If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   The Vatican officially endorses Darwinism, forcing "Intelligent Design" advocates to find their tinfoil skullcaps to keep the scientific brainwaves out   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 699
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

25656 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2009 at 11:31 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



699 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-02-11 12:58:32 PM
Science tells us HOW, Religion tells us WHY

Why is that so hard for some people? Science will eventually tell us how we got here, Faith's job is the why, something real science can't and doesn't try to answer.
 
2009-02-11 12:58:35 PM
Why would anyone be surprised by Catholic Indulgences?
 
2009-02-11 12:58:35 PM
Easy to SAY, but do they mean it.

Genesis makes many claims directly conflicting with evolution.
Who did Adam and Eve's kids marry?
Birds are created BEFORE land animals.
etc.

And yet, the Church has not backed off on the stance that the bible is literally the infallible word of God.

So, they are not giving any ground. They are just talking out both sides of their mouths in a pointless attempt to sound reasonable and modern.

Same snake oil in a new bottle.
 
2009-02-11 12:58:41 PM
DamnYankees: Diogenes: Hardly. In America, at least, it's mostly the Protestants making a fuss over ID. And the last time I checked, they have no love for or loyalty to the Vatican.

Came in to say this. Our problem in the USA is with the Southern Baptists, Mormon, and other fundamentalist protestants. Catholics are generally mellow here. Well, relatively.


Oh yea? Well -our- problem is with you.
/not really, just being snarky.
//most mormons I know of believe in evolution
///the whole "We believe in the bible insofar as it is translated correctly" thing.
 
2009-02-11 12:58:58 PM
TyrantII: It's the fundy born again baptists. They all have the crazy eye.

Being born more than once is bound to strain the psyche.
 
2009-02-11 12:59:08 PM
Nobodyn0se: Ok, so you're saying humans can evolve into spaghetti?

That's just as stupid.

If evolution is so great, why does it keep CHANGING? Are all those old versions of evolution wrong? Then why is this version of evolution right? Isn't it MUCH more likely that THIS version of evolution will be proven wrong too?

Then WHY believe in it? Believe in something better.


Soylent spaghetti is good for the environment and ok for you...
 
2009-02-11 12:59:38 PM
pd771: attackingpencil: pd771: attackingpencil: I love how many people attack Nobodyn0se without actually clicking on his link.

If it's a parody site, I wouldn't know, simply because I've dealt with enough of the BS.

It's the flying spaghetti monster website.

OK, I like him now. Though it is hard to tell sometime because you hear this argument be legitamtly used


I am using the arguments legitimately.
 
2009-02-11 01:00:03 PM
SpectroBoy: Easy to SAY, but do they mean it.

Genesis makes many claims directly conflicting with evolution.
Who did Adam and Eve's kids marry?
Birds are created BEFORE land animals.
etc.

And yet, the Church has not backed off on the stance that the bible is literally the infallible word of God.

So, they are not giving any ground. They are just talking out both sides of their mouths in a pointless attempt to sound reasonable and modern.

Same snake oil in a new bottle.


The Catholic Church has never endorsed Biblical literalism.
 
2009-02-11 01:00:38 PM
ne2d: Good news, but just when I start thinking that Catholics are the smart Christians, they pull something like this. (new window)

I thought those were called "carbon credits" now.
 
2009-02-11 01:00:39 PM
EvilEgg: Doesn't this kind of undermine the whole Christian thing?

No Adam and Eve -> No Apple -> No original sin -> No need for baptism. People able to live a sin free life without Jesus?


I can try tackling this. When I went to religious ed classes at my local Catholic church back in early HS (I skipped out of it later, using work as an excuse), one of the most major things my priest said was that the whole Adam and Eve story is not historically true. He admitted that it was just a story passed down to attempt to explain why bad things happen to good people. Same with the whole Noah story, and pretty much any event depicted before Abraham (which I later learned is also of questionable historical authenticity).

Many of the Catholics I know (with a few rare exceptions) try to straddle between both God and science in their understanding of the origins of the universe. A lot of them assume that God created the world, but took billions of years to do it instead of 6 days. To them, the whole Adam and Eve thing is little more than a symbolic story, much like the parables that Jesus told (as well as the book of Revelation for that matter).

