the Catholic church has long history of supporting and promoting scientific research and discovery
Church supports science until it conflicts with their doctrine.
Like:
the position that gays choose to be gay (and that they can be changed).
Exorcisms
Fertility treatments are an abomination.
Against organ donation
how about what they say about the pill? Condoms?
Believe that abstinence is the best policy for controlling aids (is this scientific?)
And don't even get me started on the new testament being the word of God. It's the word that a bunch of men approved for print. Am I dismissing the importance of the bible? nope. But to say that the old testament is a quaint story and that the new testament is God's will is ridiculous. Unless you care to parse the problems...
Jesus believed in death for some crimes (including insulting your parents)
New testament says runaway slaves should be brought back to their owners
NT says do not pray in public. give ALL of your possessions away, don't save money etc.
Men have dominion over woman and woman should not tell a man to do anything or teach them anything....
There are states where the legislator voted to make it legal to present creationism in SCIENCE class. And that is something that happened recently!!!
And the problem with that is what exactly?
Since the Scopes trial, which the evolutionist lost by the way, they continued teaching the theory of evolution until it became a standard in science.
Intelligent Design (ID) is a theory. One may argue that it is creationism masked so be it. The God particle theory wasn't developed until 1964 and still hasn't been proven. Scientist believe they saw it back in March but aren't 100% sure. It hasn't stopped scientist from teaching about its existence.
That is what a scientist does. He theorizes and goes about trying to prove his theory. ID isn't going away any time soon. The more advance man is getting from a technological stance, the more man is finding out Darwin didn't have all the answers.
Other Nobel Prize Winners on Intelligent Design and Fine Tuned Universe
ALBERT EINSTEIN, Nobel Laureate in Physics (he believed in a God like Spinoza did, but a God who design echoed throughout the universe)
MAX PLANCK, Nobel Laureate in Physics
WERNER HEISENBERG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ERWIN SCHRÖDINGER, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ROBERT MILLIKAN, Nobel Laureate in Physics:
CHARLES TOWNES, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARTHUR SCHAWLOW, Nobel Laureate in Physics
WILLIAM PHILLIPS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
SIR WILLIAM H. BRAGG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
GUGLIELMO MARCONI, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARTHUR COMPTON, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARNO PENZIAS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ALEXIS CARREL, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
SIR JOHN ECCLES, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
JOSEPH MURRAY, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
SIR ERNST CHAIN, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
GEORGE WALD, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology (note: he has quotes which defend atheism & deism)
SIR DEREK BARTON, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
CHRISTIAN ANFINSEN, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
WALTER KOHN, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Sorry, Brent, but saying that Einstein supports the Intelligent Design idea is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. When was ID first proposed? I have only heard it mentioned prominently in the last decade or so, but even if it has been around since the 60's . . . . Einstein died a decade earlier. Trying to use some of his quotes to say he supported the idea does not exactly bolster the argument.
To me, the vast majority of proponents that I have heard speaking on Intelligent Design, and Creationism, are not interested in "science" for any reason other than how it can be twisted to support their argument.
Quick skim of Wiki says ID started in 1984, so Einstein cannot be a supporter, as he died 30 years before.
No one has ever said that Darwin had "all the answers", but no one to date has come up with a better theory than his. Certainly not one as widely supported by data.
the intelligent design argument (also know as the teleological argument for the existence of god) has been around since the 13th century when st. thomas aquinas came up with it.
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that all too many people think that Religion is anti-science, when the two are not incompatible at all. In order for one to believe that they are, one needs to be fairly selective in which denominations/sects they pick and choose in their examples. the Catholic church has long history of supporting and promoting scientific research and discovery (waiting patiently for someone to bring up Gallileo . . .).
i took a course called 'the encounter of science and religion' in university. it was really interesting as it argued the similarities in the direction of science and religion and considered 4 different viewpoints of the relationship. the main texts were 'when science meets religion' by barbour, and 'god and the new metaphysics' by grunning. i still have both books (as i kept almost all my university texts). i prefer the latter but both good reads.
