so the pope doesn't understand evolution

oldrnwisr

FISMA wrote: »

JammyDodger,
Seeing how you brought it up...

When it comes to Atomic Theory, relativity, and Quantum, there are experiments that I can perform, the outcomes of which may be recorded, studied, and replicated. Important points to scientists.

I can perform a test for atoms, like Rutherford's Gold Foil, watch light bend around the sun during eclipses and explain mu mesons with relativity. There's plenty of experiments that are showing quantum effects at larger and larger scales.

The same is not true for Evolution [this is me speaking tongue in cheek, so please do not take it literally] in the respect that we come from Monkeys.

What is your test for [again, this is me speaking tongue in cheek, so please do not take it literally] us coming from Monkeys? Lock a bunch of monkeys in the closet and come back a million years from now and see what happens?

Also, there are numerous observations to be made in atomic theory, relativity, and QM. This is not true of evolution, that we [once again, this is me speaking tongue in cheek, so please do not take it literally] come from monkeys has never been observed and probably never will be.

So when they state that [last time, I promise, this is me speaking tongue in cheek, so please do not take it literally] we come from Monkeys, they have no observational data nor experimental data to lead to the conclusion that we come from monkeys. That's not science to me.

And that's the difference between evolution and atomic theory, relativity, and QM.

I believe in theories for which there is experimental or observational data.

As a Physicist, I could care less about: inflation cosmology, superstrings, and M theory until they have some experimental data.

Same goes for evolution. Why should it be treated differently?

Slan and I leave the last word(s) to ye!

:pac:
:pac::pac:
:pac::pac::pac:

Disclaimer: Not all physicists have such a poor understanding of evolution.

First off, here is the simplest and best example of the evidence for our shared ancestry with other primates.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm


Secondly, as a physicist, I can understand you not grasping the finer points of the theory but not mangling the basic concepts in such an awful way.

Jumping in at the deep end may not be an ideal solution so instead I would recommend that you read something where evolution is presented in an understandable way. I started out by reading The Red Queen by Matt Ridley, followed by everything else by Ridley and Dawkins and Jared Diamond. Eventually I got around to buying some textbooks on evolution and at the moment I'm reading Adaptation and Natural Selection by George Williams. I would aslo recommend Phylointelligence as a good resource and introduction.

CerebralCortex

FISMA wrote: »

JammyDodger,
Seeing how you brought it up...

When it comes to Atomic Theory, relativity, and Quantum, there are experiments that I can perform, the outcomes of which may be recorded, studied, and replicated. Important points to scientists.

I can perform a test for atoms, like Rutherford's Gold Foil, watch light bend around the sun during eclipses and explain mu mesons with relativity. There's plenty of experiments that are showing quantum effects at larger and larger scales.

The same is not true for Evolution [this is me speaking tongue in cheek, so please do not take it literally] in the respect that we come from Monkeys.

What is your test for [again, this is me speaking tongue in cheek, so please do not take it literally] us coming from Monkeys? Lock a bunch of monkeys in the closet and come back a million years from now and see what happens?

Also, there are numerous observations to be made in atomic theory, relativity, and QM. This is not true of evolution, that we [once again, this is me speaking tongue in cheek, so please do not take it literally] come from monkeys has never been observed and probably never will be.

So when they state that [last time, I promise, this is me speaking tongue in cheek, so please do not take it literally] we come from Monkeys, they have no observational data nor experimental data to lead to the conclusion that we come from monkeys. That's not science to me.

And that's the difference between evolution and atomic theory, relativity, and QM.

I believe in theories for which there is experimental or observational data.

As a Physicist, I could care less about: inflation cosmology, superstrings, and M theory until they have some experimental data.

Same goes for evolution. Why should it be treated differently?

Slan and I leave the last word(s) to ye!

:pac:
:pac::pac:
:pac::pac::pac:

I have to ask, how can you call yourself a scientist?

Zombrex

I think FISMA is parodying a Creationist (notice the "tongue in cheek" comments)

MagicMarker

Wicknight wrote: »

I think FISMA is parodying a Creationist (notice the "tongue in cheek" comments)

That confused me initially, unfortunately I think you're wrong. The tongue in cheek comment is only referring to us coming from monkeys, which you, I and he/she knows is incorrect.