Although I would have no problem telling the Pope to go fark himself to his face, I have to give some props to American Catholics that still use critical thinking.
 
2009-02-11 01:00:52 PM
attackingpencil: Sticky Hands: attackingpencil: I love how many people attack Nobodyn0se without actually clicking on his link.

The URL http://www.venganza.org/ was blocked, it is in the Restricted Pornography category.

Weird, it's the FSM website.


yeah i know :P

The web filter here lists a local credit union as a "hate site"
The name of the credit union? America First. :D
 
2009-02-11 01:01:00 PM
Sticky Hands: Surool: Now, if you believe that God created the Earth, Adam and Eve... you are a creationist.

/not that it's a bad thing. some of my best friends are creationists... really

What if you believe he did that but event 1 happed billions of years before event 2....


You didn't dispute the "God created" part of my statement did you? I'll wait for you work that out on your own.
 
2009-02-11 01:01:38 PM
oroku_saki: Many of the Catholics I know (with a few rare exceptions) try to straddle between both God and science in their understanding of the origins of the universe. A lot of them assume that God created the world, but took billions of years to do it instead of 6 days. To them, the whole Adam and Eve thing is little more than a symbolic story, much like the parables that Jesus told (as well as the book of Revelation for that matter).

That's actually the official Catholic position.
 
2009-02-11 01:01:42 PM
Trivia Jockey: if Christianity (or at least one sect of it) is going to admit that one part of their Holy Book isn't literally true, than who's to say that other parts are similarly not literally true?

THIS

And by the way, they only seem to admit a part isn't true after the rest of us have known for a century or more. Strange behavior for people who claim to tell the truth, love their fellow man, and know the infallible word of god.
 
2009-02-11 01:01:46 PM
CDP: You seemed to have somehow overlooked my to post to you in the last thread you were in.

I am sure that it was quite unintentional so I will give you another chance............

You never responded to my post regarding the "Evolution helps solve crimes." Paper

Here is the Link (new window)
again.

What are your thoughts on this paper?

I know that GED in law did not come cheap. I am interested on what a great legal mind such as yours has to say.


I did answer that in the previous thread. I asked in the prior thread: Forensic DNA profiling looks at STR's in the non-coding junk DNA. They profile the non-coding region because that area does not control physical traits or characteristics. If non-coding DNA does not affect traits or characteristics, how is Darwin's theory of natural selection helpful to forensic DNA profiling?

You linked me to an article that asserted generally that evolution helps solve crimes. I pointed out that it did not answer my question. I say Evolutionism plays no role in solving crimes.
 
2009-02-11 01:02:56 PM
Has anyone ever seen the guy on infomercials who argues that evolution was proven as false because of sporks?

His argument was that if evolution was true, then sporks would have been invented in between forks and spoons, but since they were invented after both, evolution was faulty logic.
 
2009-02-11 01:02:56 PM
Sticky Hands: attackingpencil: Sticky Hands: attackingpencil: I love how many people attack Nobodyn0se without actually clicking on his link.

The URL http://www.venganza.org/ was blocked, it is in the Restricted Pornography category.

Weird, it's the FSM website.

yeah i know :P

The web filter here lists a local credit union as a "hate site"
The name of the credit union? America First. :D


Oh don't get me started on the stuff my work proxy blocks and the categorizations attached to them.
 
2009-02-11 01:03:39 PM
Shyran: Nobodyn0se: This is a horrible travesty. Evolution is a flawed "science" that hasn't been able to prove ANYTHING. I think anyone with a brain can see that we were CREATED, and not descended from some monkey.

I mean, do you people who believe in this evolution nonsense REALLY believe that if we give it enough time, a plate of spaghetti will turn into a human? That's freaking REDICULOUS.

I implore everyone in this thread to educate themselves about the TRUTH. Not some vague "science" that's constantly changing because people point out how WRONG it is, but the real, honest, TRUTH.

Meh, 3/10.

Obvious troll is obvious.


no strippers or beer volcanoes for you, matey!
 
2009-02-11 01:03:41 PM
SpectroBoy: Trivia Jockey: if Christianity (or at least one sect of it) is going to admit that one part of their Holy Book isn't literally true, than who's to say that other parts are similarly not literally true?

