Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

your not getting my point,
the church belived that the earth was the center of the univerese because a scientist told them that. it was science that first said the sun revolved around the earth, then later was corected to the Solar-Centric Universe we all know and love today.

At 2/12/07 08:58 PM, deadjimm wrote:

how wrong you are! it was astronomer(scientist of his day) Claudius Ptolemy that said the universe was centered around the sun!

Also, Claudius Ptolemy was a christian.

At 2/12/07 09:17 PM, deadjimm wrote: the church belived that the earth was the center of the univerese because a scientist told them that. it was science that first said the sun revolved around the earth, then later was corected to the Solar-Centric Universe we all know and love today.

Solar-Centric Universe? The universe doesn't revolve around the sun.

science has yet to create a logical theory for the creation of man. First off by definition science must explain everything in terms of naturalistic laws. Darwin’s theory of evolution contradicts the cell theory. The cell theory clearly states that all living things must come from a previously existing organism. The question I’m asking is where did the first organism come from. For something to be alive it must be able to store information, be able to act on this information, and be able to tap into energy. This brings me to the chicken and the egg paradox. Each of these previously mentioned tasks require the others to function. So an organism would have to spontaneously evolve with all of these things from nothing. Also since there is no organism for this first organism to come from and due to the fact that nothing non living on this earth divides (like DNA, which is necessary for evolution) this first cell must have just randomly come to be which is preposterous.

Alright, this has gone on far too long. I'm ending it once and for all.

I'm Roman Catholic, I believe in God AND science, and will answer ANY questions relating to my faith and my religion to the best of my abilities. Even the retarded ones (but don't blame me if I point out they're retarded....). I have limited knowledge about other religions, the religions of Greece and Rome followed by Buddhism are the ones (next to my own) that I know the most about, so while I will try to answer questions pertaining to other religions (which never come up anyways....), keep in mind I am NOT the best source these boards have to offer on those religions....

For those of you asking "who's this dumb fuck?" feel free to ask around about Imperator, I'm sure there are a few Regulars out there who will back me on having at least enough knowledge about religion for the purposes of this Q and A.

Let "Imperator's Apology" begin!

Ask away people!!

At 2/12/07 10:01 PM, tatersaladjbc wrote: This brings me to the chicken and the egg paradox. Each of these previously mentioned tasks require the others to function.

Any basic understanding of evolution shows that that is not a paradox. Species evolved over millions of years, slowly getting closer and closer to the chicken that we know today. The egg came first, as it was layed by a creature almost exactly identical to the chicken, just a tiny bit more evolved. When that happened, of course, depends on your definition of chicken, specifically where the line between chicken and chicken-like-creature lies.

At 2/13/07 08:17 AM, Sigma-Lambda wrote: The egg came first, as it was layed by a creature almost exactly identical to the chicken, just a tiny bit more evolved.

I mean less evolved, not more evolved, just to clarify.

At 2/13/07 01:31 AM, Imperator wrote: I'm Roman Catholic, I believe in God AND science, and will answer ANY questions relating to my faith and my religion to the best of my abilities.
Ask away people!!

So... wtf is up with purgatory and limbo?

:P

At 2/12/07 07:51 PM, Imperator wrote: Im going to interject here cause this isn't entirely true, in fact, it's rather false.....
Science is very much a subjective art, it's people who decide what to study, how to study it, and for what purposes.

Science by its very definition is any knowledge that is entirely objective. So, I disagree with your postulation that science is a subjective art. Scientists are trained to be a lot more objective than most. As such they just want to find things out. My point is that science itself shouldn't take either the side of theism or atheism automatically, and that any claims that it does are false.

We've seen where that can go awry with human experimentation, Nazi "scientists" working on Jews, etc.

I don't see your point...sure, I find the whole idea of human experimentation without consent morally wrong, but I still don't think that this backs up your opinion...

Science used to create super-soldiers is VERY much one sided, especially if you get to play "human guinnea pig"......

I'd say that's more engineering than science. Science, again, is just the scientific method, objective knowledge, etc.

In the context of religion the only thing you will hear stout defiance against is the idea that science supercedes religion, thereby making religion worthless. You've heard it before, and it's expressed on these boards quite frequently.

