The earth is only 6000 years old.

[edwest2]

No, just that science teacher should be fired for disseminating an obvious untruth (young earth) for the purpose of promoting Christianity. Why do you suggest that we should promote scientific ignorance?

Where have you been a “teacher”? What have you taught? I am a high school English teacher. You?

Your confrontational tone puzzles me. Unless I have mind control powers I am unaware of, I will never see or influence your students, ever. So drop the defensive posturing please.

I am aware of the great victory over Stealth Creationism fought in a courtroom in Dover. The courts are the way to get things done nowadays.

In the worldview you’re promoting, scientific ignorance means I can’t drive, I can’t operate this computer and I certainly am devoid of any curiosity whatsoever which is why I have a library of books on science and technology and keep up with the latest developments. I’ve seen the emotional rants on non-theist forums with people writing about how depressed they are because some in this country do not believe in scientism as they do.

I know the formula: science = reason = rationality = reality. Religion and superstition must be replaced by a dictatorship of men. Men who have been known to bend the data to make some money.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGBEN.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

So much to sort through…

How about listing just five evidences for a young earth. We’ll take a look at each of them. After that, list five more, and we’ll take a look at them, etc.

Mr Skeptic, you are falling into YEC lingo. “Evidences” used in the plural is code language for “Young Earth Creationism.”

That being said, I am suspicious that Hugh Miller answered your call for evidence of a young earth with a refusal to provide that evidence. I wonder why that is.

 

[StAnastasia]

He did not know when he wrote this that there was even solid evidence against billions of years claimed for evolution to have occurred. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure out what’s wrong with such an hypothesis.

Hugh Miller, what is this evidence? Can you summarize it for us?

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

Mr Skeptic, you are falling into YEC lingo. “Evidences” used in the plural is code language for “Young Earth Creationism.”

That being said, I am suspicious that Hugh Miller answered your call for evidence of a young earth with a refusal to provide that evidence. I wonder why that is.

Ooops! I meant to put quotation marks around “evidences”.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, if I were an agnostic or a marginal atheist who regarded religion as a harmless delusion, it is people like you and Hugh Miller and Prieldedi and Cassini who would harden my attitude. I might conclude that if you represented religion, we could no longer tolerate it – we would simply have to stamp it out.

Fortunately that is not the case. There are Catholic thinkers like Archibishop Zycinski, Bishop John Cummins, Father Frank Budenholzer, biologist Ken Miller, and many others who are both faithful Catholics and people solidly educated in science. Thank God for people like this!

StAnastasia

When Professor Richard Dawkins appears on TV, what does the average person think? He is an educated person with a title and books, surely he knows something. Then he tells them the following: “We no longer believe in the Greek or Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” There you have it. A conclusion from an expert using the same ‘mountains of evidence.’ Surely, he must know what he’s talking about, right? And you indicate your own stance and comfort with the idea of religion being only a harmless delusion.

Once again, unless I have hidden mind control powers, you have nothing to fear from me. Previous statements of yours in support of unpopular ideas have seemed to demonstrate your openness to other ways of looking at things, but if only one person challenges your views, then he is a threat to the entire structure. You appear to be playing politics here, nothing more.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

And you indicate your own stance and comfort with the idea of religion being only a harmless delusion.

Ed, either critical reading is not your strength, or you are breathtakingly dishonest.

I said nothing about being comfortable with the idea of religion as a harmless delusion. I said that “if” [please note that introduces a conditional] “if I regarded religion as a harmless delusion…I might conclude that if you represented religion, we could no longer tolerate it – we would simply have to stamp it out.”

Try to be at least basically honest with the people with whom you dialogue.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, either critical reading is not your strength, or you are breathtakingly dishonest.

I said nothing about being comfortable with the idea of religion as a harmless delusion. I said that “if” [please note that introduces a conditional] “if I regarded religion as a harmless delusion…I might conclude that if you represented religion, we could no longer tolerate it – we would simply have to stamp it out.”

Try to be at least basically honest with the people with whom you dialogue.

Please point out any errors in the following statements:

Religion is reserved to a private experience limited to the home and the Church building.

Religion should not influence national policy, only science can do that.

Religious beliefs are not allowed in the voting booth, only ideas considered appropriate according to science.

Religious beliefs should be excluded from the public square, including internet forums like this one. Science is more important.

Science must influence and control religious beliefs, even though no peer reviewed papers relating to God or the supernatural exist.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Please point out any errors in the following statements:
Religion is reserved to a private experience limited to the home and the Church building.
Religion should not influence national policy, only science can do that.
Religious beliefs are not allowed in the voting booth, only ideas considered appropriate according to science.
Religious beliefs should be excluded from the public square, including internet forums like this one. Science is more important.
Science must influence and control religious beliefs, even though no peer reviewed papers relating to God or the supernatural exist.
God bless,
Ed

They are your statements, not mine, so I’ll let you find the errors. I do not agree with #s 1, 3, 4, or 5. I also disagree with #2, although which religions should be allowed to influence national policy is a good question. The US is a pluralistic society, so if one religion is allowed to influence national policy, all religions should be so allowed.

