Creationism education bills

[Voltaire 5,491]

top notch

 

which god is the right god?

 

Heaven's Gate

 

Too bad I found out about them too late. The end is near and our country/ world will be wiped clean. Had I known then how the Bush/Obama years would turn out, I would have agreed with them. Gotta tip my hat.

[Gepetto 1,454]

top notch

 

Wrong. See post #1080 on page 27.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Creationism/ID is the mixing of science and religion. You're right btw, it's a backlash to science proving the Biblical story of creation as false.

 

Hold on. Just how has science proved the Biblical story of Creation false? I'm not talking only of the version forwarded by Biblical literalists here; I'm talking in general. The Biblical story of Genesis can be interpreted many ways, and I believe (as does Shapiro, btw) that Biblical literalists are just incorrect, and that the Bible was meant to be taken allegorically.

 

It's a retreat position for believers who don't want to embrace evolution. Just because it's a backlash, doesn't make it true, it just means they need to bring the required evidence or get shown to be an pdated lie trying to muscle it's way back in for a second time.

 

I object to your lumping in Creationism with ID. There are too many characters that would be considered Creationists that I don't want any where near ID - including those who you mention "don't want to embrace evolution". I, for one, don't want to embrace some parts of the whole story of evolution, but that doesn't mean that most of it doesn't make perfect sense, and build a sufficiently compelling case (a case which I find doesn't conflict with my spiritual beliefs in the slightest).

 

And random mutation is the reason we evolve. Fish evolve eyes, yet cave fish have eye sockets but lose their eyes. Nearly identical to fish inside and outside outside the cave, just the ones inside are without eyes. Obviously, they don't need a soft spot on their face to bump into things and get infected. So presumably after a flood washed them into a cave, they either evolved through random mutation to get rid of their eyes or else some conscientious, sympathetic alien got out of it's UFO and re-engineered it's DNA due to his own kindness and generosity.

 

You say the first bolded sentence like it is a fact not in serious jeopardy of being proven wrong here. You seem to dismiss what Shapiro's research indicates: that it isn't random at all: that there is a fantastically complex programmed mechanism within cells to direct a reformation of DNA structuring which activates genes as necessary to provide these new mechanical functions.

 

Your definitive (and I believe wrong) statement of random mutation - and not programmed intent - being the progenitor of evolution is why I believe Shapiro mentioned that Darwinism has become more like a religion than a science. You cannot possibly prove the statement that I bolded: not with serious contradictory (and contemporary) research at your disposal as a result of the hard-work of Shapiro, and Barbara McClintock before him.

 

What's sad is that McClintock's research indicated this 60 years ago. That is evidence to me of an agenda to squash the implications here.

 

I look at that research - and understand it - and think it's nearly pure insanity to not at least start with the presumption that something that extraordinarily complex and advanced wouldn't have been Designed.

 

It's fine to say that that is one's presumption: it doesn't mean that one isn't open to finding out it was a total accident, but that would be incredibly hard to establish (just as mentioned in the other post).

[IMMensaMind 462]

Heaven's Gate

 

Too bad I found out about them too late. The end is near and our country/ world will be wiped clean. Had I known then how the Bush/Obama years would turn out, I would have agreed with them. Gotta tip my hat.

 

Anyone who thinks it is either important or appropriate to ask "which god is the right god" in this thread is missing the point of the thread utterly completely.

[GettnHuge 2]

 

I look at that research - and understand it - and think it's nearly pure insanity to not at least start with the presumption that something that extraordinarily complex and advanced wouldn't have been Designed.

 

 

 

It's a funny thing how the mentally afflicted see their actions and thoughts as being perfectly sane and reasonable while it is the rest of

the world which seems crazy to them.

[GettnHuge 2]

Anyone who thinks it is either important or appropriate to ask "which god is the right god" in this thread is missing the point of the thread utterly completely.

 

So which god is the right god?

[penultimatestraw 473]

By what mechanism can a discipline like Science - which is limited to only operating within the constraints of the Laws of Nature - possibly discern proof of the God that created the very rules by which it must judge?

 

That is as impossible as proving the opposite.

 

I submit to you that it wouldn't be Science proving God exists, it would be God proving to the Scientist that He exists.

