Religious crazies get the knives out for Norris' Presidency bid

Craebear

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Right... So man evolved from bacteria, which evolved from... Err...

If that's how educated you are on the subject, you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on it. Go read a book, or even open a leaving cert biology textbook.

scientific1982

JonJoeDali wrote: »

It's still a theory. No conclusive proof. Dogmatic evolutionists are just as dangerous to science as the dogmatic pseudo-scientists who come out with stuff such as "the big bang was the beginning of the universe". Thankfully, the scientific system is good at weeding out such views, but the scientific bodies have no control over ambitious pop scientists who like nothing more than standing on stages or in front of television cameras.

Fair enough. Next time you get a bacterial infection dont go for any of those fancy modern antibiotics, just stick with the auld penicillin and see how you get on.

JonJoeDali

Craebear wrote: »

If that's how educated you are on the subject, you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on it. Go read a book, or even open a leaving cert biology textbook.

Science is very useful in helping us understand the world and utilise nature for the benefit of mankind. It also opens many windows and gives us awe-inspiring views of God's universe.

However science is not an end in itself. It's futile to believe in a man-made "theory of everything". There is too much information in the universe for one human brain, let alone all of humanity's brains wired together to comprehend the universe.

The scientific method is extremely useful. It is part of a set of tools we have for rationalising the universe: metaphysics, philosophy, theology, etc.

JonJoeDali

scientific1982 wrote: »

Fair enough. Next time you get a bacterial infection dont go for any of those fancy modern antibiotics, just stick with the auld penicillin and see how you get on.

I haven't rejected science. I have two degrees in science. I know how powerful the scientific method is.

I know you yearn for an intellectual split between scientists and "non scientists". It doesn't exist. Science complements our understanding of the universe and is of particular importance in the current age we live in.

R28

JonJoeDali wrote: »

It's still a theory. No conclusive proof. Dogmatic evolutionists are just as dangerous to science as the dogmatic pseudo-scientists who come out with stuff such as "the big bang was the beginning of the universe". Thankfully, the scientific system is good at weeding out such views, but the scientific bodies have no control over ambitious pop scientists who like nothing more than standing on stages or in front of television cameras.

Dogmatic evolutionists?It's still a theory?

You don't actually know what a theory means do you? Here's a hint- it doesn't mean a guess. It doesn't even mean an educated guess. In the scientific sense of the term, a theory is a framework of ideas that explains observed facts and makes predictions. Hence, evolution is a theory and a fact, as is relativity.

It's been 150 years since Darwin published his ideas, and not one single piece of evidence which proves evolution wrong has been found. However, 150 years of supporting evidence has been found.

Please read the following before the next time you're going to spout off on evolution 'being just a theory'.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Pace2008

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I'm not a young earth creationist.

No, but you're buying into their propaganda. Since the theory of evolution directly contradicts their literal interpretation and essentially kills the particular God in which they believe , they have endeavoured to spread the notion that there is serious doubt as to the validity of evolutionary theory, when in reality there is essentially none.

You said:

Dogmatic evolutionists are just as dangerous to science as the dogmatic pseudo-scientists who come out with stuff such as "the big bang was the beginning of the universe".

When the truth is that 99% of biologists accept evolution as fact and there is no longer debate as to whether it actually happened and continues to happen. This is simply a lie spread by YECs yet is constantly parrotted by more moderate theists and spiritualists who should know better.

scientific1982

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I haven't rejected science. I have two degrees in science. I know how powerful the scientific method is.

I know you yearn for an intellectual split between scientists and "non scientists". It doesn't exist. Science complements our understanding of the universe and is of particular importance in the current age we live in.

Whats your explanation for MRSA then. Also, how come we havent developed a vaccine for HIV after all these years.

JonJoeDali

Pace2008 wrote: »

When the truth is that 99% of biologists accept evolution as fact and there is no longer debate as to whether it actually happened and continues to happen. This is simply a lie spread by YECs yet is constantly parrotted by more moderate theists and spiritualists who should know better.