Just checked over FISMA's posting history in this forum, ugh....

CerebralCortex

MagicMarker wrote: »

That confused me initially, unfortunately I think you're wrong. The tongue in cheek comment is only referring to us coming from monkeys, which you, I and he/she knows is incorrect.

Just checked over FISMA's posting history in this forum, ugh....

Yep. I concur.

Zombrex

MagicMarker wrote: »

That confused me initially, unfortunately I think you're wrong. The tongue in cheek comment is only referring to us coming from monkeys, which you, I and he/she knows is incorrect.

Just checked over FISMA's posting history in this forum, ugh....

I guess I hoped someone couldn't be that ignorant. I guess that makes me the fool :pac:

People saying they "could care less" about something always leads to trouble :pac:

optogirl

bluewolf wrote: »

People saying they "could care less" about something always leads to trouble :pac:

It's also a statement that means that you do care to a degree as there is possibility for you to care less. If you really don't care, you couldn't care less. A real irrritant of mine.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

It's also a statement that means that you do care to a degree as there is possibility for you to care less. If you really don't care, you couldn't care less. A real irrritant of mine.

That's what I meant If they don't even make enough sense to know what they're saying, then...

robindch

optogirl wrote:

A real irrritant of mine.

Zillah

bluewolf wrote: »

People saying they "could care less" about something always leads to trouble :pac:

I always liked the idea of using "I could care less" in the exact way it implies.

Her: My granddad died
Me: Yes, that is a little sad. I could care less.

Yahew

Dawkins is a mere anti-Papist at this stage. The man has spent his whole life being un-molested by any Catholic on evolutionary theory - the Pope accepts it in general, and doesn't oppose the teaching, and al Catholic countries teach it. The pope is going to put God in there somehow. Were he anything other than an anti-Catholic bigot Dawkin's would spend all of this time on protestant fundamentalism and not Catholicism.

And maybe something else for British secularists.

I am watching the British State celebrate a parasitical future head of State being married in a State owned Church by the head of the Established Church of England - who has a permanent place in the legislature - and which the future King wlll some day be secular head of.

And English secularists dwell on the Pope? FFS

Zombrex

Yahew wrote: »

I am watching the British State celebrate a parasitical future head of State being married in a State owned Church by the head of the Established Church of England - who has a permanent place in the legislature - and which the future King wlll some day be secular head of.

And English secularists dwell on the Pope? FFS

Yes because Richard Dawkins organized that wedding, he is such a hypocrite.

Don't be so silly :rolleyes:

Yahew

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes because Richard Dawkins organized that wedding, he is such a hypocrite.

Don't be so silly :rolleyes:

he spends an in-ordinate amount of time on the Pope for an Englishman.

If he is an English secularist I would expect to see an angry diatribe about the Established Church ( whose leader probably believes pretty much what the Pope believes - that evolution is caused by God). Is there even a Catholic country with an Established Church? Where is his attack on the ArchBishop of Canterbury, or the Established Church?

Behind the pseudo secularist nonsense Dawkins is the same kind of bigot as the guy who sent the bomb to Neil Lennon.

MagicMarker

Yahew wrote: »

he spends an in-ordinate amount of time on the Pope for an Englishman.

If he is an English secularist I would expect to see an angry diatribe about the Established Church ( whose leader probably believes pretty much what the Pope believes - that evolution is caused by God). Is there even a Catholic country with an Established Church? Where is his attack on the ArchBishop of Canterbury, or the Established Church?

Behind the pseudo secularist nonsense Dawkins is the same kind of bigot as the guy who sent the bomb to Neil Lennon.

Hmmm...

COE - 25 million members
Catholic Church - 1+ billion members

You're right, his priorities are really skewed. :rolleyes:

Yahew

MagicMarker wrote: »

Hmmm...