 

 

 

I think you have it exactly backwards. It isn't about proof regardless: it's about evidence - and, as I also said - this effort wouldn't even exist if Science simply presupposed it.

 

ID exists IMO solely because of secular backlash to religious persecution of Scientists.

To-MA-to, Po-ta-to, or something like that. Perhaps we'lI invent a telescope that can peer into God's celestial studio. Or maybe he'll avail himself to the masses, including scientists, as he was prone to do in the past. That would be more in line with your statement above. But is impossible to prove he does not exist unless one knows everything, which I assume is impossible.

 

I'll agree if God were discovered, it certainly would change the nature of science.

 

Although a small portion of scientists may have smeared the efforts of religion, I'll submit that others are like myself: relatively indifferent to the concept. I neither support nor detract from religion on a regular basis. I just think there are appropriate venues as well as inappropriate ones for its discussion.

[Voltaire 5,491]

Hold on. Just how has science proved the Biblical story of Creation false? I'm not talking only of the version forwarded by Biblical literalists here; I'm talking in general. The Biblical story of Genesis can be interpreted many ways, and I believe (as does Shapiro, btw) that Biblical literalists are just incorrect, and that the Bible was meant to be taken allegorically.

 

 

 

Thanks for asking.

 

God Created the Earth on the first day and created the stars on the third. Go created birds on the fourth day and land creatures on the fifth.

 

At no point do the dinosaurs get a mention, which would have been impressive to modern people if the authors who wrote the book could have pulled that gem out of nowhere.

 

This is clearly bullsh*t. I hoe you agree. In other words, science proved the Biblical story of Creation false.

 

The religious fundys never forgave them for it or reconciled themselves to defeat and so they re-engineered their lie and thus ID was developed.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Thanks for asking.

 

God Created the Earth on the first day and created the stars on the third. Go created birds on the fourth day and land creatures on the fifth.

 

At no point do the dinosaurs get a mention, which would have been impressive to modern people if the authors who wrote the book could have pulled that gem out of nowhere.

 

This is clearly bullsh*t. I hoe you agree. In other words, science proved the Biblical story of Creation false.

 

The religious fundys never forgave them for it or reconciled themselves to defeat and so they re-engineered their lie and thus ID was developed.

 

So if I'm correct, and the Bible is meant to be taken allegorically, Science didn't prove it incorrect to you, correct?

[Gepetto 1,454]

Thanks for asking.

 

God Created the Earth on the first day and created the stars on the third. Go created birds on the fourth day and land creatures on the fifth.

 

At no point do the dinosaurs get a mention, which would have been impressive to modern people if the authors who wrote the book could have pulled that gem out of nowhere.

 

This is clearly bullsh*t. I hoe you agree. In other words, science proved the Biblical story of Creation false.

 

The religious fundys never forgave them for it or reconciled themselves to defeat and so they re-engineered their lie and thus ID was developed.

 

These days are all wrong. Look it up.

[GettnHuge 2]

These days are all wrong. Look it up.

 

did you figure out which god did this yet? i raised my hand but the teacher doesn't seem to have an answer

[Voltaire 5,491]

So if I'm correct, and the Bible is meant to be taken allegorically, Science didn't prove it incorrect to you, correct?

Correct.

 

Honestly, I think this is the best/only way to makes sense of them both at the same time.

[Gepetto 1,454]

did you figure out which god did this yet? i raised my hand but the teacher doesn't seem to have an answer

 

The God of Abraham, the Jewish God which is the same as the Christian God. I don't know about other religions and if they believe and praise the same God or not.

[GettnHuge 2]

The God of Abraham, the Jewish God which is the same as the Christian God. I don't know about other religions and if they believe and praise the same God or not.

 

what about Vishnu or Achaman?

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

See: this is where I believe we have an impasse, and it's based upon how you chose to put that last statement: there is no difference between how open we keep our options: I presuppose a Designer (who I'll call God), but am open to all evidence; you presuppose no God, but are open to all evidence (even though I consider your inability to see the evidence right in front of you as evidence is curious to me, considering that everything you've experienced in your life that has such definitive complex specificity is known by you to be designed).

