Pope Francis: Big Bang and evolution are real.

[The Scott]

Nietzsche was a moron with syphilis who was kicked by a horse.

What's your excuse, fucktard?  Got assfucked by a strap-on dipped in AIDS and powered by a sHe-beast dressed as your mother disguised as your father pretending to be the Flying Nun or what?  Surely something traumatic happened to turn you into a quivering bloblet of a bitter little man.

No one, not a one of us knows how this all happened, much less how it all really started.  It's all a guess, some more educated than a great many others.  But I can tell you how it will all end.

We die.  Then, and it is only a maybe, will we know.  Or not.  I prefer not to worry.  I will know nothing.   I will know peace.  I will know more.  Who knows?  As a friend was used to saying,  only the dead know and they're not talking.

STFU TA  you cancerous lesion.

[Necrosis]

The thread is about Pope Francis saying the Big Bang is real.  This is ancient news as you can see...as if a Christian shouldn't accept or say something like that.

so you also accept evolution?

[The Scott]

so you also accept evolution?

We (all living creatures) are all a variation on a theme, albeit a variety of themes if you will. If someone chooses not to accept that theory I have nothing against them. Why should I?  Unless they're like those sub-human muslims they're not going to do any harm to me or mine with their faith in a God or gods. Or turtles for that matter.

Yeah. It's turtles all the way down.

[loco]

so you also accept evolution?

[SF1900]

We (all living creatures) are all a variation on a theme, albeit a variety of themes if you will. If someone chooses not to accept that theory I have nothing against them. Why should I?  Unless they're like those sub-human muslims they're not going to do any harm to me or mine with their faith in a God or gods. Or turtles for that matter.

Yeah. It's turtles all the way down.

The only issue I have with someone not accepting something (especially a theory with overwhelming evidence) is the dumbing down of America. I mean, what's next? Are people going to start to disregard all scientific theory because those scientists are "evil" and are involved in a huge, major conspiracy? Look at the south. The southern states tend to be the states that are filled with most uneducated people. And there is a strong connection between the south and disregard for science (especially among really strict conservatives). This is a major problem. I am not saying we have to accept every scientific theory because science is about PROGRESS. But you have to trust the scientific process. This whole world is science. Everything we have done (most every thing), good or bad, is because of science. So while people are free to believe what they want to believe, there needs to be a better balance between ones subjective (what I want to believe is true) and objective (what in fact is true) reality.

Cheers. 

[calfzilla]

Fuck the catholic church. I have no respect for them.

[The Scott]

The only issue I have with someone not accepting something (especially a theory with overwhelming evidence) is the dumbing down of America. I mean, what's next? Are people going to start to disregard all scientific theory because those scientists are "evil" and are involved in a huge, major conspiracy? Look at the south. The southern states tend to be the states that are filled with most uneducated people. And there is a strong connection between the south and disregard for science (especially among really strict conservatives). This is a major problem. I am not saying we have to accept every scientific theory because science is about PROGRESS. But you have to trust the scientific process. This whole world is science. Everything we have done (most every thing), good or bad, is because of science. So while people are free to believe what they want to believe, there needs to be a better balance between ones subjective (what I want to believe is true) and objective (what in fact is true) reality.

I agree completely.  The only thing faith can provide is hope of more.  Nothing wrong with that.  Excepting the outlook of True Adonis as of late I find him to be a total fucktard and more than worthy of my feeble ire.  

I digress.  Again, I agree completely with you.  Science can be good. It can also be used to lie (just as religion can and has been used).  I find Climate Change to be a total canard and its proponents (or at least the vocal and (in)famous ones to be jackasses of the worst kind.  They remind me of that turd Joel Osteen.  Made of shit and full of themselves.

I apologize if I am overstepping the boundaries of good taste where you and a few others here are concerned by friend.
Be well.

[SF1900]

I agree completely.  The only thing faith can provide is hope of more.  Nothing wrong with that.  Excepting the outlook of True Adonis as of late I find him to be a total fucktard and more than worthy of my feeble ire.  

I digress.  Again, I agree completely with you.  Science can be good. It can also be used to lie (just as religion can and has been used).  I find Climate Change to be a total canard and its proponents (or at least the vocal and (in)famous ones to be jackasses of the worst kind.  They remind me of that turd Joel Osteen.  Made of shit and full of themselves.

I apologize if I am overstepping the boundaries of good taste where you and a few others here are concerned by friend.
Be well.