COE - 25 million members
Catholic Church - 1+ billion members

You're right, his priorities are really skewed. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:, Dawkins lives in the UK which has an established Church. The head of that Church is also the head of Church of a few hundred million people as a Church or State ( You also have to add all Anglicans and people living in commonwealth states into the COE figures). And the Pope has little influence in modern Catholic countries.

English secularists who dont have as their agenda, their only agenda until it is achieved , to dis-establish the Church of England are sectarians. As it stands Dawkin's has spent his entire career as an evolutionist being attacked by protestant fundamentalists of Anglo Saxon descent in the US, and never by French, Irish, or Brazilian Catholics. He lives in a country with a history of mass Catholic persecution with anti-Catholic laws extant to this day, and an established Church and his secularism is Pope bashing?

magicbastarder

Yahew wrote: »

Behind the pseudo secularist nonsense Dawkins is the same kind of bigot as the guy who sent the bomb to Neil Lennon.

dawkins is an attempted murderer now?
is this some sort of game whose rules i don't understand?

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

Evolution is still just a theory. Atheists ought to remember that it is not some kind of super-dogma.

God almighty. When will people learn or understand what a scientific theory is?

Gravity is also a 'only a theory' Donatello. :rolleyes:

robindch

Yahew wrote: »

he spends an in-ordinate amount of time on the Pope for an Englishman.

I would so love to see Dawkins hop Ratzinger.

Yahew

magicbastarder wrote: »

dawkins is an attempted murderer now?
is this some sort of game whose rules i don't understand?

He has the same kind of anti-Catholic bigotry as that guy.

A lesson in logic: if I accuse two people of having the same kind of underlying bigotry I dont accuse them of having done the same guilty acts. the dame you dont understand is logic.

Dawkins on the Established Church. Do we have anything, or is it all Pope bashing?

Yahew

robindch wrote: »

I would so love to see Dawkins hop Ratzinger.

I would love to see Dawkins hop Rowan Williams. It might prove him a secularist rather than a Papist basher.

As for calling the Pope Ratzinger rather than his name as Pope; common with the English but only for this Pope, is that not a confluence of two forms of English bigotry. He's a German Pope

robindch

Yahew wrote: »

As for calling the Pope Ratzinger rather than his name as Pope

Last time I checked, Ratzinger's name was still "Ratzinger" -- has he changed it and not announced it to the forum?

Zombrex

Yahew wrote: »

If he is an English secularist I would expect to see an angry diatribe about the Established Church

Groan

We had exactly the same nonsense with Sam Harris only a few days ago, someone (who seems to have a history of subscribing to anti-Jewish conspiracies) proposed that Harris was Jewish and because of this he never criticizes Judaism. The "support" for this was that he criticized Islam, as if one can criticize on but not the other. In reality Harris has criticized Judaism, the poster was simply ignorant of these comments by Harris or purposely ignored them.

Same with you. Because Dawkins criticizes the Pope and you can't find him criticizing the Church of England you rather stupidly conclude that he is not really a secularist and in support of the Church of England.

In reality he has criticized the CoE many many times. But that reality is some what beside the point, since even if there was no evidence he hadn't it is still faulty reasoning to assume someone is a supporter of the thing he criticizes less.

You can use such faulty logic to support any nonsense position one likes. For example, when was the last time you criticized Ta Mok? I would imagine not a lot.

Can we conclude from that that you are actually a supporter of East-Asian Communist genocide? I mean, where is your criticism of Ta Mok?

Or would such a conclusion just be really really stupid? :rolleyes:

Yahew

robindch wrote: »

Last time I checked, Ratzinger's name was still "Ratzinger" -- has he changed it and not announced it to the forum?

He change to Benedict.

optogirl

Yahew wrote: »

He change to Benedict.

Well not everybody recognises that as a valid position or deserving of respect or acknowledgement

Monty Burnz

Yahew wrote: »

He's a German Pope

On the subject of popes' nationalities, has any theist ever done any research into why the Holy Spirit (or whoever is charge of that stuff) liked to speak almost exclusively through Italians for most of the history of the church?

magicbastarder

Yahew wrote: »

the dame you dont understand is logic.

there are a lot of dames i don't understand.

anyway, you said 'the same kind of bigot'. that's not as specific as your qualification.