 

Believing in an Intelligent Creator doesn't hamper my desire to search out an understanding of the functions of the Design whatsoever.

Again, I am open to options which can be proven or disproven using the scientific method. Let's assume you believe in God and ID (redundant IMO). What does this add to scientific inquiry? Give me a practical application of ID. Before you ask, evolution of HIV is applied when determining appropriate therapy for multidrug-resistant infection. Sometimes drugs to which the virus is resistant are continued because the mutations they select impact replicative capacity in comparison to the unmutated form. While the individual still has resistant virus, mutations are used to "trap" it in a less fit mode to slow disease progression.

 

I believe the evidence of this is fairly overwhelming, but I'm open to alterations to this theory.

Glad to hear it. You're a step ahead of most of this country, largely because religious dogma contradicts the thought that we could derive from "lesser" species.

 

Non sequitur. These aren't analogous topics. There are plenty of atrocities in recorded history of backlashes against religion, including Pol Pot and Stalin. You again are blaming the gun for crime.

Sequitur. I think there has been more net harm than good from religion; the opposite is true of science IMO. But I will not deny anyone their beliefs as long as they are not imposed on others against their will, including in an inappropriate forum such as a science class.

[Gepetto 1,454]

what about Vishnu or Achaman?

 

Why don't you tell me?

[penultimatestraw 473]

That is called Punctuated Equilibrium, and it was developed as a theory within the theory of Evolution by Darwinists who knew that their claim of random mutation should have created even and consistent development of species - and such a claim would have been evident in the fossil record. The fossil record, however, didn't cooperate, and as such what you're describing was literally fabricated out of thin air.

 

Now, Shapiro's research opens the door into a far more (IMO) plausible answer: that cellular genetic intelligent guides the organism to change and adapt only when pressed to do so through adversity (what McClintock called 'gene shock'). Since our Earth has experienced different Ages, this shock came in that form, hence the staggered fossil record.

 

At least that's my understanding.

But massive changes in the environment can have a huge impact on the gene pool, ostensibly accelerating change. The fossil record has cooperated with proponents of evolution, though there will always be intermediates if you stipulate fine enough differences. The tiktaalik mentioned in the Dover case video is a good example of a transitional fossil, for example.

 

The retrovirus research I mentioned also opens the door for more abrupt change than can be expected by linear, traditional Darwinism.

 

I still wouldn't teach this in a public school unless better scientific evidence is uncovered to support its claims.

 

 

ID proponents have been far more accurate in predictions, which as you know is a hallmark of an accurate theory. IDers were the ones who warned that bacteria would become antibiotic resistant far before Darwinists did. Darwinists predicted that there was no danger of wide-spread antibiotic activity, because the bacteria could not possibly randomly mutate fast enough to become resistant. They predicted a mutational evolutionary cycle of ~1000 years.

 

They were inccrrect. It took about 55 years - and now we have a huge problem.

Can you give me some background on the above statements? BTW antibiotic resistance happens even faster than you describe - aside from one antibiotic (vancomycin), Staphylococci have developed resistance to just about every antibiotic within 2-3 years of their introduction. It took about 46 years before vanc resistance was described, when the bug acquired the resistance gene from another bacteria (carried by Shapiro's friend the transposon). As some drug resistance is conferred by single point mutations, I don't see why anyone would predict 1000 years for it develop - resistance can occur in days during a course of antibiotic therapy!

[penultimatestraw 473]

The God of Abraham, the Jewish God which is the same as the Christian God. I don't know about other religions and if they believe and praise the same God or not.

If I thought my eternal life depended on choosing the "right" god, I might take it upon myself to learn a little about the other deities. Or do you just feel lucky compared to the other 2/3 of the world's population?

 

 

Name three random mutations that are beneficial with sources that show evolution in humans.

 

This is not a fair question for several reasons:

1. Most traits are polygenic, with multiple mutations necessary for recognizable phenotypic change to occur.

2. Human generation time is so long it is tough to practically track the numerous mutations in a prospective, controlled, and scientific manner. That's why I keep bringing up entities (notice I avoid the O word) which replicate/reproduce and mutate much more rapidly.