THIS

And by the way, they only seem to admit a part isn't true after the rest of us have known for a century or more. Strange behavior for people who claim to tell the truth, love their fellow man, and know the infallible word of god.


Actually, Catholics have always supported a non-literal reading of the Bible from the very beginning.
 
2009-02-11 01:04:38 PM
oroku_saki: one of the most major things my priest said was that the whole Adam and Eve story is not historically true. He admitted that it was just a story passed down to attempt to explain why bad things happen to good people. Same with the whole Noah story, and pretty much any event depicted before Abraham (which I later learned is also of questionable historical authenticity).

Although I do not like the political structure of the Catholic church, they are more realistic about the stories in the bible, they treat them as such so I do have respect for that. They rarely make sweeping absolutist statements and focus more on the teachings and the actual point a story is trying to make.

People that claim the absolute accuracy of those stories typically tend to miss the lesson it was trying to teach.

Although I do enjoy History channel stuff examining the historical accuracy but that is because there is a mix of fables and true events in the bible so it is a bit of a different angle in that case.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-02-11 01:05:12 PM
Nobodyn0se: pd771: attackingpencil: pd771: attackingpencil: I love how many people attack Nobodyn0se without actually clicking on his link.

If it's a parody site, I wouldn't know, simply because I've dealt with enough of the BS.

It's the flying spaghetti monster website.

OK, I like him now. Though it is hard to tell sometime because you hear this argument be legitamtly used

I am using the arguments legitimately.


My you be touched by his noodly appendage

In the name of the Pasta, and the Sauce, and the Garlic toast.

Ramen!
 
2009-02-11 01:05:26 PM
attackingpencil: oroku_saki: Many of the Catholics I know (with a few rare exceptions) try to straddle between both God and science in their understanding of the origins of the universe. A lot of them assume that God created the world, but took billions of years to do it instead of 6 days. To them, the whole Adam and Eve thing is little more than a symbolic story, much like the parables that Jesus told (as well as the book of Revelation for that matter).

That's actually the official Catholic position.


I do find it amusing that some people who try to take the Bible as 100% literal truth of God seem to always forget that almost everything Jesus taught was through parables and metaphors.
 
2009-02-11 01:05:52 PM
Nobodyn0se: Ok, so you're saying humans can evolve into spaghetti?

That's just as stupid.


Something like that happened in the movie Soylent Green...
 
2009-02-11 01:05:57 PM
When all truth is revealed, every one of us is going to wish we were nicer to one another.
 
2009-02-11 01:07:19 PM
NeverDrunk23: I do find it amusing that some people who try to take the Bible as 100% literal truth of God seem to always forget that almost everything Jesus taught was through parables and metaphors.

They seem to do the exact opposite of most of the teachings in fact.

Quite frankly I think they would hate jesus and everything he stood for if he were alive today.
 
2009-02-11 01:07:49 PM
NeverDrunk23: I do find it amusing that some people who try to take the Bible as 100% literal truth of God seem to always forget that almost everything Jesus taught was through parables and metaphors.

That's why it's so important to read The Book of Mormon.

I'm joking. Or am I? I Am.
 
2009-02-11 01:08:06 PM
mekki: Instant Karma: Next up, The Divine Spark, formerly known as the "Big Bang".

Actually, it was a Catholic priest, Father Georges Lemaitre, who proposed the Big Bang theory. So, done and done.



Look it's a Catholic and he's doing physics! Wow.


I pointed this out to my Catholic boyfriend some time ago. He was not amused. Shame, for someone pretty intelligent he holds onto some pretty outmoded ideas.

Lemaitre looked at the work done by Edwin Hubble, who found that everywhere he looked galaxies were moving away from everything else. (Look up red shift, Doppler effect) This meant that the universe must be expanding.

So Lemaitre surmised that the universe today must be larger than it was yesterday. So yesterday it was a little smaller than today. And the day before that smaller still, and so on. So the logical conclusion was that it expanded from some single point.

Simplified version, yes.
 
2009-02-11 01:08:08 PM
pd771: Has anyone ever seen the guy on infomercials who argues that evolution was proven as false because of sporks?