The issue is this: There have been many pastors and many scientists who have lied. There have been scientists who falsify data to receive more grant or to try and prove their theory. For example, the psychiatrist that initially published the study about autism and vaccines. He totally falsified data. Similarly, there are many preachers who lie about numerous things also (they lie and disregard scientific theory to promote their religion, which leads to people handing their money to them).

I am a strong proponent of science because it does A LOT more good than bad. Besides the climate change, look at all the good science has done, especially with technology and medicine. Just walk through a hospital and look at all the machines people are hooked up to. Not to mention our computers, cars, phones, etc. It is endless.

So, it is worrisome that there is a disregarding of science for creationism. You can teach creationism if you want, but NEVER at the expense of science. The problem is that its hardly ever easy to teach creationism and science together. Both sides want it their way, or no way at all. I, personally do not think that creationism should be taught in science class, because as you said, its Faith. If people gain strength and hope from their religion, I am fine with that. But no way should it ever replace science.

[Ron Harrigan]

The issue is this: There have been many pastors and many scientists who have lied. There have been scientists who falsify data to receive more grant or to try and prove their theory. For example, the psychiatrist that initially published the study about autism and vaccines. He totally falsified data. Similarly, there are many preachers who lie about numerous things also (they lie and disregard scientific theory to promote their religion, which leads to people handing their money to them).

I am a strong proponent of science because it does A LOT more good than bad. Besides the climate change, look at all the good science has done, especially with technology and medicine. Just walk through a hospital and look at all the machines people are hooked up to. Not to mention our computers, cars, phones, etc. It is endless.

So, it is worrisome that there is a disregarding of science for creationism. You can teach creationism if you want, but NEVER at the expense of science. The problem is that its hardly ever easy to teach creationism and science together. Both sides want it their way, or no way at all. I, personally do not think that creationism should be taught in science class, because as you said, its Faith. If people gain strength and hope from their religion, I am fine with that. But no way should it ever replace science.

To be honest, science is merely a subset of creationism. Saying that 'there is a disregarding of science for creationism' is akin to saying that 'there is a disregarding of science for science'. This amazing new resource below should shed more light on the truth of creation as laid out in the Bible.

http://creation.com/evolutions-achilles-heels

[mr.turbo]

good point always enjoy your input brother harridan

[Ron Harrigan]

good point always enjoy your input brother harridan

I'm always glad to be of assistance.

[Necrosis]

You realize evolution has far more evidence then the big bang right? it is literally overwhelming and the backbone of all of biology.

I am just saying that if any motive besides factual is keeping you from believing it you are doing yourself a big disservice. You are effectively denying reality in favour of fantasy.

[Thong Maniac]

You realize evolution has far more evidence then the big bang right? it is literally overwhelming and the backbone of all of biology.

I am just saying that if any motive besides factual is keeping you from believing it you are doing yourself a big disservice. You are effectively denying reality in favour of fantasy.

Very well said

[Ron Harrigan]

You realize evolution has far more evidence then the big bang right? it is literally overwhelming and the backbone of all of biology.

I am just saying that if any motive besides factual is keeping you from believing it you are doing yourself a big disservice. You are effectively denying reality in favour of fantasy.

My best advice is to look into what is actually known. There is no need to take my word for it. However, no. Evolution isn't a 'scientific theory'. It's the antithesis of science, an impediment to science. A scientist cares very much about evidence and the rational evaluation of ideas. To be a evolutionist is to have no interest in evidence, to insist on beliefs in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. You hoped that scientists would be a little more accepting of evolution as it was 'the backbone of all of biology'? It's not reality, Necrosis. It's a myth that was shown not to be true a long time ago.
 

[Ron Harrigan]

Very well said

Among the most remarkable characteristics of evolutionists is not just how tenaciously they hang onto fallacious beliefs in the face of all facts. It is how, once the absurdity of their claims has been pointed out, rather than climbing out of the hole they have already dug, they double down and dig still deeper. It would be amusing if it weren't so terribly sad.

[BigCyp]

I'm not trying to stir anything here, just a thought. Last night when I was reading my son some of his new Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs (which he is crazy about!) I was reading some of the numbers that the author 'throws' out there like "2 billion years ago this happened" then "40 million years ago, these guys died and then these guys were here etc etc" and I wondered to myself - If evolution is a religious belief, then what the 'believers' were missing was some kind of Holy Text/Authoritative Text. Maybe without even realising it, they wrote their own.