Yes, this is exactly my point. I don't think that science should be automatically considered inherently theistic or atheistic. Scientists try to find out the truth about the natural world, and any implications this has on religious ideologies should be "by products" as it were.

Other than that, theists don't really have much to say about science, unless they happen to be scientists themselves.....

No different from any other person though.....

I agree.

COMPLETELY disagree. Science and religion can intertwine with each other in ways you wouldn't believe (clearly you don't). In most cases, religion USES science to EXPLAIN the impact of God, thereby nulling arguments that science somehow "disproves" religion. The two were never supposed to be separate entities, I dunno why people want to think of it that way, most Christians, Buddhists, Hundus, Jews, etc don't see science and religion in competition.

I think you might be misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying religion and science should be in conflict at all, nor that theists shouldn't consider science, in fact I'm saying the opposite. I think that science and religion shouldn't be compared as mutually exclusive entities, and that science shouldn't be thought to be on the side of either atheism or theism.

I mean hell! If 95% of this country is Christian, does that automatically mean the other 5% make up all the scientists? Not a fat chance in hell. You'd be amazed how many theists ARE scientists.....

I never said that theists can't be scientists. About two-thirds of scientists are theists...again, I think our disagreement stems from some sort of miscommunication here...

At 2/13/07 01:31 AM, Imperator wrote: I'm Roman Catholic, I believe in God AND science, and will answer ANY questions relating to my faith and my religion to the best of my abilities.

It'd be helpful if you could answer the following, as they've been confusing me for a while:

1. I've always wondered about the pope thing. It's like, if the Bible is god's word and god sees everyone equally, then why do Roman Catholics have to guided by this "middle man"?
2. Why don't Catholics ever pray to God / Jesus directly (correct me if I'm wrong)?
3. Why do you have to ask priests for forgiveness from god? Doesn't god see everyone equally?

At 2/13/07 11:23 AM, Ravariel wrote:
So... wtf is up with purgatory and limbo?

P

haha! I have NO CLUE! Last I heard that junk was still being debated in the Vatican. Who knows, maybe they'll have another council to decide it.....

...again, I think our disagreement stems from some sort of miscommunication here...

I think you might be right......

At 2/13/07 11:29 AM, Peter-II wrote:

It'd be helpful if you could answer the following, as they've been confusing me for a while:

1. I've always wondered about the pope thing. It's like, if the Bible is god's word and god sees everyone equally, then why do Roman Catholics have to guided by this "middle man"?
2. Why don't Catholics ever pray to God / Jesus directly (correct me if I'm wrong)?
3. Why do you have to ask priests for forgiveness from god? Doesn't god see everyone equally?

I'll do my best.
1. God's word written, rewritten, revised, reworded, and mistranslated by man. We're walking through the forrest with a crappy map in other words. The Pope acts as our "Indian guide". Lewis and Clark had one, so Catholics do too! ZING!
2. We do. "Our Father" (The Lord's Prayer) is one of the more famous and standard prayers to God.
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/pa ter_noster.html

That should also highlight why we have an institution around our religion called the Catholic Church. Notice in the last century alone we have 4 different translations of ONE prayer!
(none of which, by the way, are the version I say. So there might be 5).

3. God gave everyone an equal chance. God is also the only one who can forgive sins. Priests are believed to be the channels through which God delivers the sacrament of Penance, but cannot actually absolve sins themselves (contrary to popular opinion).
The reason we go through these channels and not to the big man himself is so we can receive penance through a human channel.

The rational can be seen through the act of contritiion, specifically the wording "I firmly intent to DO PENANCE, to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin" (my emphasis). Since most people already have problems seeing the works of God, we have a much more concrete way of bestowing penance through the priest.

the requirments of life require eachother to exist so the first organism on earth must have had all of these at once so it would have had to spontaniously evolve....... besides there was nothing for it to evolve from. if evolution is true it must have a beginning right? if logically the beginnimg is impossible then there is a serious flaw in the theory.

it's pretty simple

i dont follow the bible with faith alone because if you look at the bible logistically you will find it has much more science then it is being given credit

in the story with jesus and the super-sticious farmer jesus gives a speach about dominant and resesive genes.

i will do a little reading and come up with some more examples for you

oh and if i hear some on try to make the clame that because christmas is a paganistic holiday it proves something i will go ballistic.... seriously it makes no sense and it's annoying

At 2/13/07 12:06 PM, Imperator wrote: haha! I have NO CLUE! Last I heard that junk was still being debated in the Vatican. Who knows, maybe they'll have another council to decide it.....

