenet from
such an anti-think-tank hell as having had it's say about such matters.
In fact, there couldn't be any more nunfounded aysayism unless it was
bought and paid for, of which I tend to believe it was. Although by far
the biggest infomercial-science based cesspool of bigotry on Earth is
via NASA/s own http://uplink.space.com/index.html that'll out-bigot the
Pope and Jews combined if need be.
Vatican Dumps Darwinist-Boosting Astronomer (as in gee whiz, what a
surprise)
"The Jesuit priest-astronomer who vocally opposed the Catholic
understanding of God-directed creation, has been removed from his post
as head of the Vatican observatory."
"Fr. George Coyne has been head of the Vatican observatory for 25 years
is an expert in astrophysics with an interest in the interstellar
medium, stars with extended atmospheres and Seyfert galaxies. He also
appointed himself as an expert in evolutionary biology and theology last
summer in an article for the UK's liberal Catholic magazine, The
Tablet."
""Coyne, retiring after 25 years of service for the Vatican observatory,
said, "The classical question as to whether the human being came about
by chance, and so has no need of God, or by necessity, and so through
the action of a designer God, is no longer valid.""
That was obviously a really big time Pope OOPS! whereas only an honest
to God religion would have allowed such an argument to stand as is, at
least until further notice.
Obviously even our modern day Pope likes to kick a little science and
physics butt from time to time, just like all of those sorry butts they
had previously kicked to death of Cathars and of anyone else standing
nearby (good or bad) got exactly what they deserved, and then some. Of
course, our warm and fuzzy NASA wouldn't so much as dare to hire on or
in any way associate with such a Vatican black-balled "George Coyne".
Apparently the Pope's God or even the more impressive Jewish God of
their one and only humanity doesn't believe in pictures, nor in the
regular laws of physics, nor much less in the best available science
that can be replicated. (so what's new?)
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/magellan/ (along with all the usual NASA
approved infomercial-science)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif (naked and
w/o infomercial-science)
Most of my external pages need to get updated, as I've previously
included more than my fair share of misunderstandings and outright
mistakes, plus having otherwise dyslexic encrypted most everything so
that MI/NSA moles and spooks can't quite figure it all out.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Even good old and cranky but otherwise fun loving Kurt Vonnegut would
have to agree that; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are no rules" - In
fact, war has been the very reason why honest folks are having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever the
supposed rules, such as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) having
invented WMD seems to come to mind.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
JTEM
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06082104.html
>
>
> Monday August 21, 2006
>
>
> Vatican Dumps Darwinist-Boosting Astronomer
>
> By Hilary White
False alarm. The headline reflects the propaganda
goals of the Reich-wing, and not reality.
Fact is, the man was born in 1933. If you're having
some difficulty with the math (and if you're a
creationist git then surely you are) that would make
him 73 years old.
There really isn't anything special about the Vatican
retiring a 73 y.o. man who's been on the job for 25
years.
Problem is, America's Reich-wing needs everyone to
believe that "Creationism" equals "Christian," while
"Evolution" means "Godless secularism." So they
spin the retirement of a 73 y.o. man as "Dumping"
him for daring to contradict the purely fundamentalist
Protestant take on creationism.
johac
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06082104.html
>
>
> Monday August 21, 2006
>
>
> Vatican Dumps Darwinist-Boosting Astronomer
>
> By Hilary White
>
> ROME, August 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Jesuit
> priest-astronomer who vocally opposed the Catholic understanding of
> God-directed creation, has been removed from his post as head of the
> Vatican observatory.
>
Galileo redux.
They never learn.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
Michael Grosberg
Brad Guth wrote:
> Perhaps George Coyne, as being outside the lethal range of the Pope's
> stun-gun, will even go so far as to dare to appreciate upon what the
> unlikely as Catholic nor Jewish Venusian environment as having been only
> a touch physically hot and somewhat nasty as hell, because it's so
> geothermally alive and kicking. At least there's been no other physics
> nor available science proving otherwise.
That's the strangest piece of syntax I've even seen in English outside
of chinese electrical appliance user manuals.
T Guy
> That's the strangest piece of syntax I've even seen in English outside
> of chinese electrical appliance user manuals.
(T Guy):
There's some pretty stiff competition later in the same post.
T G
quibbler
jte...@gmail.com says...
>
> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> > http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06082104.html
> >
> >
> > Monday August 21, 2006
> >
> >
> > Vatican Dumps Darwinist-Boosting Astronomer
> >
> > By Hilary White
>
> False alarm. The headline reflects the propaganda
> goals of the Reich-wing, and not reality.
>
> Fact is, the man was born in 1933. If you're having
> some difficulty with the math (and if you're a
> creationist git then surely you are) that would make
> him 73 years old.
And he has cancer. Both is age and medical condition would be pretty
good reasons for retiring. If the vatican opposes his views then the
pope can just flat out contradict him on the spot. There's no need for
them to beat around the bush. The fact is that the vatican doesn't know
what lie to tell next, so, for now, they're keeping their ignorant mouths
shut.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Rand Simberg
<quibb...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>> Fact is, the man was born in 1933. If you're having
>> some difficulty with the math (and if you're a
>> creationist git then surely you are) that would make
>> him 73 years old.
>
>And he has cancer. Both is age and medical condition would be pretty
>good reasons for retiring. If the vatican opposes his views then the
>pope can just flat out contradict him on the spot. There's no need for
>them to beat around the bush. The fact is that the vatican doesn't know
>what lie to tell next, so, for now, they're keeping their ignorant mouths
>shut.
Speaking of keeping ignorant mouths shut, maybe you should work on
your own. The Church does not oppose evolution. Creationism is a
Protestant thing.
Christopher A. Lee
Yet the latest Pope seems sympathetic to it.