Do you believe that homosapiens evolved from organisms such as a bacteria?

What do you think the probability is of that happening? (versus say, all the molecules in a statue of the virgin Mary lining up and her waving her hand to an elderly mental health patient on a dark night?)

zacseph

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Do you believe that homosapiens evolved from organisms such as a bacteria?

What do you think the probability is of that happening? (versus say, all the molecules in a statue of the virgin Mary lining up and her waving her hand to an elderly mental health patient on a dark night?)

Given enough time, I think i'd probably vote for the bacteria...

Chuchoter

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I haven't rejected science. I have two degrees in science. I know how powerful the scientific method is.

I know you yearn for an intellectual split between scientists and "non scientists". It doesn't exist. Science complements our understanding of the universe and is of particular importance in the current age we live in.

Degrees from where? The science department of the Vatican? Because I'm in 5th year and I realize that evolution didn't go single celled organism to me overnight. Millions upon millions of years. Moths in London turned grey to blend in during the industrial revolution, think what evolution could do in millions upon millions of years?

R28

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Do you believe that homosapiens evolved from organisms such as a bacteria?

What do you think the probability is of that happening? (versus say, all the molecules in a statue of the virgin Mary lining up and her waving her hand to an elderly mental health patient on a dark night?)

The evidence suggests that all life on earth evolved from simple unicellular organisms. Over periods of billions of years (that's a very very long time by any standards) and the effects of natural selection, it's quite probable that simple one celled organisms could result in complex multicellular life.

Killer Pigeon

Who the jaysus would want a chutney ferret as a head of state, jaysus.

Riamfada

Freely available information online will give you all the details of the owner of campaignforconscience.org from email to telephone number.

Pace2008

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Do you believe that homosapiens evolved from organisms such as a bacteria?

What do you think the probability is of that happening? (versus say, all the molecules in a statue of the virgin Mary lining up and her waving her hand to an elderly mental health patient on a dark night?)

For a bacteria to evolve into a human over one generation? Improbable to the point of impossibility.

For a series of mutations over the course a few billion years, with the more advantageous ones being retained through natural selction leading to the speciation of humans? I could dig that.

I think you might be confusing evolution in the scientific sense with the kind that occurs in Pokemon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA-UW4MYIhA

Killer Pigeon

To all religious nuts on boards,

Every time this issue is brought up you always loose miserably so go home to Christianity forum and accept defeat and never doubt science, probability or fact again. It would really save us a lot of hassle.

Thanks,

K.P.

Pace2008

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

To all religious nuts on boards,

Every time this issue is brought up you always loose miserably so go home to Christianity forum and accept defeat and never doubt science, probability or fact again. It would really save us a lot of hassle.

Thanks,

K.P.

That's a bit smug mate. You're not going to convince anyone to change their views if you outright insult them.

Max Power1

Pace2008 wrote: »

That's a bit smug mate. You're not going to convince anyone to change their views if you outright insult them.

Fine.

I believe he is correct for no apparent reason and with no logical evidence. That better? I believe religious types seem to respond to opinions presented in said format

Snakeblood

JonJoeDali wrote: »

"fact". Mmm. I suppose you have a link to an official Vatican document there? They're certainly interested in what's going on in the world and value the opinions of certain elements of evolutionary theory. I don't think your view on what they have or have not accepted as "fact" is particularly reliable tbqh.

The Catholic Church are very interested in evolution as a scientific theory. The Church take a very keen interest in the goings-on of the scientific world (they even fund a lot of research themselves) and it's no surprise that they are interested in the work of respected evolutionary scientists.

When the pope came to the subject of the scientific merits of evolution, it soon became clear how much things had changed in the nearly since the Vatican last addressed the issue. John Paul said:

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.” (ROA, 82)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_Benedict_XVI_and_today

philologos

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

To all religious nuts on boards,

Every time this issue is brought up you always loose miserably so go home to Christianity forum and accept defeat and never doubt science, probability or fact again. It would really save us a lot of hassle.