 

[Moro_Rock]

That’s true.

There is nothing in science that is “known with absolute certainty”. That type of mindset is typically reserved for the religious.

That’s why scientists have to leave a large [billions of years ] margin for error

 

[buffalo]

Ed, either critical reading is not your strength, or you are breathtakingly dishonest.

I said nothing about being comfortable with the idea of religion as a harmless delusion. I said that “if” [please note that introduces a conditional] “if I regarded religion as a harmless delusion…I might conclude that if you represented religion, we could no longer tolerate it – we would simply have to stamp it out.”

Try to be at least basically honest with the people with whom you dialogue.

The latest standard reply from StA. - “you are being dishonest.” Right from the atheist play book. geeshhhhh

Please provide a coherent argument in your posts without resorting to personal attacks. Can you do this - say maybe for 100 posts to start with?

 

[StAnastasia]

Please provide a coherent argument in your posts without resorting to personal attacks. Can you do this - say maybe for 100 posts to start with?

Excuse me, buffalo, but can’t you recognize dishonesty when it hits you between the eyes? Ed attributed a claim to me that is patently false. That is dishonest. Dishonesty is a Christian concern.

StAnastasia

 

[ricmat]

There are Catholic thinkers like Archibishop Zycinski, Bishop John Cummins, Father Frank Budenholzer, biologist Ken Miller, and many others who are both faithful Catholics and people solidly educated in science. Thank God for people like this!

Your many quotes like this across many threads all point to the same agenda. According to you, if only people were educated in science, they would agree with you. And since you believe the current scientific explanation, you are correct and those who disagree with you are wrong (even though you admit that the scientific explanation evolves over time LOL). And you continually trump religious “myth” with “scientific truth”.

Unfortunately for you:

1. There are many faithful Catholic people educated in science who disagree with those particular scientists and clerics that you put your faith in (those above that you thank God for).
2. You don’t need to pass a science test to get into heaven. And getting into heaven is what is important to most of us here. One would think that it would be important to everyone who teaches Catholicism. Being right or wrong on science just plain doesn’t matter.

Perhaps in your role you should try to impress people more with the mythical Christian God, rather than pushing science (which as we all know evolves over time).

You say above “Thank God for people like this.” Rather than thanking God for that limited subset of humanity who happen to agree with my scientific views, I would rather say “Thank you God for everybody.” And then follow up with “Lord, open my lips to proclaim your praise.” But then I think God is real, Jesus really rose from the dead, Adam and Eve were real.

.

 

[buffalo]

Excuse me, buffalo, but can’t you recognize dishonesty when it hits you between the eyes? Ed attributed a claim to me that is patently false. That is dishonest. Dishonesty is a Christian concern.

StAnastasia

You accused me of dishonesty several posts ago.

 

[StAnastasia]

You accused me of dishonesty several posts ago.

Indeed – so I did.

 

[StAnastasia]

Perhaps in your role you should try to impress people more with the mythical Christian God, rather than pushing science (which as we all know evolves over time).

I don’t believe the christian God is – as you say it – “mythical.”

 

[buffalo]

Indeed – so I did.

Is this an apology?

 

[ricmat]

I don’t believe the christian God is – as you say it – “mythical.”

That’s a relief. You’ve used the word so often with regard to other religious figures, I had doubts about what you believed. For example, the resurrection of Christ.

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, you persist in misunderstanding me: I am not out to snatch away your Adamic dogma – keep it!

I simply said that there is no more scientific evidence to support the claim that all humans descended from one single human breeding pair than there is to support the claim of a global Noachian flood, or the claim that the world was created in six days 6000 years ago. The fact that there is no scientific evidence to support these claims as literally true does not in any way mean that you may not hold them as dogma.

Although you falsely keep reiterating your accusation, I have never discouraged you from holding these things as dogma.

StAnastasia

Why do you keep confusing a flood with Catholic Dogma?
Why do you keep overstating the purpose of science?
And what is an Adamic dogma?

Are you are one of the many who have been short changed regarding Catholic education? I have read other posters who do admit to that so it is nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, the threads which deal with catching up with Catholic education are very interesting. I am constantly learning something.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge never ends.

 

[StAnastasia]

Is this an apology?

Just a confirmation.

 

[StAnastasia]

That’s a relief. You’ve used the word so often with regard to other religious figures, I had doubts about what you believed. For example, the resurrection of Christ.

No, that’s a lie. I’ve never referred to the Resurrection as mythical.