Pastor Dave
>Speaking of keeping ignorant mouths shut, maybe you should work on
>your own. The Church does not oppose evolution. Creationism is a
>Protestant thing.
>
>http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/18/news/evolution.php
Creation is a Biblical thing.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
Alex Terrell
It looks like a machine translation of German. Though a German
intellectual could probably manage the above paragraph with only a
single full stop.
Alex Terrell
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:27:15 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash
> (Rand Simberg) spake thusly:
>
>
> >Speaking of keeping ignorant mouths shut, maybe you should work on
> >your own. The Church does not oppose evolution. Creationism is a
> >Protestant thing.
> >
> >http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/18/news/evolution.php
>
> Creation is a Biblical thing.
>
(Though a characteristic shared by many Jews and Muslims).
Treating the bibe as gospel!
Alex Terrell
Within many areas, including science, the Vatican is certainly a free
inquiry zone, and has been for a few Centuries now.
Granted, in other areas this is not the case. It does tend however to
be more forgiving of liberal thinking than many other major religions.
Mike
Rand Simberg wrote:
> Speaking of keeping ignorant mouths shut, maybe you should work on
> your own. The Church does not oppose evolution. Creationism is a
> Protestant thing.
Until now that has been the case, but the German guy in the Vatican
with the silly hat has dropped some hints about embracing intelligent
design theory. We'll see if he carries through with that. Hopefully
it's all a lot of hot air and nothing will come of it.
Pastor Dave
<alext...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>> >Speaking of keeping ignorant mouths shut, maybe you should work on
>> >your own. The Church does not oppose evolution. Creationism is a
>> >Protestant thing.
>> >
>> >http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/18/news/evolution.php
>>
>> Creation is a Biblical thing.
>>
>And intepreting the bible literally is an (American) protestant thing.
>(Though a characteristic shared by many Jews and Muslims).
>
>Treating the bibe as gospel!
You can try to dodge the Scriptures if you want to.
But it is hypocrisy to claim that one believes in a
denomination that claims to believe the Scriptures
and then tosses the basic idea of the Scriptures
aside.
If we got here by evolution, then Jesus is not Savior.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
Eudaemonic Plague
news:45399fe9....@news.giganews.com...
: On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:49:34 -0600, in a place far, far away,
Ah, _where_ exactly did he claim they oppose evolution? Do you enjoy
looking foolish?
Eudaemonic Plague
news:13cbf2dshdt0knd36...@4ax.com...
[snip]
: If we got here by evolution, then Jesus is not Savior.
Very good, Davey, now if you will only recognize the fact that we
_did_ get here by evolution.......
Eudaemonic Plague
news:1156951614.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
:
How can it matter? No one with any sense cares what the vatican's
stance is, we don't base our lives on their foolishness. Besides, if
they want to reduce their credibility, more power to them.
Rand Simberg
"Eudaemonic Plague" <gh...@ameritech.net> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: >And he has cancer. Both is age and medical condition would be
>pretty
>: >good reasons for retiring. If the vatican opposes his views then
>the
>: >pope can just flat out contradict him on the spot. There's no need
>for
>: >them to beat around the bush. The fact is that the vatican doesn't
>know
>: >what lie to tell next, so, for now, they're keeping their ignorant
>mouths
>: >shut.
>:
>: Speaking of keeping ignorant mouths shut, maybe you should work on
>: your own. The Church does not oppose evolution. Creationism is a
>: Protestant thing.
>
>Ah, _where_ exactly did he claim they oppose evolution?
What is it that they're "lying" about, then?
>Do you enjoy looking foolish?
Of course not. Fortunately, I rarely do.
Mike Schilling
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:27:15 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash
> (Rand Simberg) spake thusly:
>
>
>>Speaking of keeping ignorant mouths shut, maybe you should work on
>>your own. The Church does not oppose evolution. Creationism is a
>>Protestant thing.
>>
>>http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/18/news/evolution.php
>
> Creation is a Biblical thing.
It's a "literal interpretation of the Bible" thing, and Catholicism is not
known for that these days.
Mike Schilling
> You can try to dodge the Scriptures if you want to.
> But it is hypocrisy to claim that one believes in a
> denomination that claims to believe the Scriptures
> and then tosses the basic idea of the Scriptures
> aside.
>
> If we got here by evolution, then Jesus is not Savior.
That doesn't follow in the least. Who set evolution in motion? Certainly a
smarter and more capable God than One who has to constantly be meddling to
keep things on the right path.
Pastor Dave
<gh...@ameritech.net> spake thusly:
Have a nice life.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected
the Sermon on the Mount... The world has achieved
brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of
nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- General Omar Bradley
Cary Kittrell
Oh, but it does follow in the minds of folks like Pastor Dave.
If evolution, then the Garden of Eden myth is just that. And
no Eden: no Fall; no Fall: no redemption.
Me, I think that the Eden story is one of the most marvelous
myths I know of, because it so poignantly echoes the stages we all
experience in going from infant to adult. But for others, it's
more -- or less.
-- cary
JTEM
quibbler wrote:
> The fact is that the vatican doesn't know what
> lie to tell next, so, for now, they're keeping
> their ignorant mouths shut.
You'll have to forgive them. They're idiots who are
being heavily lobbied by other idiots.
Apparently the sticking point is whether God or
natural forces ("evolution") directs development.
Traditionally the Catholic church accepts evolution,
seeing it as God's chosen method for creating us.
But that would require us -- and all life as it now
exists on earth -- to be the goal. Not that evolution
resulted in us and the life around us, but that God
"created" evolution planning/knowing that it's
eventual result would be us.
The fundies are currently claiming that the Pope
can't endorse this view, that evolution requires a
deist philosophy where the results were never
set, but randomly determined on the fly by the
natural processes.
