M
Matariel
Guest
I’m sure whatever education I’ve had, you’ve outdone me.
- Status
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I’m sorry but when you make absurd comments like “Except for mutation; however, mutation is generally destructive or neutral in nature. Micro-evolution is proven, but macro-evolution remains a highly-favoured theory only. even if I believed in macro-evolution, I would have to say there’s no way I believe the proposterous theory that man came from apes.” can you blame me for questioning your knowledge of biology?I’m sure whatever education I’ve had, you’ve outdone me.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
You do realise this research does NOT bring evolution in to question? In fact it only strengthens our understanding of it.
M
M0nkey
Guest
Many things that are “accepted” are not necessarily true (e.g. Flat Earth theory).
A
avflf
Guest
Not stupid, blind, self conceited perhaps, wanting to be with the in-crowd, swimming with the current, not kicking against the pricks.
M
M0nkey
Guest
One last comment on Flat Earth; many people are misguided to think this was an invention of a power hungry church to oppress science into ignorance. The reality is this was the theory widely accepted by scientists who followed Peripatetic teaching from Plato and Aristotle. The idea that the earth was round and circled around the sun was at first a theological endeavor fully supported by the Church.
O
Orogeny
Guest
O
Orogeny
Guest
That would make them stupid. So you think scientists, especially those of faith, are stupid?Not stupid, blind, self conceited perhaps, wanting to be with the in-crowd, swimming with the current, not kicking against the pricks.
Peace
Tim
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Kind of ironic that you claim religion does not stand in the way of science in a thread (CONT) that claims the earth is 6000 years old and denies evolution.
Oh and as for the church always accepting a round earth that circles the sun. Thats amazing since Eratosthenes of Cyrene proved the earth was round about 250 BC and Nicolaus Copernicus displaced the earth from the center of the universe, yet Galileo Galilei was still condemned by the church.
M
M0nkey
Guest
I’m sorry; I meant to put geocentrism, I get the two mixed up.
It was for those who claimed it so, similar to your precious theory. Note: I was relating it to geocentric theories.
Not condemned but placed under house arrest; the Church had no problem with the theory itself. Need I mention the fact that Copernicus was a believer?
R
reggieM
Guest
Tim-- thank you. I appreciate your understanding.
I agree also that we would get along – and I hope we do get a chance to meet some day.
Reggie
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Historical revisionism if ever i have seen it.
This contradicted Church teachings, and some of the clergy accused Galileo of heresy. One friar went to the Inquisition, the Church court that investigated charges of heresy, and formally accused Galileo. (In 1600, a man named Giordano Bruno was convicted of being a heretic for believing that the earth moved around the Sun, and that there were many planets throughout the universe where life existed. Bruno was burnt to death.)
He ordered the book banned, and also ordered Galileo to appear before the Inquisition in Rome for the crime of teaching the Copernican theory after being ordered not to do so.
Galileo was 68 years old and sick. Threatened with torture, he publicly confessed that he had been wrong to have said that the Earth moves around the Sun.
(info from NASA and the History Channel)
4thefirsttime.blogspot.com/2007/09/1992-catholic-church-apologizes-to.html
A
avflf
Guest
Not at all. In fact they are the clever ones. By going with the flow they spare themselves a lot of criticism, humiliation, ridicule and they feel pride for being a step closer to the upper crust elite that’s transforming human society into a faceless group of production units.
M
M0nkey
Guest
Rubbish. The best you can do is quote the History Channel? Pathetic! Galileo was a faithful Catholic and he remained so until death. His house arrest was granted the best treatment he could get at the time.
B
buffalo
Guest
What I have found is that atheists do not study history or philosophy. It’s no wonder they come to the conclusions they do.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Yeah whacky ideas like a 4.5 billion year old earth and evolution!!!
. Evidence, its a pain in the arse eh??
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
How about the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy?
I have been judged vehemently suspect of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun in the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the earth is not at the center of same, and that it does move. Wishing however, to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error, heresy, and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. (Quoted in Shea and Artigas 194)
plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/
LMAO way not to stand in the way of science!
I have been judged vehemently suspect of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun in the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the earth is not at the center of same, and that it does move. Wishing however, to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error, heresy, and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. (Quoted in Shea and Artigas 194)
plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/
LMAO way not to stand in the way of science!
B
buffalo
Guest
Sure like the evidence of the Resurrection.Yeah whacky ideas like a 4.5 billion year old earth and evolution!!!
Inconvenient for atheists indeed.Of course if you do not study history and know how historians do their thing you just might fall for the atheist line.\
So is your whole basis for atheism the 4.5 billion earth and evolution?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Err no. Its based the the scientific method and peer review. Which is the single most reliable method we have for discerning what is really true. It has also improved our life’s beyond the wildest dreams of religion.Sure like the evidence of the Resurrection.
Of course if you do not study history and know how historians do their thing you just might fall for the atheist line.\
So is your whole basis for atheism the 4.5 billion earth and evolution?
It is clear you have little understanding of this method, for if you did you would never think that the resurrection had anything to do with the age of the earth or evolution. They are totally unrelated queries, with totally unrelated evidence. It is however telling the the unrelated evidence supports both conclusions.
The scientifically uneducated amaze me. You have no idea how these theories are constructed yet you dismiss them without a second thought based on nothing but myth and hearsay. Myth and hearsay are not evidence. Hearsay evidence doesn’t even stand up in a modern day court of law.
Here do yourself a favour…
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k
- Status