Fair enough... but that brings up yet another question: The Council of Nicea (iirc). The folk who decided which books to include in the Bible. Umm... who were THEY to decide what scriiptures were worthy? Were they themselves prophets as well, that they knew which were the words of God and which were the words of men? Shouldn't ALL prophetic work be included in the final scripture that defines the religion of the deity who inspired that work?

At 2/14/07 12:33 AM, Ravariel wrote:
Fair enough... but that brings up yet another question: The Council of Nicea (iirc). The folk who decided which books to include in the Bible. Umm... who were THEY to decide what scriiptures were worthy? Were they themselves prophets as well, that they knew which were the words of God and which were the words of men? Shouldn't ALL prophetic work be included in the final scripture that defines the religion of the deity who inspired that work?

"They" were Constantine along with all the bishops of the known Church, so yeah, it was a pretty good mix of the scholars of their day. As you know, the Church was at war with itself throughout this time period, each city/bishop claiming legitimacy while declaring the others "heretics". So the council effectively united what was seen as a War of Words between bishops.

The 300 or so bishops in attendance probably had the knowledge needed to correctly decide which scriptures were worthy. And remember, not each division was even recognizable as Catholicism. For example, the Gnostic sect were OUT THERE, as with a few others. Each used their own interpretation of canonical scripture, so the texts that aren't in scripture aren't in for a reason (some of them are polythieistic even, and mention prayer to Jupiter and the Emperor or Rome). Thus, with the rampant false prophets, and completely varied interpretations of Catholicism, no, they really shouldn't put ALL prophetic texts in, especially considering some of them completely refute other texts (Jesus as brother to Jupiter vs Son of God vs just some schmuch).

History does the same, we have a "single" Grand Narrative, with everything outside being considered just that: Outside. (Holocaust deniers aren't considered "history" for a reason).

Specifically why they chose their interpretation (Roman Catholicism) and how representative the bishops in attendance were, as well as Constantine's own role and meddling in the affair I don't know.

Fight fiercely chirstians!. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!
We must show those nonbelievers our WILL!.

for only WE possess the RIGHT!. to have our views on the window sill.
Because upon our thecratical vic-tor-ee we shall KILL AND MAIM all the LIBERALS HEHE!!!.

So fight fiercely Christians FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!.
FIGHT!. FIIIIIGHT FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!!
Uh huh yeah...

I'm getting sick of debates over which is better Science or Relegion. Personally. I think Science is the easily provable and logical option. While relegion is faith based and actually gives people some HOPE that thry won't turn to dust when they die. For me, reincarnation and an afterlife are A LOT better then dust.

However, the problems arise when the countries GOVERNMENT is influenced by relegion.

Here's a modern example: America. (Yes there's a lot wrong with this censored from it's dead sea to the other rapidly dimming sea.)
anyways, just my two cents.

As to imperator... this debate shall not end here.
Not by a long shot.

At 2/14/07 09:28 AM, Imperator wrote: The 300 or so bishops in attendance probably had the knowledge needed to correctly decide which scriptures were worthy. And remember, not each division was even recognizable as Catholicism.

I don't doubt that they were the best scholars in the field... but this is prophesy and gospel we're talking about.

For example, the Gnostic sect were OUT THERE, as with a few others. Each used their own interpretation of canonical scripture, so the texts that aren't in scripture aren't in for a reason (some of them are polythieistic even, and mention prayer to Jupiter and the Emperor or Rome). Thus, with the rampant false prophets, and completely varied interpretations of Catholicism, no, they really shouldn't put ALL prophetic texts in, especially considering some of them completely refute other texts (Jesus as brother to Jupiter vs Son of God vs just some schmuch).

Sure, some of it was easy to see that it didn't fit, but weren't some books of Genesis left out? Not a biblical scholar, so I may be off about this, but weren't some of the books of Moses left out? As well as the gospels of Judas and Mary Magdalene (the authenticity of those books is unknown to me). I mean, when you include some books of certain people, but don't include other books by that same person, it strikes me as a bit odd. And not that I'm any firm believer in the Dan Brown theory or anything, but it would seem to me that the exclusion of the gospel of Mary Magdalene was political in nature.