Ironically, it really doesn't matter. Whether the
direct hand or God or pure nature, our observations
of and understanding of evolution is unchanged.
JTEM
Rand Simberg wrote:
> Speaking of keeping ignorant mouths shut, maybe
> you should work on your own. The Church does
> not oppose evolution. Creationism is a Protestant
> thing.
Oh, irony!
He's aware that the church accepts evolution. But
he's also aware that there are....well... certain
"Issues" the church is being presented with.
JTEM
Pastor Dave wrote:
> You can try to dodge the Scriptures if you want to.
Dodging == treating the bible as a collection of
moral tales & lessons.
> If we got here by evolution, then Jesus is not Savior.
We got here by evolution. Deal with it and move on.
JTEM
Cary Kittrell wrote:
> Me, I think that the Eden story is one of the most
> marvelous myths I know of, because it so poignantly
> echoes the stages we all experience in going from
> infant to adult. But for others, it's more -- or less.
Nope, sorry, you must be evil if you believe there is
any wisdom in the bible, any moral lessons, and that
it is not just a dry record of historic events.
AN ALL-POWERFUL GOD ISN'T POWERFUL ENOUGH
TO EXIST IF GENESIS ISN'T LITERALLY TRUE!
If you were smart & moral you'd know these things.
Pastor Dave
thusly:
You said so, so it must be true. Have a nice life.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of
them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding
of the relationships between living organisms is barely
perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to
say that fossils, or at least the traditional
interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than
clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny."
(Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus
Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
David Johnston
<_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On 30 Aug 2006 08:14:59 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
><alext...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>> >Speaking of keeping ignorant mouths shut, maybe you should work on
>>> >your own. The Church does not oppose evolution. Creationism is a
>>> >Protestant thing.
>>> >
>>> >http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/18/news/evolution.php
>>>
>>> Creation is a Biblical thing.
>>>
>>And intepreting the bible literally is an (American) protestant thing.
>>(Though a characteristic shared by many Jews and Muslims).
>>
>>Treating the bibe as gospel!
>
>You can try to dodge the Scriptures if you want to.
>But it is hypocrisy to claim that one believes in a
>denomination that claims to believe the Scriptures
>and then tosses the basic idea of the Scriptures
>aside.
>
>If we got here by evolution, then Jesus is not Savior.
I had no idea being Savior was a biological process.
Cary Kittrell
You appear to be mistaking me for a Christian.
Or do you not think that insights into the human
condition can be found in various myths, Christian and otherwise,
or that these myths do not arise directly from the human experience?
-- cary
Wilson Heydt
>Vatican Dumps Darwinist-Boosting Astronomer
Get clue idiot. he quit becasue he has cancer 9and is fairly
old). he's undergoing chemotherapy.
--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA
My dime, my opinions.
JTEM
Pastor Dave wrote:
> You said so, so it must be true.
If you really think it's just me, you're insane.
JTEM
Cary Kittrell wrote:
> You appear to be mistaking me for a Christian.
If you don't see the bible as literally true you eat
abortions.
> Or do you not think that insights into the human
> condition can be found in various myths, Christian
> and otherwise, or that these myths do not arise
> directly from the human experience?
Myths are for people who hate motherhood and
support the terrorists.
quibbler
simberg.i...@org.trash says...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:49:34 -0600, in a place far, far away, quibbler
> <quibb...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
> >> some difficulty with the math (and if you're a
> >> creationist git then surely you are) that would make
> >> him 73 years old.
> >
> >good reasons for retiring. If the vatican opposes his views then the
> >pope can just flat out contradict him on the spot. There's no need for
> >shut.
>
Yes, speaking of ignorant mouths, I knew we'd have to hear yours
eventually.
> maybe you should work on
> your own.
Nope, you're wrong as usual.
> The Church does not oppose evolution.
No, but Pope BeenADick is trying to backpedal as furiously as possible,
because he is clearly an old, stupid, and scientifically uninformed
person, when it comes to evolution.
> Creationism is a
> Protestant thing.
No, fool, creationism is pretty much a theist thing and certainly one
found throughout Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to name but a few.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
quibbler
mscotts...@hotmail.com says...
> > Creation is a Biblical thing.
>
> It's a "literal interpretation of the Bible" thing, and Catholicism is not
> known for that these days.
Poop BeenADick is clearly a Creationist stooge and hopes to destroy the
last vestiges of sanity that were left in Catholicism.
quibbler
_@tampabay.rr.com says...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:27:15 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash
> (Rand Simberg) spake thusly:
>
>
> >your own. The Church does not oppose evolution. Creationism is a
> >Protestant thing.
> >
> >http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/18/news/evolution.php
>
> Creation is a Biblical thing.
That's inadequate. Creationism is described in many traditions other
than the "Bible", moron.
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <1156951295.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
>
>Jon Schild wrote:
>> Double-A wrote:
>> > The Mormon Church has its own dilemma when confronted by modern
>> > science:
>> >
>> > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm
>> >
>> > Double-A
>> >
>>
>> Well, nobody sane ever claimed that either the Vatican or the mormon big
>> brethren were hotbeads of liberal thinking or free inquiry.
>
>Within many areas, including science, the Vatican is certainly a free
>inquiry zone, and has been for a few Centuries now.
That certainly does not apply to matters of sexual crimes committed by
priests.
>Granted, in other areas this is not the case. It does tend however to
>be more forgiving of liberal thinking than many other major religions.
Like killing millions of people worldwide by disallowing condom
usage??
Get real.
William December Starr
"Alex Terrell" <alext...@yahoo.com> said:
> Michael Grosberg wrote [re some BradGuthery]:
>
>> That's the strangest piece of syntax I've even seen in English
>> outside of chinese electrical appliance user manuals.