3. Almost every mutation will have some cost. Natural selection is about trade-offs based on fitness.

 

Nonetheless I'll throw out three prospects:

1. Sickle cell trait, a mutation which increases fitness against malaria. This altered gene is found in much higher frequency in those of African descent, in contrast to those of European descent. This may be the result of selection in malarious regions. Link1

2. CCR5 is a chemokine co-receptor which HIV uses to enter cells. Some people of European descent with a mutated CCR5 gene are relatively resistant to HIV infection. Unlike the sickle cell mutation, the reason this mutation was selected is unclear, as HIV has not been around long enough to promote the gene's evolution directly. But it is a beneficial random mutation nonetheless (in the appropriate environment, of course). Link2

3. Mutations in mitochondrial DNA regulation may be beneficial in aging. Link3

[nikki2200 4]

Thanks for asking.

 

God Created the Earth on the first day and created the stars on the third. Go created birds on the fourth day and land creatures on the fifth.

 

At no point do the dinosaurs get a mention, which would have been impressive to modern people if the authors who wrote the book could have pulled that gem out of nowhere.

 

This is clearly bullsh*t. I hoe you agree. In other words, science proved the Biblical story of Creation false.

 

The religious fundys never forgave them for it or reconciled themselves to defeat and so they re-engineered their lie and thus ID was developed.

 

This.

 

I do have one question though. If the bible is the word of god, why didn't he just tell the people taking notes the truth? Would have saved humankind a lot of time and energy.

[Frank M 181]

This thread has become epic not only in sheer size, but also for the complete and utter beatdown that Mensa and the idea of ID as a viable scientific theory have taken. There are a few nice people like Voltaire and penultimatestraw that are willing to give Mensa a platform for his views before gently pointing out how every aspect of those views is wrong and simpleminded, but it is completely clear that on so many levels, every one, in fact, that he has no understanding of evolutionary theory, peer review, or even basic scientific principles, for that matter. All he has are the lunatic hypotheses and sham publications of pseudoscientists who can't come to grips with the fact that it is impossible to prove intelligent design scientifically, wrongheaded interpretations of true scientific work, misquotes or out and out made up quotes from scientists that have done good work that doesn't support ID, conspiracy theories about science and scientists actively preventing the release of so-called evidence that ID exists, and a claim of support from phantom e-mailers who laud his "championing" of their cause. Nearly every major court case involving either creationism or it's sanitized cousin, intelligent design, has ruled against the idea that it is a science or that it should be required teaching. There are no legitimate, peer reviewed papers proving any aspect of ID. It's champions are pariahs in their own institutions.

 

So, I have had fun, but sadly, I have come to the conclusion that this thread should die, so I am ending my contributions to it. My work is done here. Feel free to continue if you like, but it has become less like a debate and more like punching a baby, so I'm out, with a couple of last words:

 

Intelligent design is creationism repackaged to be palatable to the unwashed masses, but thankfully, the courts have seen through the sham and have ruled against this religiously based idea being taught in science class, and they will continue to do so.

 

And Mensa is an idiot.

 

Peace out!

[OldMaid 2,135]

 

Everything you type is annoying.

 

I think you hurt my feelings!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, wait... it was just gas.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Again, I am open to options which can be proven or disproven using the scientific method. Let's assume you believe in God and ID (redundant IMO).

 

It's not quite redundant. I have religious belief in a supernatural God. ID, however, researches for evidence of a Designer, which could be natural. We just don't know; that's the point of researching.

 

What does this add to scientific inquiry? Give me a practical application of ID.

 

I think it's better put that it prevents a subtraction. Having a predetermined bias of no Designer could very possibly be why Barbara McClintock's stunning discovery sat in dry dock for more than half a century: Science had girded itself with such a strong defensive bias for Darwinism that it (again, IMO - based upon the evidence) had found itself controlled by a mantra which shuns challenges to its core precepts. Also, inductive conclusions drawn from a presumption of design would allow us to focus research on purpose, rather than assuming chaos. If we presuppose purpose, we better hone our ability to research for cures for diseases, for instance.

 

Before you ask, evolution of HIV is applied when determining appropriate therapy for multidrug-resistant infection. Sometimes drugs to which the virus is resistant are continued because the mutations they select impact replicative capacity in comparison to the unmutated form. While the individual still has resistant virus, mutations are used to "trap" it in a less fit mode to slow disease progression.