And it also seems like this council was created, not so much to choose what was real scripture and what wasn't (though that was part of it) but to reach a compromise that would mollify all these warring factions of christianity. And when you choose scripture based on politics, that smacks of iffy-ness to me.

History does the same, we have a "single" Grand Narrative, with everything outside being considered just that: Outside. (Holocaust deniers aren't considered "history" for a reason).

Yeah, but there's a difference between history and prophesy. Ask three people what happened at 9/11 and you'll get relatively similar answers. Ask three people to prophesize the second coming and your answers are going to be a bit different, ya get what I'm saying? How does anyone without prophetic knowledge themselves, know what is real prophesy and what is pretend?

Specifically why they chose their interpretation (Roman Catholicism) and how representative the bishops in attendance were, as well as Constantine's own role and meddling in the affair I don't know.

It's not just Roman Catholicism, either... that version of the bible is pretty much used for all of christianity. Rather a powerful effect those 300 scholors had on the history of the religion. As for myself, I'm one of those who would be most interested in reading the rest of the gospels and seeing what they said before making up my mind.

granted, my mind is already made up, but I'd still want to know sheerly for curiosity's sake.

At 2/14/07 10:25 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: As to imperator... this debate shall not end here.
Not by a long shot.

Oh I know, but at least the blast will be contained.....

I'm getting sick of debates over which is better Science or Relegion. Personally. I think Science is the easily provable and logical option.

The problem is you don't understand that the two can and do coexist....
I'm Roman Catholic, know that Evolution is a sound theory, don't believe in Creationism, and study psychology. None of those "beliefs" in science go againt my religion.

At 2/14/07 11:28 AM, Ravariel wrote:
I don't doubt that they were the best scholars in the field... but this is prophesy and gospel we're talking about.

Not quite. Books like Revelation are prophesy, books like the 4 Gospels are more about Jesus and his teaching. Nicaea was primarily about the interpretation of Jesus, and the relationship between God, Son, and Holy Spirit (hence Nicene Creed). Like I said, some sects interpreted this to be polytheistic, and also worshipped Jupiter. That's a little closer to historical interpretations than pure prophesy.

Prophesy is still a varied topic, and I don't believe the Church has taken a definitive stance on prophesies like Revelations as of yet (or to my knowledge).

Sure, some of it was easy to see that it didn't fit, but weren't some books of Genesis left out? Not a biblical scholar, so I may be off about this, but weren't some of the books of Moses left out?

Dunno, would have to look it up to be sure (also not a biblical scholar).

As well as the gospels of Judas and Mary Magdalene (the authenticity of those books is unknown to me).

I believe the authenticity is still being determined (at least to my knowledge).

I mean, when you include some books of certain people, but don't include other books by that same person, it strikes me as a bit odd.

That assumes that only one author wrote. There might have been dozens of authors. The gospel of Isaiah for example, even though is one big "book", has 3 distinct writing styles, suggesting 3 authors. The question arises of whether there were 3 Isaiahs writing, or whether people just mashed the 3 different works together under one book. It's the Question that always arises when oral tradition finally gets into recorded tradition.

We have the same problem with Homer and "his" works......

And not that I'm any firm believer in the Dan Brown theory or anything, but it would seem to me that the exclusion of the gospel of Mary Magdalene was political in nature.

Could've been. I'm gonna look this one up, cause I'm claiming ignorance on what it was, who wrote it, and when and why it was excluded.

And it also seems like this council was created, not so much to choose what was real scripture and what wasn't (though that was part of it) but to reach a compromise that would mollify all these warring factions of christianity. And when you choose scripture based on politics, that smacks of iffy-ness to me.

Constantine called the council in order to consolidate his authority as head of the religion. He wanted to put the Roman state as the prime authority on the subject. And people were actually killing each other over these interpretations as well, so civil stability was another motivation to have 1 defined Bible and theory of the Holy Trinity.

In fact.....I don't even think we're discussing the right Council here......my memory is fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure the Canon of today with 27 books was created much later.....
All I'm remembering about Nicaea 1 was the Holy Trinity debate.....