>
> It looks like a machine translation of German. Though a German
> intellectual could probably manage the above paragraph with only a
> single full stop.
An oldie but a goodie:
"Whenever the literary German dives into a sentence, that is the last
you are going to see of him until he emerges on the other side of the
Atlantic with a verb in his mouth."
-- Mark Twain, _A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court_
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
Pastor Dave <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> said:
> You can try to dodge the Scriptures if you want to.
I don't recall ever having them thrown at me.
William December Starr
"Eudaemonic Plague" <gh...@ameritech.net> said:
> How can it matter? No one with any sense cares what the vatican's
> stance is, we don't base our lives on their foolishness.
People without any sense can still vote.
alext...@yahoo.com
That is a problem of treating it literally. Belief in God is a faifth.
You can choose to believe, or you can choose not to believe.
If you are rational, you have no choice to accept evolution (you can
argue over the details "mild" Intelligent Design could fit within
evolution), because the evidence is so overwhelming. (Its like global
warming).
If you have a choice of believing in Evolution, or in a literal
intepretatrion of a book written thousands of years ago, then there
really is one logical choice.
But its not a choice that needs to be made. You can intepret the bible
in different ways and draw appropriate lessons from it, remembering the
context in which it was written.
Mike Schilling
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ed64kl$b6u$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <13cbf2dshdt0knd36...@4ax.com>,
> Pastor Dave <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> said:
>
>> You can try to dodge the Scriptures if you want to.
>
> I don't recall ever having them thrown at me.
obWoodyAllen:
Years ago, my mother gave me a bullet, and I put it in my breast pocket. Two
years after that, I was walking down the street, when a berserk evangelist
heaved a Gideon bible out a hotel room window, hitting me in the chest. That
Bible would have gone through my heart if it wasn't for the bullet in my
pocket.
Mike
As you say, no one with any sense gives a rat's ass about the Vatican's
opinions on anything. But not everyone has sense and we are in a
battle with the pinheads who want to replace school textbooks on
evolutionary biology with the bible. It will be unhelpful if even a
fraction of the Catholics in the US get on board with that crap. I
don't know where you live. I live in suburbs of NY so that kind of
crap is not an issue. But if you live in Kansas or Arkansas the battle
is ongoing.
Cary Kittrell
So I take it you are mistaking me for a Christian?
Or are you someone who thinks that no insights into
the human condition can be found in the various myths of
the world?
-- cary
Pastor Dave
thusly:
>Eudaemonic Plague wrote:
>> "Pastor Dave" <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:13cbf2dshdt0knd36...@4ax.com...
>> [snip]
>> : If we got here by evolution, then Jesus is not Savior.
>>
>> Very good, Davey, now if you will only recognize the fact that we
>> _did_ get here by evolution.......
>
>That is a problem of treating it literally. Belief in God is a faifth.
>You can choose to believe, or you can choose not to believe.
You just described macroevolution.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
The Last Days were in the first century:
"But the end of all things is AT HAND: be
YE therefore sober, and watch unto prayer."
- 1 Peter 4:7
quibbler
_@tampabay.rr.com says...
> >> >your own. The Church does not oppose evolution. Creationism is a
> >> >Protestant thing.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Creation is a Biblical thing.
> >>
> >(Though a characteristic shared by many Jews and Muslims).
> >
> >Treating the bibe as gospel!
>
They're dodgy enough themselves, as it is.
> But it is hypocrisy to claim that one believes in a
> denomination that claims to believe the Scriptures
claim to believe in a denomination that claims to believe, eh? Why don't
you take the balls out of your mouth and just say it straight. They
claim to believe, just like you. They just claim something different.
Deal with it, moron.
> and then tosses the basic idea of the Scriptures
> aside.
The basic idea of the Scriptures is to fleece gullible morons like
yourself, and that idea is alive and well in many churches these days.
>
> If we got here by evolution, then Jesus is not Savior.
I agree that jesus is not any kind of savior and we did evolve (though
you not as much as the rest of us). However, that doesn't mean that your
material conditional is even close to valid. It's certainly conceivable
that evolution could be true and there to have still been some moronic
jesus character. But the reality is that Jesus wasn't necessary for
anything and still isn't.
Mike Schilling
> As you say, no one with any sense gives a rat's ass about the Vatican's
> opinions on anything. But not everyone has sense and we are in a
> battle with the pinheads who want to replace school textbooks on
> evolutionary biology with the bible. It will be unhelpful if even a
> fraction of the Catholics in the US get on board with that crap. I
> don't know where you live. I live in suburbs of NY so that kind of
> crap is not an issue. But if you live in Kansas or Arkansas the battle
> is ongoing.
If you think that people pushing creationism in Kansas are Catholics, you're
too out of touch to be taken seriously.
Bill Snyder
<_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On 31 Aug 2006 01:04:39 -0700, alext...@yahoo.com spake
>thusly:
>
>
>>Eudaemonic Plague wrote:
>>> "Pastor Dave" <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13cbf2dshdt0knd36...@4ax.com...
>>> [snip]
>>> : If we got here by evolution, then Jesus is not Savior.
>>>
>>> Very good, Davey, now if you will only recognize the fact that we
>>> _did_ get here by evolution.......
>>
>>That is a problem of treating it literally. Belief in God is a faifth.
>>You can choose to believe, or you can choose not to believe.
>
>You just described macroevolution.
Only if you are crazy enough to believe that biology is all a vast
conspiracy, geology is all a vast conspiracy, isotope dating is all a
vast conspiracy, archaeology is all a vast conspiracy, . . .