His argument was that if evolution was true, then sporks would have been invented in between forks and spoons, but since they were invented after both, evolution was faulty logic.


I would logically assume, much like a liger is the result of a lion and a tiger doing the deed, a spork is the result of a fork and spoon getting it on. Thus, it would come after. And be unable to procreate (much like a mule), explaining why we see so few even though they are so awesome.
 
2009-02-11 01:08:17 PM
rodeofrog: When all truth is revealed, every one of us is going to wish we were nicer to one another.

fark you!
 
2009-02-11 01:09:41 PM
Station: pd771: Has anyone ever seen the guy on infomercials who argues that evolution was proven as false because of sporks?

His argument was that if evolution was true, then sporks would have been invented in between forks and spoons, but since they were invented after both, evolution was faulty logic.

I would logically assume, much like a liger is the result of a lion and a tiger doing the deed, a spork is the result of a fork and spoon getting it on. Thus, it would come after. And be unable to procreate (much like a mule), explaining why we see so few even though they are so awesome.


Awesome.
 
2009-02-11 01:09:57 PM
maddogdelta: Nobodyn0se: Ok, so you're saying humans can evolve into spaghetti?

That's just as stupid.

Something like that happened in the movie Soylent Green...


They disproved evolution in a movie?
 
2009-02-11 01:10:08 PM
pd771: His argument was that if evolution was true, then sporks would have been invented in between forks and spoons, but since they were invented after both, evolution was faulty logic.

He had to be joking. Had to be.
 
2009-02-11 01:10:13 PM
tweekster: They seem to do the exact opposite of most of the teachings in fact.

Quite frankly I think they would hate jesus and everything he stood for if he were alive today.


Exactly. I mean, look at the way they treat the new prophets - Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Lennon, Sinead O'Connor, Flea . . .
 
2009-02-11 01:10:48 PM
IXI Jim IXI: rodeofrog: When all truth is revealed, every one of us is going to wish we were nicer to one another.

fark you!


Well done, sinner.
 
2009-02-11 01:11:27 PM
Albertan: Subby (and to some extent, the journalist) have it wrong; The Vatican still endorses Intelligent Design, just not Young Earth Creationism.

Too many people confuse the two;

Intelligent Design can include the process of evolution, but believe that evolution has been externally influenced or set in motion.
Whereas Young Earth Creationism believes that God created the earth in 7 days around 10K years ago.

So the Catholic church still believes God created time, space and matter but that the process was started billions of years ago rather than thousands.

/Before I get flamed by some militant atheist, I'm not an I.D'ist
//Also I'm not Catholic but agnostic


Nope, there is no difference.

Courts have already found ID is Creationism repackaged. So much so that a draft book from them on it was revised: Cintelligent designism.

Evolutionary Biologists rightfully joke they found the missing link between them.
 
2009-02-11 01:11:42 PM
miscreant: attackingpencil: I'd argue that foreknowledge doesn't necessarily imply predestination.

If God is outside of space/time, then I don't see how foreknowledge can't imply predestination. At the "moment" God decides how the universe will work, he would automatically know the results. It'd be like being able to change the variables in a computer program or something and see the results immediately. With each tweak he would know exactly what the change would entail. How would that NOT be predestination?


When you exist outside of time, (which really is an impossible concept to describe since then you would have 2 time flows)



If you exist outside of time, and start a simulation, can you explain the difference between
1. Looking at the results and basing your conclusions on them.
2. Ignoring the simulation until the end of time(simulation) and looking at the results.

To something outside of the flow of time, there is no difference between the two.

Free Will can exist in either scenario.
 
2009-02-11 01:11:43 PM
IXI Jim IXI: TyrantII: It's the fundy born again baptists. They all have the crazy eye.

Being born more than once is bound to strain the psyche.


Tell that to a Cylon.
 
2009-02-11 01:12:18 PM
ne2d: Good news, but just when I start thinking that Catholics are the smart Christians, they pull something like this. (new window)

"Why are we bringing it back?" asked Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who has embraced the move. "Because there is sin money in the world it."
 