 

Then perhaps you're a good one to ask: if you presuppose purpose in design, wouldn't that allow you to better target gene or drug therapy towards a retrovirus, rather than shooting in the dark based upon random activity?

 

Glad to hear it. You're a step ahead of most of this country, largely because religious dogma contradicts the thought that we could derive from "lesser" species.

 

Perhaps, but I think most religious people also think that the evidence is pretty plain - and the only religious dogma this threatens are contraptions built by man to control other men regardless.

 

Sequitur. I think there has been more net harm than good from religion; the opposite is true of science IMO. But I will not deny anyone their beliefs as long as they are not imposed on others against their will, including in an inappropriate forum such as a science class.

 

I still think that you're blaming the gun for crime. Both religion and science are simply tools used by people, whether they be good, or evil. Good people can use both: missionaries use their religious motivation to save people in 3rd world countries; they donate 10% of their income to charity to help the less fortunate. It is a known fact that conservatives (generally more religious) donate more to charity than do liberals (generally known to be more agnostic/atheist). Good people can use science to cure disease/prolong life/etc.

 

Bad people can use religion to justify genocide. Bad people can use science to kill people with advanced biochemical weaponry.

 

The point is that both do equal harm - or good. What is really responsible is people. Religion as blame is a strawman: had religion never been accepted as a concept, man would have figured out some other rationale to fight and kill if they were evil, or minister and save if they were good.

 

Same with science.

[IMMensaMind 462]

This thread has become epic not only in sheer size, but also for the complete and utter beatdown that Mensa and the idea of ID as a viable scientific theory have taken. There are a few nice people like Voltaire and penultimatestraw that are willing to give Mensa a platform for his views before gently pointing out how every aspect of those views is wrong and simpleminded, but it is completely clear that on so many levels, every one, in fact, that he has no understanding of evolutionary theory, peer review, or even basic scientific principles, for that matter. All he has are the lunatic hypotheses and sham publications of pseudoscientists who can't come to grips with the fact that it is impossible to prove intelligent design scientifically, wrongheaded interpretations of true scientific work, misquotes or out and out made up quotes from scientists that have done good work that doesn't support ID, conspiracy theories about science and scientists actively preventing the release of so-called evidence that ID exists, and a claim of support from phantom e-mailers who laud his "championing" of their cause. Nearly every major court case involving either creationism or it's sanitized cousin, intelligent design, has ruled against the idea that it is a science or that it should be required teaching. There are no legitimate, peer reviewed papers proving any aspect of ID. It's champions are pariahs in their own institutions.

 

So, I have had fun, but sadly, I have come to the conclusion that this thread should die, so I am ending my contributions to it. My work is done here. Feel free to continue if you like, but it has become less like a debate and more like punching a baby, so I'm out, with a couple of last words:

 

Intelligent design is creationism repackaged to be palatable to the unwashed masses, but thankfully, the courts have seen through the sham and have ruled against this religiously based idea being taught in science class, and they will continue to do so.

 

And Mensa is an idiot.

 

Peace out!

 

If you don't have the character to engage in a civil conversation, you could have just said so.

[nikki2200 4]

Word.

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

Stirring up thoughts of death may influence people's support of intelligent design and evolution, according to new research.

 

Led by researchers at the University of British Columbia, the paper details the results from five studies in the journal PLoS ONE. The team found that existential thoughts, or those in which people were reminded of their own mortality, led subjects to view the theory of intelligent design more positively.

 

In line with the scientific community, the authors state that evolution, especially descent with modification through natural selection, is largely accepted as a way to study biological change over time.

 

Intelligent design, as defined by the authors, "proposes that naturalistic accounts are insufficient to explain complex organic phenomena and that therefore an intelligent and presumably supernatural 'designer' is responsible for the origin of all life." This theory is not the same as creationism.

 

Despite the fact that 43 percent of Americans favor teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in classrooms, the theory lacks scientific support for its claims, the authors write. This too is in line with scientific consensus.

 

So why do people support intelligent design without scientific proof, especially when claims on evolution are backed by science?