Yahew

optogirl wrote: »

Well not everybody recognises that as a valid position or deserving of respect or acknowledgement

but most people do for John Paul - a name which doesnt get English backs up.

This is first Pope whose name has not been acknowledged by even his adversaries, and no Pope in history is ever called by his former name either even by this detractors. Search for John Paul on this forum.

So why Ratzinger. Answer: English nationalism - the Pope is both a Papist and a German.

Monty Burnz

Yahew wrote: »

So why Ratzinger. Answer: English nationalism - the Pope is both a Papist and a German.

Will we see the Holy Spirit revert to its default 'Italian' setting so for the next lad?

Yahew

Wicknight wrote: »

In reality he has criticized the CoE many many times. But that reality is some what beside the point, since even if there was no evidence he hadn't it is still faulty reasoning to assume someone is a supporter of the thing he criticizes less.

links?

You can use such faulty logic to support any nonsense position one likes. For example, when was the last time you criticized Ta Mok? I would imagine not a lot.

Can we conclude from that that you are actually a supporter of East-Asian Communist genocide? I mean, where is your criticism of Ta Mok?

Or would such a conclusion just be really really stupid? :rolleyes:

that argument does not hold any water.

Let me explain as simply as possible. I am not accusing someone who has never criticised anything as being a supporter of what he has randomly not critised. Dawkins is a secularist, he is living in a non-secular country. That should be the first thing he worries about. Irish secularists dont spend much time attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I am accusing an English secularist of being a bigot for concentrating on the Pope when he lives in a country which has an established Church, a tiny Catholic population ( largely of immigrant descent) and I am basing this on the history of the country he lives in, and it's history of bigotry.

It would be as if a German secularist lived in a country with an Established Church whose leader did not believe in evolution ( or believed it was started by God); and whose head of State was both the non-elected head of this State and the Established religion ( Lutheranism). Germany, in this thought experiment, has it's history of discrimination against Jews, but would also have existing laws which prohibited Jews from being head of State. This German secularist and evolutionist would have spent his entire career being attacked for his evolutionary views by extreme Lutheran fundamentalists.

Lets say this German secularist ignored all this and kept ranting about the Head Rabbi and his views on evolution, views which were milder than most Lutheran beliefs; and that most Jews were culturally Jewish, and ignored the Chief Rabbi anyway.

Would this man be a bigot?

optogirl

Yahew wrote: »

but most people do for John Paul - a name which doesnt get English backs up.

This is first Pope whose name has not been acknowledged by even his adversaries, and no Pope in history is ever called by his former name either even by this detractors. Search for John Paul on this forum.

So why Ratzinger. Answer: English nationalism - the Pope is both a Papist and a German.

or maybe it's because he looks like an evil bond villain and the name Ratzinger suits him down to the ground! And it's more fun to say than Benedict

Monty Burnz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

On the subject of popes' nationalities, has any theist ever done any research into why the Holy Spirit (or whoever is charge of that stuff) liked to speak almost exclusively through Italians for most of the history of the church?

Actually, the ole' Holy Spirit is even more specific than that - I count something like 89 popes from Rome itself. Maybe the Spirit just likes the dialect?

Yahew

Monty Burnz wrote: »

On the subject of popes' nationalities, has any theist ever done any research into why the Holy Spirit (or whoever is charge of that stuff) liked to speak almost exclusively through Italians for most of the history of the church?

I am not a theist. So I cant answer. But, why not ask Dawkins and repeat what he thinks, though?

Monty Burnz

Yahew wrote: »

I am not a theist. So I cant answer. But, why not ask Dawkins and repeat what he thinks, though?

I suspect he'd say it's a crock of bullsh!t, so probably not worth the effort. I was hoping someone who believes this stuff would have a stab at it.

magicbastarder

Yahew wrote: »

So why Ratzinger. Answer: English nationalism - the Pope is both a Papist and a German.

people knew of him before he became pope. did people refer to pope wotyljahaveyesrself for a few years after he got promoted? it's so long ago we may have forgotten it happened.

his name - unless i'm much mistaken - is still ratzinger. pope benedict is a title, i thought?

ghostchant

In fairness to Pope Benedict, as poster-boys go I personally have a greater dislike for Dawkins, and I'm certainly not a theist! Actually he's why I much prefer the term agnostic to atheist, because when a lot of people (including me) think of an atheist he's exactly who they picture.