But sane people don't "choose" whether or not to believe the sky is
blue, or gouge out their eyes so they can claim it's pink with purple
polka-dots.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Elf M. Sternberg
> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>> http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06082104.html
>>
>>
>> Monday August 21, 2006
>>
>>
>> Vatican Dumps Darwinist-Boosting Astronomer
>>
>> By Hilary White
>
> False alarm. The headline reflects the propaganda
> goals of the Reich-wing, and not reality.
>
> Fact is, the man was born in 1933. If you're having
> some difficulty with the math (and if you're a
> creationist git then surely you are) that would make
> him 73 years old.
He's also entering a hospital to undergo chemotherapy for
cancer. As far as anyone knows, his successor is as straight-shooting
a scientist as one can find.
Elf
Wilson Heydt
Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:00:51 GMT, Pastor Dave
><_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On 31 Aug 2006 01:04:39 -0700, alext...@yahoo.com spake
>>thusly:
>>
>>
>>>Eudaemonic Plague wrote:
>>>> "Pastor Dave" <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:13cbf2dshdt0knd36...@4ax.com...
>>>> [snip]
>>>> : If we got here by evolution, then Jesus is not Savior.
>>>>
>>>> Very good, Davey, now if you will only recognize the fact that we
>>>> _did_ get here by evolution.......
>>>
>>>That is a problem of treating it literally. Belief in God is a faifth.
>>>You can choose to believe, or you can choose not to believe.
>>
>>You just described macroevolution.
>
>Only if you are crazy enough to believe that biology is all a vast
>conspiracy, geology is all a vast conspiracy, isotope dating is all a
>vast conspiracy, archaeology is all a vast conspiracy, . . .
You missed physics, astronomy, archaeology and paleontology.
Mike
No, of course not in Kansas. But there are some states (for example
Pennsylvania recently had some kind of legal battle over this ---
fortunately the rational people prevailed) that have a significant
number of Catholics and, as I say, it will be unfortunate if the Prot
fundies get any allies of any kind whatsoever.
Eric Chomko
Eudaemonic Plague wrote:
> "Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
> news:45399fe9....@news.giganews.com...
> : On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:49:34 -0600, in a place far, far away,
> quibbler
> : <quibb...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
> a
> : way as to indicate that:
> : >> Fact is, the man was born in 1933. If you're having
> : >> some difficulty with the math (and if you're a
> : >> creationist git then surely you are) that would make
> : >> him 73 years old.
> : >And he has cancer. Both is age and medical condition would be
> pretty
> : >good reasons for retiring. If the vatican opposes his views then
> the
> : >pope can just flat out contradict him on the spot. There's no need
> for
> : >them to beat around the bush. The fact is that the vatican doesn't
> know
> : >what lie to tell next, so, for now, they're keeping their ignorant
> mouths
> : >shut.
> : Speaking of keeping ignorant mouths shut, maybe you should work on
> : your own. The Church does not oppose evolution. Creationism is a
> : Protestant thing.
>
> looking foolish?
Though Rand often looks foolish, there is no evidence that actually
enjoys it.
Eric
Rand Simberg
<pne.c...@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>> Ah, _where_ exactly did he claim they oppose evolution? Do you enjoy
>> looking foolish?
>
>Though Rand often looks foolish, there is no evidence that actually
>enjoys it.
Boy, that one cracked the glass on my irony meter.
Eric Chomko
That's because you used it as a mirror...
Pastor Dave
<bsn...@airmail.net> spake thusly:
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:00:51 GMT, Pastor Dave
><_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On 31 Aug 2006 01:04:39 -0700, alext...@yahoo.com spake
>>thusly:
>>
>>
>>>Eudaemonic Plague wrote:
>>>> "Pastor Dave" <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:13cbf2dshdt0knd36...@4ax.com...
>>>> [snip]
>>>> : If we got here by evolution, then Jesus is not Savior.
>>>>
>>>> Very good, Davey, now if you will only recognize the fact that we
>>>> _did_ get here by evolution.......
>>>
>>>That is a problem of treating it literally. Belief in God is a faifth.
>>>You can choose to believe, or you can choose not to believe.
>>
>>You just described macroevolution.
>
>Only if you are crazy enough to believe that biology
Biology proves microevolution, not macro.
Lie to yourself all you wish. But the truth is,
you have zero proof of macroevolution.
Viruses from viruses, flowers from flowers,
etc., is not proof of macroevolution.
Have a nice life.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific
work of any kind realises that over the entrance to
the gates of the temple of science are written the
words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the
scientist cannot dispense with." - Max Planck
Rand Simberg
Dave <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Biology proves microevolution, not macro.
>
>Lie to yourself all you wish. But the truth is,
>you have zero proof of macroevolution.
No, but then, we have zero proof of any scientific theory, since
scientific theories are unprovable. However, like other scientific
theories, we have abundant *evidence* of it.
Alan Anderson
> Lie to yourself all you wish. But the truth is,
> you have zero proof of macroevolution.
"Proof" is a loaded word. Only artificial logical systems permit true
proof in the strictest sense. Scientific theories work on the basis of
evidence, and there is actually a great deal of evidence on the side of
macroevolution.
Rand Simberg
Anderson <aran...@insightbb.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Pastor Dave <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
This creature is obviously innocent of the concept of "proof."
Bill Snyder
wrote:
I did list archaeology, and the rest was supposed to be covered by the
". . ." at the end. (And do we actually know that he's a Young Earth
type?)
Mike Schilling
"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:1s0ff2lfkujglvepp...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>Only if you are crazy enough to believe that biology is all a vast
>>>conspiracy, geology is all a vast conspiracy, isotope dating is all a
>>>vast conspiracy, archaeology is all a vast conspiracy, . . .
>>
>>You missed physics, astronomy, archaeology and paleontology.