History does the same, we have a "single" Grand Narrative, with everything outside being considered just that: Outside. (Holocaust deniers aren't considered "history" for a reason).

Yeah, but there's a difference between history and prophesy. Ask three people what happened at 9/11 and you'll get relatively similar answers. Ask three people to prophesize the second coming and your answers are going to be a bit different, ya get what I'm saying? How does anyone without prophetic knowledge themselves, know what is real prophesy and what is pretend?

Ask any law student about witness testimony and they'll say it's horribly unreliable. Ask any psychologist about witness testimony and they'll say similar.

At the most immediate and simple level, the answers will be similar. But as soon as you start adding details to your questions, you'll come to 3 VASTLY different stories.....

Ever remember playing "Telephone" as a kid? Where one person would whisper something, and it was passed around the room until the last person, who said the phrase out loud. The sentence at the start and end of the game were usually completely different, and that's just over a span of 20 seconds. We're talking 2000 years.

And see above for the prophetic part.

It's not just Roman Catholicism, either... that version of the bible is pretty much used for all of christianity. Rather a powerful effect those 300 scholors had on the history of the religion. As for myself, I'm one of those who would be most interested in reading the rest of the gospels and seeing what they said before making up my mind.

You'd be amazed. There are ony 4 people who have been credited with the making of Democracy. Solon, Cleisthenes, Ephialtes, and Pericles......now think of what 300 scholars can accomplish.......

I'm sure a vast majority of people would like to see everything. But we don't know what "everything" is! Shit, I know I'd be happy just if I could find a book that told me exactly how hoplite combat actually worked!!

granted, my mind is already made up, but I'd still want to know sheerly for curiosity's sake.

So would any historian, theologist, anthropologist, and related scholar........
But we work with what we have....ç'est la vie......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_canon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Christian ity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#The_canoni zation_of_the_Bible

I'm using Wiki for the dates and names mostly, as well as for facts of "common knowledge" (something everyone and their mother would know, and doesn't require a Ph.D).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of _Nicaea

Sounds like we're talking of the wrong Council, and Trent is the one we want. In any case, the Canon has changed widely and frequently, at least up to Trent, showing that a multitude of bishops and Popes shared your concern.

I'm gonna claim ignorance on the topic though, since it's outside of my "comfort zone" and studies....

At 2/14/07 12:35 PM, Imperator wrote: Dunno, would have to look it up to be sure (also not a biblical scholar).

No idea if it's actually true... don't even remember where I heard it. Might have been a part of my last religion class (three years ago >_>), and our discussion of the Council of Trent (yes, that's the one I was thinking of... sorry for the misunderstanding)... or it may have been a passing comment from a buddy of mine, I don't know.

Could've been. I'm gonna look this one up, cause I'm claiming ignorance on what it was, who wrote it, and when and why it was excluded.

Again, this might be from my religion class, or I could be projecting my recollection of The DaVinci Code... I'm not sure. Something about one in a series of moves to shift away from a more matriarchal system... or something... bah, it's so fuzzy it barely qualifies as a point of debate.

Constantine called the council in order to consolidate his authority as head of the religion. He wanted to put the Roman state as the prime authority on the subject. And people were actually killing each other over these interpretations as well, so civil stability was another motivation to have 1 defined Bible and theory of the Holy Trinity.

Exactly. Now including stuff for the mollification of various sects is all well and good... it's when they start leaving stuff out that I get curious, y'know what I mean?

At the most immediate and simple level, the answers will be similar. But as soon as you start adding details to your questions, you'll come to 3 VASTLY different stories.....

Eh, fair enough. Regardless, where our history may be broad, it is mostly accurate due to the physical evidence we have. Alternate "conspiracy" theories are usually built around the evidence we DON'T have, and are thus less viable, or even downright preposterous. *coughshohabiband9/11cough* It's when you ask scholars to decide which texts are divinely inspired and which are not (putting aside the gospels for the moment) that it gets tricky. I mean, how could they realistically be able to tell the diference unless they themselves were divinely inspired. Then, shit, shouldn't they get their own book? >_>

You'd be amazed. There are ony 4 people who have been credited with the making of Democracy. Solon, Cleisthenes, Ephialtes, and Pericles......now think of what 300 scholars can accomplish.......