No one has ever said that Darwin had "all the answers", but no one to date has come up with a better theory than his. Certainly not one as widely supported by data.
just to defend darwin for a second, there has been a lot of ideas that stemmed from darwinism that darwin himself never stated. darwin had a following after his original publications and his followers expanded on his theories with their own ideas. however, darwin has been credited for these ideas still. big example, darwin never used the term 'evolution' in his 'the origin of species'.
Was under the impression that I.D. was a fairly recent, somewhat modified, offshoot of the teleological argument. Or am I confusing it with the whole Young Earth stuff?
ID has NOTHING to due with science. Creationism has nothing to do with science. you wanna teach creationism put it in a religion class. There's no scientific method to test creationism. Trial and error for Adam and Eve? Double blind tests to see if the book of Genesis occurred?
ID has NOTHING to due with science. Creationism has nothing to do with science. you wanna teach creationism put it in a religion class. There's no scientific method to test creationism. Trial and error for Adam and Eve? Double blind tests to see if the book of Genesis occurred?
You see there you go again. I have not stated ID is a fact. All I have said is there is more to our understanding to our universe than we can imagine. If a double blind test is your criteria for proof then I guess you better throw out the "Big Bang Theory" to the start of the universe and countless other things that are taught in science. And work your way down from there. As I have stated in past post, sometimes times it can take years for theories to be proven true. You cry for evidence of a designer, (GOD, there I will say it) and the atheist in you hasn't got a proven theory to the start in the universe we have today.
Sometimes the complexities of the universe and everything in living and non living to have happened by random chance and not a guided process, the odds are so astronomical, I can't imagine the equation.
No said admitting there was an outside force involved in all this means you have to worship it. That is still your choice.
You want to cherry pick thoughts about problem passages in the New Testament, PM me and I will have an open honest, frank discussion, for now I am done with this thread it has been enjoyable.
Thanks Brent for exemplifying why you can't have an intelligent argument with people that believe that someone collected 10-30 million pairs of insects and had them fuck on a boat.
Thanks Brent for exemplifying why you can't have an intelligent argument with people that believe that someone collected 10-30 million pairs of insects and had them fuck on a boat.
gg science
I was going to say that I believe Brent had said all that needs to be said.
I guess I was on his ignore list since he never responded to anything I said... which suggests he either
Posted then +ignored me
Is avoiding response to my diatribe
Has had me on ignore since before this thread and just took potshots.
Thanks Brent for exemplifying why you can't have an intelligent argument with people that believe that someone collected 10-30 million pairs of insects and had them fuck on a boat.
gg science
Still stuck on literal interpretations of the Old testament, huh?
Also, one could just as easily turn that around and state that a person of Faith cannot have an intelligent conversation with someone who refuses to believe anything that cannot be categorically demonstrated in front of their eyes.
I believe in God . . . that in no way prevents me from accepting scientific realities. In fact, scientific realities often can be used to as a basis for certain religious beliefs. For example, science informs us that at the moment of conception a fetus is an individual human being in it's own right. As a human being, that baby "should" be entitled to the same protections under the UN Declaration of Human Rights as you or I do.
I put this out there, not to derail this thread even further, but merely to point out, once again, that the only people who seem to be saying that science and Faith are incompatible (irreconcilable?) are the anti-religious. As a person of Faith, I am awestruck by the wondrous discoveries that we continue to make, and consider myself blessed to have lived through so many of them.
Anti-science whack-a-doodles are an embarrassment, not because they may or may not be people of Faith, but simply because they are whack-a-doodles. They are on a par with 9/11 truthers, and holocaust deniers in my book. Should we believe that all atheists are morons because some of them think that 9/11 was an "inside job"?
Still stuck on literal interpretations of the Old testament, huh?
I'm not stuck on anything...to me it is just another crappy book of fiction. I'm not basing my life on the equivalent of taking 50 Shades of Grey as the gospel.
I was going to say that I believe Brent had said all that needs to be said.
I guess I was on his ignore list since he never responded to anything I said... which suggests he either
Posted then +ignored me
Is avoiding response to my diatribe
Has had me on ignore since before this thread and just took potshots.