>
> I did list archaeology, and the rest was supposed to be covered by the
> ". . ." at the end. (And do we actually know that he's a Young Earth
> type?)
Thermodynamics is merely mistaken, as it doesn't realize that life can
decrease entropy.
Bill Snyder
<_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:46:46 -0500, Bill Snyder
><bsn...@airmail.net> spake thusly:
>
>
>>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:00:51 GMT, Pastor Dave
>><_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 31 Aug 2006 01:04:39 -0700, alext...@yahoo.com spake
>>>thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Eudaemonic Plague wrote:
>>>>> "Pastor Dave" <_-anania...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:13cbf2dshdt0knd36...@4ax.com...
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> : If we got here by evolution, then Jesus is not Savior.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very good, Davey, now if you will only recognize the fact that we
>>>>> _did_ get here by evolution.......
>>>>
>>>>That is a problem of treating it literally. Belief in God is a faifth.
>>>>You can choose to believe, or you can choose not to believe.
>>>
>>>You just described macroevolution.
>>
>>Only if you are crazy enough to believe that biology
>
>Biology proves microevolution, not macro.
>
>Lie to yourself all you wish. But the truth is,
>you have zero proof of macroevolution.
>Viruses from viruses, flowers from flowers,
>etc., is not proof of macroevolution.
It's good to see evidence of panicked retreat. Time was when a
Creationist sneered at "macroevolution," he mean speciation. Now
you've backed up to whole families of organisms. I wonder just how
narrow a corner you loons can paint yourselves into with your lies,
before it becomes obvious even to you that you're standing in a pile
of your own bullshit.
>
>Have a nice life.
Likewise. If your religion is real, you should definitely enjoy life
while it lasts. Because if you eventually have to face someone who
said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,"
with all those lies stuck in your throat, the rest of eternity isn't
going to be any fun for you at all.
pete
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> sez:
` In article <1156950492.7...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
` "Alex Terrell" <alext...@yahoo.com> said:
Ooooh, that's exquisite!
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
Mike Schilling
"pete" <vin...@triumfunspam.ca> wrote in message
news:ed85tk$834$2...@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> In sci.space.policy, on 31 Aug 2006 03:53:11 -0400,
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> sez:
>
> ` In article <1156950492.7...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> ` "Alex Terrell" <alext...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> ` > Michael Grosberg wrote [re some BradGuthery]:
> ` >
> ` >> That's the strangest piece of syntax I've even seen in English
> ` >> outside of chinese electrical appliance user manuals.
> ` >
> ` > It looks like a machine translation of German. Though a German
> ` > intellectual could probably manage the above paragraph with only a
> ` > single full stop.
>
> ` An oldie but a goodie:
>
> ` "Whenever the literary German dives into a sentence, that is the last
> ` you are going to see of him until he emerges on the other side of the
> ` Atlantic with a verb in his mouth."
>
> ` -- Mark Twain, _A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court_
>
> Ooooh, that's exquisite!
If you like that, read Twain's "The Awful German Language" in full:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~gback/awfgrmlg.html
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> denomination that claims to believe the Scriptures
> aside.
>
Rather sad that your God is so small as to not be able to can't accomodate
evolution.
nightbat
nightbat
Oh but He does check out the scientific analysis of the Red
Halo and its evolution capability.
ponder on,
the nightbat
Pastor Dave
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> spake thusly:
The often made, stupid claim by the evolutionist, which he steals
from Creationists.
He actually thinks that his message will read as an intelligent
statement. He thinks we'll all bow to evolution now, because
he thinks it isn't completely stupid to claim that evolution
doing it all by itself, is harder than creating it all in six
days. The reality is, he tries to wrap God around the whim
of men.
Goodbye now.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
GODISNOWHERE (now read it again)
Pastor Dave
(Rand Simberg) spake thusly:
As I thought. More claims. Bye now.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
WARNING: Exposure to the Son may prevent burning!
Paul F. Dietz
> Thermodynamics is merely mistaken, as it doesn't realize that life can
> decrease entropy.
Young man, in this household we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics.
Life, like many non-biological processes, can decrease entropy
locally, but always at the expense of a larger increase in entropy
elsewhere.
Paul
Mike
Mike Schilling wrote:
> "Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
> news:1s0ff2lfkujglvepp...@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>>Only if you are crazy enough to believe that biology is all a vast
> >>>conspiracy, geology is all a vast conspiracy, isotope dating is all a
> >>>vast conspiracy, archaeology is all a vast conspiracy, . . .
> >>
> >>You missed physics, astronomy, archaeology and paleontology.
> Thermodynamics is merely mistaken, as it doesn't realize that life can
> decrease entropy.
Dear ignoramus,
The second law of thermodynamics states that for a CLOSED system
the entropy must increase. Living organisms are most emphatically not
closed systems.
First of all, the planet earth as a whole does not tend to increase its
entropy. There is a common belief that "the earth receives energy from
the sun" which is of course true, but the earth radiates every bit as
much energy as it receives and ends up with no net energy gain. What
the earth gets from the sun is "low entropy". I.e. the earth gets from
the sun a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation consisting of
relatively high frequency photons and then emits the energy equivalent
in the form of relatively low frequency photons. The overall effect is
that the earth can maintain itself without an increase of entropy. The
solar system taken as a whole is approximately a closed system and its
overall entropy increases in accordance with 2nd law of thermodynamics,
but most of the increase of entropy is occurring in the sun.
Living organisms are a more extreme case of a localized "low entropy"
phenomenon. We commonly say that we need food in order to obtain
energy, but that is only part of the story. What we mainly need from
food is "low entropy". Suppose that you are fatigued and then you eat
a meal and take a nap and wake up feeling refreshed. By the time you
are done crapping out the food you ate, your overall energy is much the
same as before. But meanwhile your body used the food to repair
damaged tissues etc. and some of the food gets stored as potential
energy in the form of glycogen in your liver and muscles etc. Thus
after eating and resting your body is in a lower entropy state than
when you were fatigued and hungry.
