Religious crazies get the knives out for Norris' Presidency bid

JonJoeDali

Snakeblood wrote: »

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

Hardly surprising given the stuff you've been coming out with.

JonJoeDali

squeakyduck wrote: »

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!

FYI David Norris is religious.

smokingman

JonJoeDali wrote: »

You're not familiar with string theory are you? The world was shown not to be as ordered like clockwork 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.

Which string theory would that be? Or are you just trotting out a big word to try and impress peeps?

We don't fully understand gravity, that is true, but a five year old would be able to tell you that. What the previous poster was getting at was that the catholic chuch accepts evolution as truth and seeing as you seem to differ in that, you're obviously not catholic - either that or you are and you will burn in hell for all eternity for going against your pope.

Patricide

All people who A) are religious nuts, or athiest were better than you and your an idiot for even thinking about the possibility of a god type, or C) any asshole thats similar. The doors that way....

Snakeblood

Patricide wrote: »

All people who A) are religious nuts, or athiest were better than you and your an idiot for even thinking about the possibility of a god type, or C) any asshole thats similar. The doors that way....

Wow. Badass, dude. Totally badass.

Pace2008

JonJoeDali wrote: »

You're not familiar with string theory are you? The world was shown not to be as ordered like clockwork 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.

Einstein's general theory of relativity serves as our current description of gravitation. Even if there is more to be learned on its mechanism, it is not doubted that gravitation is one of the fundamental interactions of nature. Similarly, there are areas of evolutionary theory yet to be fully understood, but it is not doubted that inherited traits change in a population change over time, ultimately resulting in the appearance of new species.

philologos

squeakyduck wrote: »

Religion is a load of BULL SHIITE.

If you say so :pac:

dlofnep

I'd be tempted to give him a vote just as a reactionary vote to those types of pricks - But I'm not ruining my vote just to suit them. When the time comes, I will vote for whoever deserves it. Sexuality is a non-issue for me with regards to voting.

Snakeblood

dlofnep wrote: »

I'd be tempted to give him a vote just as a reactionary vote to those types of pricks - But I'm not ruining my vote just to suit them. When the time comes, I will vote for whoever deserves it. Sexuality is a non-issue for me with regards to voting.

I'm man enough to admit I'd vote for a president who was a hot lesbian who was kissing another hot lesbian on her campaign poster.

JonJoeDali

smokingman wrote: »

Which string theory would that be? Or are you just trotting out a big word to try and impress peeps?

We don't fully understand gravity, that is true, but a five year old would be able to tell you that. What the previous poster was getting at was that the catholic chuch accepts evolution as truth and seeing as you seem to differ in that, you're obviously not catholic - either that or you are and you will burn in hell for all eternity for going against your pope.

Accepts as Truth eh? I wonder do you have an official document handy that declares that to be the case.

I see the theory of evolution as a very elegant way of explaining the natural world. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species is an awe-inspiring work. I've been to one of his exhibitions in Cambridge where he studied and it's one of the best exhibitions I've ever been to. Gravity too is a very elegant theory for the way the heavens interact with each other and apples fall from the tree. Neither Newton's gravity nor Darwin's evolution are, as you say, "accepted as truth" since there are many flaws in both theories and areas where they break down.

Of course all this raises some philosophical questions - do we view science as an end in itself where the only kind of "truth" is that as determined by the man-made scientific method, or do we view science but as a useful tool for manipulating the natural world for the benefit of mankind and as a window to gaze into the beauty of God's universe? In this scientific age that we live in it's no surprise that there is great emphasis on what we can achieve scientifically, but over-emphasis detracts from other important strands of rationality.

The Church is always interested in the latest developments in science. It's no surprise they can't be as quick in adopting new things as the scientific community, but they are the guardians of Truth for one billion people and they have to assess all new things with great care and seek advice from experts when in doubt. They have had problems in the past as is well known with the Galileo affair and are cautious not to repeat of such injustices.

JonJoeDali

Pace2008 wrote: »

Einstein's general theory of relativity serves as our current description of gravitation. Even if there is more to be learned on its mechanism, it is not doubted that gravitation is one of the fundamental interactions of nature. Similarly, there are areas of evolutionary theory yet to be fully understood, but it is not doubted that inherited traits change in a population change over time, ultimately resulting in the appearance of new species.

I'm aware of those things. I'm making the point that dogmatic evolutionists who decree that homosapiens evolved from bacteria are just as bad as Wesboro Baptist Church members who say the earth is 3,000 years old.

The scientific community and the Church share lots of common interests.

Ash.J.Williams

Is a lifestyle which has particular heath risks (for example AIDS) :pac:

smokingman

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Accepts as Truth eh? I wonder do you have an official document handy that declares that to be the case.

So you don't believe the words from the pope himself then or are you just sticking the aul fingers in the ears and deciding to avoid the point the previous poster made by going on about "I've been to museums y'know".

Pace2008

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Neither Newton's gravity nor Darwin's evolution are, as you say, "accepted as truth" since there are many flaws in both theories and areas where they break down.

Both Newton's and Darwin's theories are outmoded in modern science (well, I think Newton's Law of gravitation works up to a point and has its uses). Gravitation and Evolution are explained by the general theory of relativity and neo-darwinian synthesis, respectively.