Regardless, I'm okay with all options.
Mark
Actually, I think you said you were drunk when you post so I figured no need to keep reading. I also know that you believe that my educational background means nothing/brings nothing of value to the discussion. Furthermore, you believe all people of a religious persuasion are not intelligent and have nothing to add to the discussion. See are CP discussion.
See are abortion discussion. (Still don't see how you think taking the life of a baby with a beating heart and active brain waves acceptable) Certainly didn't call you a murderous sob. I don't think I took any pot shots at you certainly not intentionally. Please forgive me if you see it differently. I never want to make these things personal, especially after my discussion with Nik during one thread a long time ago where I challenged him.
Today is my last day of teaching and I get a week off before starting up again August 1, so just saying good bye for a bit. If you ever want to have a serious discussion about why and how I came to my beliefs send me an email.
Also, one could just as easily turn that around and state that a person of Faith cannot have an intelligent conversation with someone who refuses to believe anything that cannot be categorically demonstrated in front of their eyes.
Religion already did that...
The character "Doubting Thomas" (which by all accounts is a derogatory label), was the dude that said "Guys, nailed to a cross, stabbed, etc. He's dead man... let it go"
Then JC comes and goes all "bitch please" on him. Bust out all the explanations you want, but to this particular kid who went to church? Thomas was painted as a dick. So, the idea of religion's brainwashing effects in this regard kinda already covers your statement.
Actually, I think you said you were drunk when you post so I figured no need to keep reading. I also know that you believe that my educational background means nothing/brings nothing of value to the discussion. Furthermore, you believe all people of a religious persuasion are not intelligent and have nothing to add to the discussion. See are CP discussion.
See are abortion discussion. (Still don't see how you think taking the life of a baby with a beating heart and active brain waves acceptable) Certainly didn't call you a murderous sob. I don't think I took any pot shots at you certainly not intentionally. Please forgive me if you see it differently. I never want to make these things personal, especially after my discussion with Nik during one thread a long time ago where I challenged him.
Wait, what? (P.S. > I don't know how to multiquote)
From post #72
"Mark wants to talk about how smart he is and how dumb others are.."
"You can call me naive, Mark calls me dumb and that's ok, I have been called worst,"
You think I am certifiable nuts (I won't use the word Mark
I never, in this thread, mentioned measuring my own intelligence against others, I was discussing the GZ trial.
I can not remember ever calling YOU dumb, I don't usually fire directly at people, and almost never initially. Do I think people ARE dumb? Yes... myself included.
The third one, isn't much of a shot, but why bring me up yet again?
Today is my last day of teaching and I get a week off before starting up again August 1, so just saying good bye for a bit. If you ever want to have a serious discussion about why and how I came to my beliefs send me an email.
I didn't mean to suggest that the 1/2 of people on the planet below average intelligence meant that all the religious lot were the unintelligent ones. That as well doesn't make sense mathematically.
As for the last bit there, Brent, I have almost never found any interest in the "why and how" people came to their particular beliefs, and promise you I don't want to have that discussion.
The character "Doubting Thomas" (which by all accounts is a derogatory label), was the dude that said "Guys, nailed to a cross, stabbed, etc. He's dead man... let it go"
Then JC comes and goes all "bitch please" on him. Bust out all the explanations you want, but to this particular kid who went to church? Thomas was painted as a dick. So, the idea of religion's brainwashing effects in this regard kinda already covers your statement.
Mark
You misunderstand or are misinterpreting the whole "doubting Thomas" scene. Rather than painting Thomas as a "dick" the situation is used by Catholics as a means of encouraging physical experience (pilgrimage for example) as a means of strengthening their Faith. Yes, Jesus says that those who accept Him without physical proof are blessed, but that is only because their Faith is stronger. The skeptic is not a "dick", otherwise, why would Jesus make the point of appearing to Thomas at all? He shows his love for Thomas by giving him what he (Thomas) needs to solidify his Faith in God.
And belittling people of Faith as being "brainwashed" is ridiculous.