Thanks,

K.P.

What issue? (If you mean arguing against evolution, I'd agree)
Indeed, what do you classify as a "religious nut"?

prinz

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

To all religious nuts on boards,
Every time this issue is brought up you always loose miserably so go home to Christianity forum....

What do they loosen? A better question to ask was why science v religion was brought up at all on this thread.

Edit: I see now, JonJoeDali posted something in response to the Chuck Norris joke and a handful of other posters felt obliged to enter into a discussion on evolution, instead of just ignoring it and moving on.

JonJoeDali

Pace2008 wrote: »

That's a bit smug mate. You're not going to convince anyone to change their views if you outright insult them.

He thinks there's some big rupture between the rationality of science and the rationality of philosophy and theology. Best leave him be.

JonJoeDali

Snakeblood wrote: »

When the pope came to the subject of the scientific merits of evolution, it soon became clear how much things had changed in the nearly since the Vatican last addressed the issue. John Paul said:

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.” (ROA, 82)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_Benedict_XVI_and_today

Srsly mate, I don't know why you're making an issue out of Catholics and the approximate age of the earth. The issue only exists inside your head.

RE the bit in bold. Mmm. "Genetically related" perhaps. Which is not surprising given the precise conditions required for life to exist. That's very different to what some dogmatic evolutionists believe: that homosapiens evolved from a bacteria-like organism.

zeds alive

Not bothered about his sexuality , but he is a very annoying personality.

Snakeblood

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Srsly mate, I don't know why you're making an issue out of Catholics and the approximate age of the earth. The issue only exists inside your head.

RE the bit in bold. Mmm. "Genetically related" perhaps. Which is not surprising given the precise conditions required for life to exist. That's very different to what some dogmatic evolutionists believe: that homosapiens evolved from a bacteria-like organism.

I didn't make an issue out of the age of the earth, I've no idea where you got that from. I'm taking issue with you saying that the church looks upon evolution as some sort of wishy washy theory, when in fact it looks upon it as virtually fact.

Logical Fallacy

Snakeblood wrote: »

I didn't make an issue out of the age of the earth, I've no idea where you got that from. I'm taking issue with you saying that the church looks upon evolution as some sort of wishy washy theory, when in fact it looks upon it as virtually fact.

"Virtually fact"?

oxymoron?

Snakeblood

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

"Virtually fact"?

oxymoron?

Er. No?

JonJoeDali

Snakeblood wrote: »

I didn't make an issue out of the age of the earth, I've no idea where you got that from. I'm taking issue with you saying that the church looks upon evolution as some sort of wishy washy theory, when in fact it looks upon it as virtually fact.

No it doesn't. The Church is most interested in all high ranking and respected scientific research. They even fund a lot of it (the Galileo observatory in Castel Gandolfo for example).

Snakeblood

JonJoeDali wrote: »

No it doesn't. The Church is most interested in all high ranking scientific research. They even fund a lot of it (the Galileo observatory for example).

I suppose then I'm a bit confused about the difference between your position and the churches.

JonJoeDali

Craebear wrote: »

It's a scientific fact. Just like the "theory" of gravity is, pull your head out of the sand.

You're not familiar with string theory are you? The universe was shown not to be ordered like clockwork where celestial bodies orbit one another like a fine watchmaker in Geneva. This realisation eventually set in when it was shown that light could bend. Newton's theory of gravity is great for macro problems and is an extremely elegant theory, but when you apply it at the microscopic level or at the cosmic level, it breaks down. We still don't understand gravity and it's relation to other forces such as the strong force and weak force.

squeakyduck

Religion is a load of BULL SHIITE. I hope David Norris gets elected in. He'd be alot more fun, from the way he portrays himself, and would be more involved in whats going on right now!

Plus he'd put more concentration on the arts and Dublin festivals.. ie Bloomsday!