Darwin did not even know of genetic inheritance when he penned On the Origin of Species - that was discovered by Gregor Mendel (an Augustinian Monk!)

JonJoeDali

smokingman wrote: »

So you don't believe the words from the pope himself then or are you just sticking the aul fingers in the ears and deciding to avoid the point the previous poster made by going on about "I've been to museums y'know".

What words of the Pope do you speak of? Please quote one of the recent Popes on evolution and state at what level of authority he was speaking at (Papal Bull, Encyclical, etc)

hobochris

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I'm aware of those things. I'm making the point that dogmatic evolutionists who decree that homosapiens evolved from bacteria are just as bad as Wesboro Baptist Church members who say the earth is 3,000 years old.

The scientific community and the Church share lots of common interests.

The one thing that splits them though is the Scientific Community are seeking the facts, where is the Church pursue a regime of blind faith.

They are two separate types of entities(one a religion, one a group seeking to understand) with conflicting views of the world around them.

Its like comparing the theory behind the mechanics of a car with the peoples opinions of best driving practice. One is well defined, the other is a variable from person to person, but they overlap in terms of their domain.

JonJoeDali

hobochris wrote: »

The one thing that splits them though is the Scientific Community are seeking the facts, where is the Church pursue a regime of blind faith.

They are two separate types of entities(one a religion, one a group seeking to understand) with conflicting views of the world around them.

Its like comparing the theory behind the mechanics of a car with the peoples opinions of best driving practice. One is well defined, the other is a variable from person to person, but they overlap in terms of their domain.

Lots of assertions there. No depth to your argument/false perceptions.

philologos

hobochris wrote: »

The one thing that splits them though is the Scientific Community are seeking the facts, where is the Church pursue a regime of blind faith.

Why do people insist on using "the Church"? It's very very confusing and semi-frustrating. Do you mean the Church as in the corporate entity of Christians of varying denominations, or do you mean the Church as in the RCC. Saying "The Church" in the latter context makes it appear as if the RCC is the only church in this country.

hobochris wrote: »

They are two separate types of entities(one a religion, one a group seeking to understand) with conflicting views of the world around them.

I'd argue that both seek to understand. The churches seek to understand the universal nature of reality, and understand our relationship to its universal source, God. Natural science (important to add natural there, as scientia in Latin means knowledge which comes from varying sources) seeks to understand the mechanisms of material things.

The immaterial is outside the remit of science, which is where philosophical metaphysics and religion come in.

smokingman

JonJoeDali wrote: »

What words of the Pope do you speak of? Please quote one of the recent Popes on evolution and state at what level of authority he was speaking at (Papal Bull, Encyclical, etc)

Seeing as you have your fingers in the ears still....

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

Pace2008

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I'm aware of those things. I'm making the point that dogmatic evolutionists who decree that homosapiens evolved from bacteria are just as bad as Wesboro Baptist Church members who say the earth is 3,000 years old.

No. You still seem to be under the impression that this is a fringe view but it is accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists and evolutionists. It may seem counterintuitive, and maybe even a little insulting, that a mindless prokaryote could be the distant relative of a human capable of devising science and religion, yet it would appear this is really the case.

I've had my doubts over evolution in the past myself. For ages, I couldn't get my head around how life ever took off beyond the single-celled stage as it seemed to me a single-celled organism was the ultimate in surviving and passing on its genes. Think it was a poster on this site who convinced me it was feasible in the end...

markphillips

Seriously people, this is not an evolution v. creationist debate! It's not even a Christian v. non-Christian debate, considering Norris is a devout Christian himself.

philologos

^^ Let's reel it back in. Website about Norris, fair or unfair? - I'd be leaning strongly towards the latter.

Sam Vimes

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I'm aware of those things. I'm making the point that dogmatic evolutionists who decree that homosapiens evolved from bacteria are just as bad as Wesboro Baptist Church members who say the earth is 3,000 years old.

The scientific community and the Church share lots of common interests.

LOL. Yeah I hate those guys. And those dogmatic heliocentrists who decree that the earth goes around the sun. Sure they're all as bad as each other :rolleyes:

Patricide

Snakeblood wrote: »

Wow. Badass, dude. Totally badass.

Wow, mature dude. Totally mature.

I wasnt saying to be bad ass, I say it simply because both sides are as bad as each other. And this retardation never stops.

philologos

^^ Nothing like a bit of militant agnosticism to make everything better eh? :pac:

Nodin

Could we make a compromise and argue about whether or not Norris exists, and - if he does - whether he's an interventionist Norris or an absent one....?

Odysseus

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Is a lifestyle which has particular heath risks (for example AIDS) :pac:

Sh!te, a gay person has just as many chances of becoming HIV+ as straight person. Have you heard of safe sex?

demolitionman

Definitely not voting for him purely because of his sexual preference.

Ash.J.Williams

Odysseus wrote: »

Sh!te, a gay person has just as many chances of becoming HIV+ as straight person. Have you heard of safe sex?

i was quoting the website

Odysseus

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i was quoting the website

Actually, just as I clicked the submit button I thought it might be something like that.