And belittling people of Faith as being "brainwashed" is ridiculous.
What do you call forcing a child to listen to the teachings of a specific religion once a week or more before he has the ability to form his own independent thoughts and opinions? Not to mention living with parents that may be cramming the same crap into their heads on a daily basis. Could there be a better example or brainwashing short of strapping a child to a chair and forcing him to learn what you choose him to believe?
Is it just a coincidence that most "people of faith" have the same religion as their parents? Shouldn't something as important as a religion, the supposed guiding principles in these peoples lives, be left for a person to decide once they are old enough to have had their own experiences and to have formed their own opinions?
What do you call forcing a child to listen to the teachings of a specific religion once a week or more before he has the ability to form his own independent thoughts and opinions? Not to mention living with parents that may be cramming the same crap into their heads on a daily basis. Could there be a better example or brainwashing short of strapping a child to a chair and forcing him to learn what you choose him to believe?
It's called raising your child in the culture and Faith that he or she was born into. Are you seriously advocating that parents should not be allowed to impart ANYTHING to their children until they can make decisions for themselves? Or are you saying they should be taken away at birth so the Government can raise them properly?
Is it just a coincidence that most "people of faith" have the same religion as their parents? Shouldn't something as important as a religion, the supposed guiding principles in these peoples lives, be left for a person to decide once they are old enough to have had their own experiences and to have formed their own opinions?
speaking only from my experience, I think that some of the most devout Catholics I have met are actually converts from other denominations. One of the most devout I know of was born into a Jewish family and converted in his twenties. I myself, was raised Catholic, left the Church, but find myself edging closer to a return.
i think i read about an actual historical figure that was named jesus but i don't think it was the son of god and he performed miracles and stuff.
So we agree that the man known as Jesus of Nazareth (referred to by Christians as Jesus Christ) did actually exist as an historical figure.
as far as the mythical story of jesus, i think catholics/christians stole that resurrection story from many other religions.
Really? How do you explain the many historical references to Jesus, by both followers and skeptics, that mention the belief in his divinity? How do you explain that so many of his disciples were martyred under excruciatingly painful circumstances because they refused to recant their belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God? Surely one such follower would have said, "meh, I believe, but I believe in saving my ass more."
I don't know . . . it has been a strange journey, though. I was out of the Faith as soon as I turned 18. Never looked back. Went to Church for family occasions (weddings funerals) and that was it. Never took it seriously. But after my epiphany, I have mad a slow and gradual course correction in my life. I do not think I am quite ready to re-embrace the Catholic Church, but I know that I cannot continue to think and act as I once did when it comes to my belief in God.
Comments
Church supports science until it conflicts with their doctrine.
Like:
the position that gays choose to be gay (and that they can be changed).
Exorcisms
Fertility treatments are an abomination.
Against organ donation
how about what they say about the pill? Condoms?
Believe that abstinence is the best policy for controlling aids (is this scientific?)
And don't even get me started on the new testament being the word of God. It's the word that a bunch of men approved for print. Am I dismissing the importance of the bible? nope. But to say that the old testament is a quaint story and that the new testament is God's will is ridiculous. Unless you care to parse the problems...
Jesus believed in death for some crimes (including insulting your parents)
New testament says runaway slaves should be brought back to their owners
NT says do not pray in public. give ALL of your possessions away, don't save money etc.
Men have dominion over woman and woman should not tell a man to do anything or teach them anything....
You're fine with all that?
And the problem with that is what exactly?
Since the Scopes trial, which the evolutionist lost by the way, they continued teaching the theory of evolution until it became a standard in science.
Intelligent Design (ID) is a theory. One may argue that it is creationism masked so be it. The God particle theory wasn't developed until 1964 and still hasn't been proven. Scientist believe they saw it back in March but aren't 100% sure. It hasn't stopped scientist from teaching about its existence.