 

The need to maintain psychological security may play a role.

 

In four studies, approximately 1,400 subjects -- college students and adults in Canada and the United States -- were asked to write about their feelings after imagining their own death. Groups were told to read passages about evolution and intelligent design afterward. Then, subjects rated the expertise of the author and reported their own belief in a particular theory.

 

In a fifth study, researchers asked 269 college students similar questions after being presented with an intelligent design approach and a naturalist passage authored by Carl Sagan.

 

The team found that favoring intelligent design wasn't necessarily tied to religion or education. Rather, people share similar emotional reactions when faced with existential thoughts. Since intelligent design favors the idea that human life was created intentionally rather than through random natural processes, the authors write, it makes sense for people to lean toward explanations that maintain humans' importance in the universe.

 

But in conditions in which subjects were exposed to Carl Sagan's passage, people were more likely to rate a naturalistic approach more favorably, perhaps because it supports evolution while still maintaining humans' uniqueness in the cosmos.

 

http://news.discovery.com/human/my-entry.html

[penultimatestraw 473]

I think it's better put that it prevents a subtraction. Having a predetermined bias of no Designer could very possibly be why Barbara McClintock's stunning discovery sat in dry dock for more than half a century: Science had girded itself with such a strong defensive bias for Darwinism that it (again, IMO - based upon the evidence) had found itself controlled by a mantra which shuns challenges to its core precepts. Also, inductive conclusions drawn from a presumption of design would allow us to focus research on purpose, rather than assuming chaos. If we presuppose purpose, we better hone our ability to research for cures for diseases, for instance.

Nope, even without "purpose" evolution drives entities towards improved fitness, including host and pathogens. It's an eternal tug of war that presupposing behind-the-scenes intelligence does not alter. Knowing conserved portions of a genome and those prone to mutate does help direct therapy against some of our antagonists, however.

 

And I don't think McClintock was stifled for that long:

 

The importance of McClintock's contributions only came to light in the 1960s, when the work of French geneticists Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod described the genetic regulation of the lac operon, a concept she had demonstrated with Ac/Ds in 1951. Following Jacob and Monod's 1961 Journal of Molecular Biology paper "Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins", McClintock wrote an article for American Naturalist comparing the lac operon and her work on controlling elements in maize.[28] McClintock's contribution to biology is still not widely acknowledged as amounting to the discovery of genetic regulation.[26]

McClintock was widely credited for discovering transposition following the discovery of the process in bacteria and yeast in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

She also won a Nobel prize in her lifetime - unusual for any woman.

 

Then perhaps you're a good one to ask: if you presuppose purpose in design, wouldn't that allow you to better target gene or drug therapy towards a retrovirus, rather than shooting in the dark based upon random activity?

As above, lack of "intelligence" does not equate to lack of purpose. Antivirals do target to the most essential portions of the virus - those which will profoundly effect the virus' viability if they mutate. It isn't shooting in the dark at all, merely recognizing the dynamic nature of the process. Vaccines have historically fared poorly against HIV because it mutates/evolves so quickly.

 

I still think that you're blaming the gun for crime. Both religion and science are simply tools used by people, whether they be good, or evil. Good people can use both: missionaries use their religious motivation to save people in 3rd world countries; they donate 10% of their income to charity to help the less fortunate. It is a known fact that conservatives (generally more religious) donate more to charity than do liberals (generally known to be more agnostic/atheist). Good people can use science to cure disease/prolong life/etc.

 

Bad people can use religion to justify genocide. Bad people can use science to kill people with advanced biochemical weaponry.

 

The point is that both do equal harm - or good. What is really responsible is people. Religion as blame is a strawman: had religion never been accepted as a concept, man would have figured out some other rationale to fight and kill if they were evil, or minister and save if they were good.

I disagree. Killing/torture has been performed in the name of religion. While science facilitates the process, I don't think people have used it as justification to harm others, except in rare circumstances. Quite the opposite; think neo-Luddites like the Unabomber.

 

But you are right in your assertion that man would kill nonetheless, but lacking the "higher" religious justification might disenfranchise some of the nuts.