2009-02-11 01:12:37 PM
tweekster: NeverDrunk23: I do find it amusing that some people who try to take the Bible as 100% literal truth of God seem to always forget that almost everything Jesus taught was through parables and metaphors.

They seem to do the exact opposite of most of the teachings in fact.

Quite frankly I think they would hate jesus and everything he stood for if he were alive today.


indeed, if the guy they claim was jesus actually saw what the people who believe in the inerrancy of bible do in his name, he would probably not be too happy.
 
2009-02-11 01:12:44 PM
Station: pd771: Has anyone ever seen the guy on infomercials who argues that evolution was proven as false because of sporks?

His argument was that if evolution was true, then sporks would have been invented in between forks and spoons, but since they were invented after both, evolution was faulty logic.

I would logically assume, much like a liger is the result of a lion and a tiger doing the deed, a spork is the result of a fork and spoon getting it on. Thus, it would come after. And be unable to procreate (much like a mule), explaining why we see so few even though they are so awesome.


win
 
2009-02-11 01:13:19 PM
eraser8: pd771: His argument was that if evolution was true, then sporks would have been invented in between forks and spoons, but since they were invented after both, evolution was faulty logic.

He had to be joking. Had to be.


Nope. It runs like 20 times a week on the evangelical station thing. I watch to laugh sometimes.
 
2009-02-11 01:13:21 PM
SkinnyHead: They profile the non-coding region because that area does not control physical traits or characteristics.

No, they profile that area because it's the most variable, and therefore unique to individuals. Can you guess why the area that does control physical traits isn't variable? Do you see what this has to do with evolution?
 
2009-02-11 01:13:44 PM
KJM315: indeed, if the guy they claim was jesus actually saw what the people who believe in the inerrancy of bible do in his name, he would probably not be too happy.

It would be fun to see him bust up a mega church.
 
2009-02-11 01:14:04 PM
repeat from John Paul II?
 
2009-02-11 01:14:09 PM
I came here to say this was old news. I awoke to find it true.
 
2009-02-11 01:14:33 PM
Now if we can just convince them that being gay doesn't cause terrorists to fly airplanes into buildings or some such.
 
2009-02-11 01:16:55 PM
Uncle Pim: Now if we can just convince them that being gay doesn't cause terrorists to fly airplanes into buildings or some such.

I don't think that was the Catholics.
 
2009-02-11 01:17:07 PM
tweekster: KJM315: indeed, if the guy they claim was jesus actually saw what the people who believe in the inerrancy of bible do in his name, he would probably not be too happy.

It would be fun to see him bust up a mega church.


I'm convinced that IF Jesus is real (and that's a mighty big if) most of his "followers" are going to be surprised at how pissed he is the next time he shows up outside of a grilled cheese sandwich.
 
2009-02-11 01:17:09 PM
Uncle Pim: Now if we can just convince them that being gay doesn't cause terrorists to fly airplanes into buildings or some such.

Catholics really are not that hard against homosexuals. Sure they still have misguided views but it really isn't their top priority. Hell they are more worried about getting their fish fry on fridays because that is a rule than protesting against anything homosexual.

I think most just have an ingrained fear largely due to the past (when it was much more of an issue) and their lack of experience with gay people. That is slowly fading away.
 
2009-02-11 01:17:22 PM
SkinnyHead: I did answer that in the previous thread. I asked in the prior thread: Forensic DNA profiling looks at STR's in the non-coding junk DNA. They profile the non-coding region because that area does not control physical traits or characteristics. If non-coding DNA does not affect traits or characteristics, how is Darwin's theory of natural selection helpful to forensic DNA profiling?

That's not quite accurate.

Forensic DNA profiling uses STRs not because they are non-functional (that's irrelevant), but because they tend to be polymorphic in human populations. That is to say, they come in different flavors.

You could just as easily use SNPs or any other type of polymorphic matter, and they could be located in coding or otherwise functional sequences, so long as they were polymorphic in the population.

The reason that markers used tend to be in apparently non-functional sequence (so-called "junk DNA") is because these sequences are not highly conserved, since there is less evolutionary pressure to maintain a particular functional sequence. Therefore, these sequences are more likely to change through genetic drift and become polymorphic.
 
Displayed 50 of 699 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report