That is what a scientist does. He theorizes and goes about trying to prove his theory. ID isn't going away any time soon. The more advance man is getting from a technological stance, the more man is finding out Darwin didn't have all the answers.
http://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/nobel-prize-winners-who-believe-in-intelligent-design/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/seven-nobel-laureates-in-science-who-either-supported-intelligent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution/
Other Nobel Prize Winners on Intelligent Design and Fine Tuned Universe
ALBERT EINSTEIN, Nobel Laureate in Physics (he believed in a God like Spinoza did, but a God who design echoed throughout the universe)
MAX PLANCK, Nobel Laureate in Physics
WERNER HEISENBERG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ERWIN SCHRÖDINGER, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ROBERT MILLIKAN, Nobel Laureate in Physics:
CHARLES TOWNES, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARTHUR SCHAWLOW, Nobel Laureate in Physics
WILLIAM PHILLIPS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
SIR WILLIAM H. BRAGG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
GUGLIELMO MARCONI, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARTHUR COMPTON, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARNO PENZIAS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ALEXIS CARREL, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
SIR JOHN ECCLES, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
JOSEPH MURRAY, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
SIR ERNST CHAIN, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
GEORGE WALD, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology (note: he has quotes which defend atheism & deism)
SIR DEREK BARTON, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
CHRISTIAN ANFINSEN, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
WALTER KOHN, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
To me, the vast majority of proponents that I have heard speaking on Intelligent Design, and Creationism, are not interested in "science" for any reason other than how it can be twisted to support their argument.
Quick skim of Wiki says ID started in 1984, so Einstein cannot be a supporter, as he died 30 years before.
No one has ever said that Darwin had "all the answers", but no one to date has come up with a better theory than his. Certainly not one as widely supported by data.
i took a course called 'the encounter of science and religion' in university. it was really interesting as it argued the similarities in the direction of science and religion and considered 4 different viewpoints of the relationship. the main texts were 'when science meets religion' by barbour, and 'god and the new metaphysics' by grunning. i still have both books (as i kept almost all my university texts). i prefer the latter but both good reads.
just to defend darwin for a second, there has been a lot of ideas that stemmed from darwinism that darwin himself never stated. darwin had a following after his original publications and his followers expanded on his theories with their own ideas. however, darwin has been credited for these ideas still. big example, darwin never used the term 'evolution' in his 'the origin of species'.
Regardless . . . Darwin wins.
Man aquitted in Trayvon Martin death helps rescue family from overturned SUV
You see there you go again. I have not stated ID is a fact. All I have said is there is more to our understanding to our universe than we can imagine. If a double blind test is your criteria for proof then I guess you better throw out the "Big Bang Theory" to the start of the universe and countless other things that are taught in science. And work your way down from there. As I have stated in past post, sometimes times it can take years for theories to be proven true. You cry for evidence of a designer, (GOD, there I will say it) and the atheist in you hasn't got a proven theory to the start in the universe we have today.
Sometimes the complexities of the universe and everything in living and non living to have happened by random chance and not a guided process, the odds are so astronomical, I can't imagine the equation.
No said admitting there was an outside force involved in all this means you have to worship it. That is still your choice.
You want to cherry pick thoughts about problem passages in the New Testament, PM me and I will have an open honest, frank discussion, for now I am done with this thread it has been enjoyable.
Brent R.A. Wilson
gg science
I was going to say that I believe Brent had said all that needs to be said.
I guess I was on his ignore list since he never responded to anything I said... which suggests he either
Posted then +ignored me
Is avoiding response to my diatribe
Has had me on ignore since before this thread and just took potshots.
Regardless, I'm okay with all options.
Mark
Still stuck on literal interpretations of the Old testament, huh?
Also, one could just as easily turn that around and state that a person of Faith cannot have an intelligent conversation with someone who refuses to believe anything that cannot be categorically demonstrated in front of their eyes.
I believe in God . . . that in no way prevents me from accepting scientific realities. In fact, scientific realities often can be used to as a basis for certain religious beliefs. For example, science informs us that at the moment of conception a fetus is an individual human being in it's own right. As a human being, that baby "should" be entitled to the same protections under the UN Declaration of Human Rights as you or I do.