Hope this explanation helps.
Mike Schilling
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> "Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>> news:1s0ff2lfkujglvepp...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if you are crazy enough to believe that biology is all a vast
>>>>> conspiracy, geology is all a vast conspiracy, isotope dating is
>>>>> all a vast conspiracy, archaeology is all a vast conspiracy, . . .
>>>>
>>>> You missed physics, astronomy, archaeology and paleontology.
>
>> Thermodynamics is merely mistaken, as it doesn't realize that life
>> can decrease entropy.
>
> Dear ignoramus,
Did I really need a smiley to mark that as sarcasm? Evidently so.
Paul F. Dietz
> Did I really need a smiley to mark that as sarcasm? Evidently so.
On usenet? Hell yes.
Paul
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 04:22:05 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> spake thusly:
accomodate
> >evolution.
>
> The often made, stupid claim by the evolutionist, which he steals
> from Creationists.
>
So, let's see. You'd rather deny shred of evidence suggesting an old earth
and evolution and accept that God is lying to you about them.
Seems to me that you're trying to wrap God around the whim of your believes.
Very sad.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> Did I really need a smiley to mark that as sarcasm? Evidently so.
>
>On usenet? Hell yes.
Believe me, it was sarcasm. Mike knows better.
Wim Lewis
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Cary Kittrell wrote:
>> You appear to be mistaking me for a Christian.
>
>If you don't see the bible as literally true you eat abortions.
You can cite chapter and verse for that, I assume?
--
Wim Lewis <wi...@hhhh.org>, Seattle, WA, USA. PGP keyID 27F772C1
Roy Jose Lorr
> That is a problem of treating it literally. Belief in God is a faifth.
> You can choose to believe, or you can choose not to believe.
> If you are rational, you have no choice to accept evolution (you can
> argue over the details "mild" Intelligent Design could fit within
> evolution), because the evidence is so overwhelming. (Its like global
> warming).
Since there is no evidence of one species changing into
another, you must choose to believe "evolution" on faith.
Brad Guth
sucks and blows the most about this brown-nosed Usenet (the
anti-think-tank and/or disinformation cesspool of humanity).
The remaining contributions as offered by the 0.1% are of the few and
far between good guys that apparently don't count.
BTW; my God (aka ET intelligent creator) can seriously kick your God's
butt any day of the week, and then some.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Bill Snyder
wrote:
Speciation has been observed, you contemptible liar, and that fact has
been pointed out to you before.
Rand Simberg
Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>alext...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is literally tons of evidence of it. The fact that no one has
personally seen it happen (even if that were a fact) does not mean
that there is no evidence. Circumstantial evidence is in fact much
more reliable than eyewitness testimony.
Fred J. McCall
<plonk>
quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:In article <45399fe9....@news.giganews.com>,
:simberg.i...@org.trash says...
:> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:49:34 -0600, in a place far, far away, quibbler
:> <quibb...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:> way as to indicate that:
:>
:> >> Fact is, the man was born in 1933. If you're having
:> >> some difficulty with the math (and if you're a
:> >> creationist git then surely you are) that would make
:> >> him 73 years old.
:> >
:> >And he has cancer. Both is age and medical condition would be pretty
:> >good reasons for retiring. If the vatican opposes his views then the
:> >pope can just flat out contradict him on the spot. There's no need for
:> >them to beat around the bush. The fact is that the vatican doesn't know
:> >what lie to tell next, so, for now, they're keeping their ignorant mouths
:> >shut.
:>
:> Speaking of keeping ignorant mouths shut,
:
:
:Yes, speaking of ignorant mouths, I knew we'd have to hear yours
:eventually.
:
:
:> maybe you should work on
:> your own.
:
:Nope, you're wrong as usual.
:
:
:
:> The Church does not oppose evolution.
:
:No, but Pope BeenADick is trying to backpedal as furiously as possible,
:because he is clearly an old, stupid, and scientifically uninformed
:person, when it comes to evolution.
:
:
:
:> Creationism is a
:> Protestant thing.
:
:No, fool, creationism is pretty much a theist thing and certainly one
:found throughout Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to name but a few.
Mike Schilling
> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 08:34:40 -0700, in a place far, far away, Roy Jose
> Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
> a way as to indicate that:
>>
>> Since there is no evidence of one species changing into
>> another, you must choose to believe "evolution" on faith.
>
> There is literally tons of evidence of it.
Since much of the evidence is found encased in rock, "tons" is the mot
juste.
Roy Jose Lorr
Petrie dish hocus pocus is not evidence of one species
changing into another.
Roy Jose Lorr
> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 08:34:40 -0700, in a place far, far away, Roy Jose
> Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
> a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>>alext...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That is a problem of treating it literally. Belief in God is a faifth.
>>>You can choose to believe, or you can choose not to believe.
>>>If you are rational, you have no choice to accept evolution (you can
>>>argue over the details "mild" Intelligent Design could fit within
>>>evolution), because the evidence is so overwhelming. (Its like global
>>>warming).
>>
>>Since there is no evidence of one species changing into
>>another, you must choose to believe "evolution" on faith.
>
>
> There is literally tons of evidence of it.
Not a scrap of evidence showing one species changing into
another.
.
The fact that no one has
> personally seen it happen (even if that were a fact) does not mean
> that there is no evidence. Circumstantial evidence is in fact much
> more reliable than eyewitness testimony.
'Circumstantial' evidence is not scientific.
Volker Hetzer
in the few minutes you can be bothered to look?