Dades

Yahew wrote: »

He has the same kind of anti-Catholic bigotry as that guy.

It's hardly bigotry if you express distaste for all religions?

Also, I expect the stuff he says that gets reported is chosen by the media for the most part.

CerebralCortex

ghostchant wrote: »

In fairness to Pope Benedict, as poster-boys go I personally have a greater dislike for Dawkins, and I'm certainly not a theist! Actually he's why I much prefer the term agnostic to atheist, because when a lot of people (including me) think of an atheist he's exactly who they picture.

Wow you're so reasonable and rational.

ghostchant

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Wow you're so reasonable and rational.

As a human being I'm subject to the odd emotion here and there, and my OCD nature is rather irrational, I'll give you that. Very astute of you to notice. If you weren't a 'cerebral cortex' and inherently rational I could sarcastically riposte, but c'est la vie. :P

Anyway my comment wasn't born from reason. I don't identify with the guy and don't want to be lumped into the same category as him just because our beliefs/worldview are vaguely similar. Same goes for the Pope to be fair, but surprisingly that's unlikely to come up.

GothPunk

Yahew, I think that the reason why many people still refer to Pope Benedict as Ratzinger is because he first drew attention to himself as Cardinal Ratzinger. This is perhaps most true amongst those with secular and/or anti-homophobic ideals, who would remember him for his homophobic remarks, opposing the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV etc.

Thus, my use of his birth name has nothing to do with contempt for his birthplace, for Germans or even for Christians - but through use of the name, before he was made Pope, when presented with yet another exasperating remark originating from him. He was the only Cardinal at the time (and to this day, apart from Cardinal Brady) that I would have known by name, simply due to his hateful comments or endorsements.

tl;dr: He didn't exactly have the best track record when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. The names of hateful people tend to stick with you even when they get a new title.

Zillah

Yahew wrote: »

Dawkins is a secularist, he is living in a non-secular country. That should be the first thing he worries about. Irish secularists dont spend much time attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury.

This is where your entire objection falls apart. You arbitrarily dictate that we must prioritize what I consider to be the petty divisions between nations. The impact religion has on the fate of the human race and the worst ways in which it manifests are some people's concerns. Hence why Harris focuses on Islam (which he considers a threat to reason and political stability) and why Dawkins focuses on Creationism (danger to science) and the Vatican (dictating dangerous and discriminatory morality to billions of adherents).

You might consider the role of the Church of England to be an Englishman's first priority purely because he happens to be an Englishman, but there are plenty of people who think that that one example of a fairly innocuous failure to maintain secularism is small change compared to some of the more drastic issues facing the planet.

In conclusion, you have small horizons and get angry at other people for not sharing them.

Zombrex

Yahew wrote: »

links?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/055277331X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304090001&sr=8-1

Yahew wrote: »

Let me explain as simply as possible. I am not accusing someone who has never criticised anything as being a supporter of what he has randomly not critised. Dawkins is a secularist, he is living in a non-secular country. That should be the first thing he worries about. Irish secularists dont spend much time attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Again you have failed to establish he isn't concerned about it.

Like I said your logic for supposing he isn't is ridiculous, like saying you don't care about genocide because you are complaining about Dawkins instead of the Karmer Rouge. :rolleyes:

I'm sure you can be worried about a whole host of people other than Richard Dawkins, yet right now you are complaining about him.

Should we take it from that that to you Richard Dawkins is the worst person in the entire world who you rank above all other people to be concerned about?

Or would that be a stupid assumption on our part?

Yahew wrote: »

I am accusing an English secularist of being a bigot for concentrating on the Pope when he lives in a country which has an established Church, a tiny Catholic population ( largely of immigrant descent) and I am basing this on the history of the country he lives in, and it's history of bigotry.