[Ron Harrigan]

I'm not trying to stir anything here, just a thought. Last night when I was reading my son some of his new Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs (which he is crazy about!) I was reading some of the numbers that the author 'throws' out there like "2 billion years ago this happened" then "40 million years ago, these guys died and then these guys were here etc etc" and I wondered to myself - If evolution is a religious belief, then what the 'believers' were missing was some kind of Holy Text/Authoritative Text. Maybe without even realising it, they wrote their own.

Perhaps. You see, science NEVER brings up the 'God does not exist' script. Science has nothing to do with repudiating God. The argument instead is in the opposite direction. Our scientific understanding of how the natural world works reveals that the universe is divinely guided. Much, if not all, of what people insist on believing ABOUT a hypothetical evolutionary progression is simply not compatible with empirical evidence.

[oldgolds]

Says god isnt a magician. 

Is Pope Francis related to Bev Francis?

[BigCyp]

Perhaps. You see, science NEVER brings up the 'God does not exist' script. Science has nothing to do with repudiating God. The argument instead is in the opposite direction. Our scientific understanding of how the natural world works reveals that the universe is divinely guided. Much, if not all, of what people insist on believing ABOUT a hypothetical evolutionary progression is simply not compatible with empirical evidence.

Hence why I refer to evolutionists as 'believers' not scientists. The two are not the same thing.

[Necrosis]

My best advice is to look into what is actually known. There is no need to take my word for it. However, no. Evolution isn't a 'scientific theory'. It's the antithesis of science, an impediment to science. A scientist cares very much about evidence and the rational evaluation of ideas. To be a evolutionist is to have no interest in evidence, to insist on beliefs in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. You hoped that scientists would be a little more accepting of evolution as it was 'the backbone of all of biology'? It's not reality, Necrosis. It's a myth that was shown not to be true a long time ago.
 

you are right, god did it.

[mr.turbo]

is it really fair to claim that because evolutionary theory is limited that therefore the bible is correct?

will have to examine this creation dvd miniseries carefully for answers

[mr.turbo]

this thread invokes the spirit of st joseph of cupertino



Joseph was beatified in 1753 and canonized in 1763.
He has been declared the patron saint of air travelers, aviators,
astronauts, people with a mental handicap, test takers and poor students.

[Ron Harrigan]

is it really fair to claim that because evolutionary theory is limited that therefore the bible is correct?

will have to examine this creation dvd miniseries carefully for answers

The notion that the evident complexity of the natural world reflects design dates back to ancient times. It is a perfectly logical way to accommodate everyday experience. This has nothing to do with arrogance or being stubborn or rejecting evolution. It is what the evidence shows. To argue that "science is always changing," and can therefore be conveniently dismissed on that basis, is to misrepresent how science works. That the frontiers of science are ephemeral is a strength not a weakness, the working through of competing ideas in search of the correct or best explanation for available facts, the rejection of implausible ideas that turn out not to fit the observations. That is starkly different from ideas such as creation, at the other extreme - rational ideas that have been thoroughly tested over centuries, and that have proven consistent with EVERYTHING we know about biology, genetics, paleontology, Earth science and so forth. The most remarkable thing about science is that it works. Planes fly. Medicines cure. The theory of evolution has not a leg to stand on.

[Necrosis]

The notion that the evident complexity of the natural world reflects design dates back to ancient times. It is a perfectly logical way to accommodate everyday experience. This has nothing to do with arrogance or being stubborn or rejecting evolution. It is what the evidence shows. To argue that "science is always changing," and can therefore be conveniently dismissed on that basis, is to misrepresent how science works. That the frontiers of science are ephemeral is a strength not a weakness, the working through of competing ideas in search of the correct or best explanation for available facts, the rejection of implausible ideas that turn out not to fit the observations. That is starkly different from ideas such as creation, at the other extreme - rational ideas that have been thoroughly tested over centuries, and that have proven consistent with EVERYTHING we know about biology, genetics, paleontology, Earth science and so forth. The most remarkable thing about science is that it works. Planes fly. Medicines cure. The theory of evolution has not a leg to stand on.

you are out to lunch. god is a failed hypothesis and explains nothing. I would never design something this shitty.

[Ron Harrigan]

you are out to lunch. god is a failed hypothesis and explains nothing. I would never design something this shitty.

When all of the facts are on the side of creation, and none in support of evolution, what is an evolutionist to do? Deny, ignore, misrepresent and lie about what is known. Evidence for both the historical fact of creation and the mechanisms by which it occurred are established by mountains of data. That you are unaware of that evidence - or more likely, not interested in becoming informed - is irrelevant.