Volker
Volker Hetzer
>> Speciation has been observed, you contemptible liar, and that fact has
>> been pointed out to you before.
>
> Petrie dish hocus pocus is not evidence of one species changing into
> another.
doesn't mean it's not there.
But of course, every believers understanding of the world is perfect, so,
everything he/she doesn't understand with their one puny little brain must be
evidence of god for it's clearly not understandable at all by /anybody/,
be it earth human, alien or whatever and therefore divine.
There might be limits to what we can understand of the world and math teaches
us that some things are not provable at all. /However/, evidence so far
shows a positive relationship between trying and getting results, with no
sign of abating.
As a believer, you give up trying to understand much sooner than a scientist
(and flee into a world full of simple fantasies). That is your right, of course,
but, as a consequence, whenever you try to argue, nonsense like your sentence
above will result.
Volker
Rand Simberg
>>>Since there is no evidence of one species changing into
>>>another, you must choose to believe "evolution" on faith.
>>
>>
>> There is literally tons of evidence of it.
>
>Not a scrap of evidence showing one species changing into
>another.
>.
> The fact that no one has
>> personally seen it happen (even if that were a fact) does not mean
>> that there is no evidence. Circumstantial evidence is in fact much
>> more reliable than eyewitness testimony.
>
>'Circumstantial' evidence is not scientific.
Of course it is. You seem to be profoundly ignorant of science.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
Even when the "hocus-pocus" involves the appearance of a new species,
it's not evidence of a new species. Riiiight, retardo, we believe
you, honest we do. And in any event, speciation has also been
observed in nature.
Mike Schilling
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:51:42 -0700, in a place far, far away, Roy Jose
> Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
> a way as to indicate that:
>> 'Circumstantial' evidence is not scientific.
>
> Of course it is. You seem to be profoundly ignorant of science.
In fact, the alternative to circumstantial evidence, eyewitness testimony,
is far less scientific.
Roy Jose Lorr
> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
>>> Speciation has been observed, you contemptible liar, and that fact has
>>> been pointed out to you before.
>>
>>
>> Petrie dish hocus pocus is not evidence of one species changing into
>> another.
>
> "Petrie dish hocus pocus". The fact that you don't understand the evidence
> doesn't mean it's not there.
What's to understand? There's no evidence of "Darwinian
evolution" in a petrie dish. Its you who apparently don't
understand your own religion.
> But of course, every believers understanding of the world is perfect, so,
> everything he/she doesn't understand with their one puny little brain
> must be
> evidence of god for it's clearly not understandable at all by /anybody/,
> be it earth human, alien or whatever and therefore divine.
>
> There might be limits to what we can understand of the world and math
> teaches
> us that some things are not provable at all. /However/, evidence so far
> shows a positive relationship between trying and getting results, with no
> sign of abating.
> As a believer, you give up trying to understand much sooner than a
> scientist
> (and flee into a world full of simple fantasies). That is your right, of
> course,
> but, as a consequence, whenever you try to argue, nonsense like your
> sentence
> above will result.
Spoken like a true religious, evolution fundamentalist.
Roy Jose Lorr
Is that so? Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?
Rand Simberg
>>>'Circumstantial' evidence is not scientific.
>>
>>
>> Of course it is. You seem to be profoundly ignorant of science.
>
>Is that so? Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?
No elaboration required. Circumstantial evidence constitutes the bulk
of evidence of scientific theories. You don't understand this. Ergo,
you are profoundly ignorant of science.
Roy Jose Lorr
Can you say "Cambrian"?
Roy Jose Lorr
And you say, I'm 'ignorant of science'? LOL Its good
though that you agree, the religion of science is taken
mostly on faith.
Rand Simberg
Do you have a non-clueless response?
You don't have to answer that question.
Roy Jose Lorr
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:48:51 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Snyder wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 08:34:40 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>alext...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That is a problem of treating it literally. Belief in God is a faifth.
>>>>>You can choose to believe, or you can choose not to believe.
>>>>>If you are rational, you have no choice to accept evolution (you can
>>>>>argue over the details "mild" Intelligent Design could fit within
>>>>>evolution), because the evidence is so overwhelming. (Its like global
>>>>>warming).
>>>>
>>>>Since there is no evidence of one species changing into
>>>>another, you must choose to believe "evolution" on faith.
>>>
>>>
>>>Speciation has been observed, you contemptible liar, and that fact has
>>>been pointed out to you before.
>>
>>Petrie dish hocus pocus is not evidence of one species
>>changing into another.
>
>
> Even when the "hocus-pocus" involves the appearance of a new species,
> it's not evidence of a new species. Riiiight, retardo, we believe
> you, honest we do.
Tell me something, what happens to the 'hocus pocus' when it
slops out of the petrie dish onto the bench? LOL
And in any event, speciation has also been
> observed in nature.
Ain't faith wunnaful?
Roy Jose Lorr
Ain't faith wunnaful?
Roy Jose Lorr
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 07:41:22 -0700, in a place far, far away, Roy Jose
> Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
> a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>>Rand Simberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 07:30:16 -0700, in a place far, far away, Roy Jose
>>>Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
>>>a way as to indicate that:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>'Circumstantial' evidence is not scientific.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it is. You seem to be profoundly ignorant of science.
>>>>
>>>>Is that so? Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?
>>>
>>>
>>>No elaboration required. Circumstantial evidence constitutes the bulk
>>>of evidence of scientific theories. You don't understand this. Ergo,
>>>you are profoundly ignorant of science.
>>
>>And you say, I'm 'ignorant of science'? LOL Its good
>>though that you agree, the religion of science is taken
>>mostly on faith.
>
>
> Do you have a non-clueless response?
>
> You don't have to answer that question.
Under the 'circumstances', why not? LOL