[GettnHuge 2]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vigil_4

 

 

Pope: Humanity isn't random product of evolution

 

VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI marked the holiest night of the year for Christians by stressing that humanity isn't a random product of evolution.

 

Benedict emphasized the Biblical account of creation in his Easter Vigil homily Saturday, saying it was wrong to think at some point "in some tiny corner of the cosmos there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it."

 

"If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason."

 

 

 

 

I guess that settles it

 

 

 

[Dr.Grimm 0]

The only thin this thread has proved is that there are MANY closet believers in GOD.

[penultimatestraw 473]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vigil_4

 

 

Pope: Humanity isn't random product of evolution

 

VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI marked the holiest night of the year for Christians by stressing that humanity isn't a random product of evolution.

 

Benedict emphasized the Biblical account of creation in his Easter Vigil homily Saturday, saying it was wrong to think at some point "in some tiny corner of the cosmos there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it."

 

"If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason."

 

 

 

 

I guess that settles it

 

The only thin this thread has proved is that there are MANY closet believers in GOD.

Hallelujah! THE THREAD IS REBORN!

Nice of that pope fella to come out of the closet on Easter to clear things up.

[Frank M 181]

Hallelujah! THE THREAD IS REBORN!

Nice of that pope fella to come out of the closet on Easter to clear things up.

 

Maybe this important proof can be published in that online journal that isn't really a journal.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Maybe this important proof can be published in that online journal that isn't really a journal.

 

itsatip: intellectually honest participants in a debate don't simultaneously insult people of a different view engage them on a topic and whine about the same thing being said over and over again, and then try to trollbait the topic into staying open for continuation of the exact same purpose.

 

HTH.

[nikki2200 4]

itsatip: intellectually honest participants in a debate don't simultaneously insult people of a different view engage them on a topic and whine about the same thing being said over and over again, and then try to trollbait the topic into staying open for continuation of the exact same purpose.

 

HTH.

 

Didn't you cal me a smelly trout in this thread? And Me a hobbit. And call Gettnhuge fat? I know I know. We started it. You're just trying to be intellectually honest.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Didn't you cal me a smelly trout in this thread? And Me a hobbit. And call Gettnhuge fat? I know I know. We started it. You're just trying to be intellectually honest.

 

Your brain seems unable to digest the fact that I didn't start the insults, and that returning them is literally the only avenue left open - and an enjoyable one, once someone has crossed the line.

 

Kinda like how it would be incredibly wrong to hit you unprovoked, but perfectly reasonable to do so after first being struck.

 

HTH.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Your brain seems unable to digest the fact that I didn't start the insults, and that returning them is literally the only avenue left open - and an enjoyable one, once someone has crossed the line.

 

Kinda like how it would be incredibly wrong to hit you unprovoked, but perfectly reasonable to do so after first being struck.

 

HTH.

You would think a woman would get used to being abused by men?

[nikki2200 4]

You would think a woman would get used to being abused by men?

 

You never really get used to it. I've just learned to accept it. I do cry in my captain and have to do a lifetime movie marathon occasionally to make myself feel better though.

[GettnHuge 2]

Your brain seems unable to digest the fact that I didn't start the insults, and that returning them is literally the only avenue left open - and an enjoyable one, once someone has crossed the line.

 

Kinda like how it would be incredibly wrong to hit you unprovoked, but perfectly reasonable to do so after first being struck.

 

HTH.

 

So you'd hit a woman if she hit you? I wouldn't. Maybe rape which is then justified, but not hitting. Hitting in the act of rape would be satisfactory.

What if a kid hit you?

[Frank M 181]

itsatip: intellectually honest participants in a debate don't simultaneously insult people of a different view engage them on a topic and whine about the same thing being said over and over again, and then try to trollbait the topic into staying open for continuation of the exact same purpose.

 

HTH.

 

The only one who cares about any of that is you.

 

HTH

 

So, how often do you beat your wife, anyways?

[OldMaid 2,135]

Me thinks the blow up doll he calls his wife doesn't mind.

 

Keep working on that intellectually honest thing... It's really "winning" for you!

[nikki2200 4]

This thread is like herpes.

[Frank M 181]

This thread is like herpes.

 

 

Yes and no. It's painful, but more entertaining.