I put this out there, not to derail this thread even further, but merely to point out, once again, that the only people who seem to be saying that science and Faith are incompatible (irreconcilable?) are the anti-religious. As a person of Faith, I am awestruck by the wondrous discoveries that we continue to make, and consider myself blessed to have lived through so many of them.
Anti-science whack-a-doodles are an embarrassment, not because they may or may not be people of Faith, but simply because they are whack-a-doodles. They are on a par with 9/11 truthers, and holocaust deniers in my book. Should we believe that all atheists are morons because some of them think that 9/11 was an "inside job"?
I'm not stuck on anything...to me it is just another crappy book of fiction. I'm not basing my life on the equivalent of taking 50 Shades of Grey as the gospel.
Well, that would be interesting wouldn't it? >:D
#Reallymagicunderwear
Actually, I think you said you were drunk when you post so I figured no need to keep reading.
See are abortion discussion. (Still don't see how you think taking the life of a baby with a beating heart and active brain waves acceptable) Certainly didn't call you a murderous sob. I don't think I took any pot shots at you certainly not intentionally. Please forgive me if you see it differently. I never want to make these things personal, especially after my discussion with Nik during one thread a long time ago where I challenged him.
Today is my last day of teaching and I get a week off before starting up again August 1, so just saying good bye for a bit. If you ever want to have a serious discussion about why and how I came to my beliefs send me an email.
wilson.brent22@gmail.com
Religion already did that...
The character "Doubting Thomas" (which by all accounts is a derogatory label), was the dude that said "Guys, nailed to a cross, stabbed, etc. He's dead man... let it go"
Then JC comes and goes all "bitch please" on him. Bust out all the explanations you want, but to this particular kid who went to church? Thomas was painted as a dick. So, the idea of religion's brainwashing effects in this regard kinda already covers your statement.
Mark
See bolded above, but I conceded this
I didn't mean to suggest that the 1/2 of people on the planet below average intelligence meant that all the religious lot were the unintelligent ones. That as well doesn't make sense mathematically.
As for the last bit there, Brent, I have almost never found any interest in the "why and how" people came to their particular beliefs, and promise you I don't want to have that discussion.
Mark
You misunderstand or are misinterpreting the whole "doubting Thomas" scene. Rather than painting Thomas as a "dick" the situation is used by Catholics as a means of encouraging physical experience (pilgrimage for example) as a means of strengthening their Faith. Yes, Jesus says that those who accept Him without physical proof are blessed, but that is only because their Faith is stronger. The skeptic is not a "dick", otherwise, why would Jesus make the point of appearing to Thomas at all? He shows his love for Thomas by giving him what he (Thomas) needs to solidify his Faith in God.
And belittling people of Faith as being "brainwashed" is ridiculous.
What do you call forcing a child to listen to the teachings of a specific religion once a week or more before he has the ability to form his own independent thoughts and opinions? Not to mention living with parents that may be cramming the same crap into their heads on a daily basis. Could there be a better example or brainwashing short of strapping a child to a chair and forcing him to learn what you choose him to believe?
Is it just a coincidence that most "people of faith" have the same religion as their parents? Shouldn't something as important as a religion, the supposed guiding principles in these peoples lives, be left for a person to decide once they are old enough to have had their own experiences and to have formed their own opinions?
try getting the add-on for google or firefox called media hint. that should help.
i think i read about an actual historical figure that was named jesus but i don't think it was the son of god and he performed miracles and stuff.
as far as the mythical story of jesus, i think catholics/christians stole that resurrection story from many other religions.
speaking only from my experience, I think that some of the most devout Catholics I have met are actually converts from other denominations. One of the most devout I know of was born into a Jewish family and converted in his twenties. I myself, was raised Catholic, left the Church, but find myself edging closer to a return.
Really? How do you explain the many historical references to Jesus, by both followers and skeptics, that mention the belief in his divinity? How do you explain that so many of his disciples were martyred under excruciatingly painful circumstances because they refused to recant their belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God? Surely one such follower would have said, "meh, I believe, but I believe in saving my ass more."
Studying for The Final Exam, eh?
Shouldn't you be packing?