So you are assuming Richard Dawkins is a bigot because he is English?

And you say that without any trace of irony?

You appreciate that a bigot is someone who holds an intolerant prejudice against a person or group of people based on stereotypes, correct?

Yahew wrote: »

Lets say this German secularist ignored all this and kept ranting about the Head Rabbi and his views on evolution, views which were milder than most Lutheran beliefs; and that most Jews were culturally Jewish, and ignored the Chief Rabbi anyway.

Would this man be a bigot?

No.

On the other hand saying you are assuming Richard Dawkins is a bigot because he is English. Well that is pretty bigoted

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

This is where your entire objection falls apart. You arbitrarily dictate that we must prioritize what I consider to be the petty divisions between nations. The impact religion has on the fate of the human race and the worst ways in which it manifests are some people's concerns. Hence why Harris focuses on Islam (which he considers a threat to reason and political stability) and why Dawkins focuses on Creationism (danger to science) and the Vatican (dictating dangerous and discriminatory morality to billions of adherents).

You might consider the role of the Church of England to be an Englishman's first priority purely because he happens to be an Englishman, but there are plenty of people who think that that one example of a fairly innocuous failure to maintain secularism is small change compared to some of the more drastic issues facing the planet.

In conclusion, you have small horizons and get angry at other people for not sharing them.

The irony of course is that he is complaining about Richard Dawkins. Unless he thinks Dawkins is the worse person in the world he is breaking his own logic.

Man, is it just hot or are people getting stupider?

Zillah

Also, I call Ratzinger Ratzinger because one, as optogirl said, he looks and acts like a super villain and that name suits him very well, but also because I consider his taking of a new name to be just one more example of the pretentious and self-aggrandising crap that has earned my contempt in the past.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

Also, I call Ratzinger Ratzinger because one, as optogirl said, he looks and acts like a super villain and that name suits him very well, but also because I consider his taking of a new name to be just one more example of the pretentious and self-aggrandising crap that has earned my contempt in the past.

Didn't senator Palpatine also change his name when he got a new gig?

mikhail

Galvasean wrote: »

Didn't senator Palpatine also change his name when he got a new gig?

Nah, he became Emperor Palpatine. I think there's a Darth Something-or-other name applied too, but anyone who can remember it needs to get laid. Sideous, that's it, I think. Right, it's Friday night. Time to hit a bar.

Galvasean

My mistake was choosing a Star Wars reference over star trek...

mikhail

Galvasean wrote: »

My mistake was choosing a Star Wars reference over star trek...

No, really, I'm leaving now.

ironingbored

ghostchant wrote: »

In fairness to Pope Benedict, as poster-boys go I personally have a greater dislike for Dawkins, and I'm certainly not a theist!

So you dislike a biologist who happens to be outspoken on religion more than someone who has been shown to be complicit in the sexual abuse of children? :rolleyes:

ghostchant

ironingbored wrote: »

So you dislike a biologist who happens to be outspoken on religion more than someone who has been shown to be complicit in the sexual abuse of children? :rolleyes:

At this point he's more an anti-religion advocate who happens to be a biologist..

My phrasing was slightly off, I'm not saying that Dawkins is a worse person in any way, just that Dawkins makes me :rolleyes: more so than the pope. As I said in a follow-up post, the feeeling is not born from reason. Maybe because when someone asks me my opinion on religion and I decide not to change the subject (crap topic of conversation at your average party/gathering), his name tends to crop up in relation to my views, and I dislike that fact.

I know I'm not the only non-theist who isn't a huge fan of him. I'm not saying he has his facts wrong (his opions on the other hand...), but ironically it's the 'holier-than-thou' feeling he gives off that I dislike.

And as far as the pope being complicit in the sexual abuse of children; of course and you're right he has a lot to answer for on that count, but I reserve virtually all of my anger for the adults who actually perpatrated those acts against those children. I could use Diarmuid Martin (certainly a more likable and relatable individual) instead of the pope and what I said above doesn't change.

Anyway my original post was almost completely off-topic, my guess is that particular scandal has been and is still being covered in other threads/forums.