Comittees are fantastically adept at deciding nothing. the more people you have in on a decision, the less gets decided. Take 300 scolars and you'll get 300 different points of view... and once you whittle it down to the essentials, you generally end up with the most middling of all possible outcomes (as a perfect example, see any bill in the House of Representatives...).

I'm sure a vast majority of people would like to see everything. But we don't know what "everything" is! Shit, I know I'd be happy just if I could find a book that told me exactly how hoplite combat actually worked!!

Thanks to Trent, some of those texts are disgustingly hard to find... some others are probably lost for good. And I doubt the Church would be too happy with the widespread knowledge of "alternate" books of the bible... so that may also be a factor. I dare say that if they can cover up molestation so well for so long, that they could easily get away with something far easier to hide. (not cheap-shotting here, just giving an example)

So would any historian, theologist, anthropologist, and related scholar........
But we work with what we have....ç'est la vie......

sigh... true dat.

lol, Raverial, even his name is religious.

At 2/12/07 07:53 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/12/07 07:48 PM, deadjimm wrote:

now now now,

how can you PROVE evolution?

They haven't and never will, but they think they have. Just let them, it's almost entertaining to watch them think that they're more intelligent than creationists or religious people because of their oh so unproven "theories".

Now now, there's no need. You're foolish if you don't believe in evolution. You're more foolish if you think evolution contradicts religion.

The bible specifically says that life was created in 6 days. Wait a minute, didn't you say that you had an MA in theology? Didn't you say that you were studying to become a scholar?! PAHAHA! Shows how much of a lying Catholic sack of shit you really are. Go ahead and call me a fundamentalist again, but you know it's true.

you say that it has been proven but it has not.

It's about as sound a theory as gravity, so if you don't believe one, I suggest you not believe the other either......

We believe in gravity because it's right in front of our face. If I wacked you in the face with a baseball bat until you were unconscious and you fell flat on the ground, I would see an example of gravity. But I still to this day have never seen an example of evolution OR the big bang for that matter. No physical processes have been shown that explain how evolution or the big bang occured.

if evolution is fact then why is it still the "theory of evolution."

Because you're too young to understand the scientific community's interpretation of the word "theory".

Two dictionary definitions of the word theory, one of which is derived from Mr. Webster himself.

1.) contemplation or speculation.
2.) guess or conjecture.

And for your information every time that science has ever challenged scripture, it is the science that changes, not the scripture.

Ironically enough, based on my limited experience, I've found this to be the case as well......wonder why that is?

Because people will relentlessly fail to prove the Bible wrong or even discredit it in the slightest manner with their bullshit "theories". And the Bible predicts that as well :)

At 2/15/07 03:10 PM, Dre-Man wrote: The bible specifically says that life was created in 6 days. Wait a minute, didn't you say that you had an MA in theology? Didn't you say that you were studying to become a scholar?!.

anyone can read a boo, is God limited to a book?

book*

At 2/15/07 03:19 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/15/07 03:10 PM, Dre-Man wrote: The bible specifically says that life was created in 6 days. Wait a minute, didn't you say that you had an MA in theology? Didn't you say that you were studying to become a scholar?!.

anyone can read a boo, is God limited to a book?

Sure, anyone can believe in whatever God they want and worship him however they want, but Imperator repeatedly claims that he is a devout and educated Catholic with an MA in theology and also claims that he is currently studying to become a Scholar. Yet he appears to have absolutely no knowledge of the Bible by his complete and total lack of observation of the six day creation story in the book of Genesis.

He can call me a fundamentalist all he wants for seeing 6 days as 6 days, regardless of whatever time differences and translation difficulties there could have been in the process of deciphering the book of Genesis, but when I see the Bible saying that life was created in 6 days, I believe it. Call me dogmatic, I really don't give a crap.

At 2/15/07 03:10 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/12/07 07:53 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/12/07 07:48 PM, deadjimm wrote:

now now now,

how can you PROVE evolution?

They haven't and never will, but they think they have. Just let them, it's almost entertaining to watch them think that they're more intelligent than creationists or religious people because of their oh so unproven "theories".

Almost entertaining? No, it's actually very sad that people that spout "theory theory!!" don't understand the very basis of science, nor what theory and proof encompass. There are intelligent creationists out there, but it aren't the ones that shout "It's not proven!!".

Now now, there's no need. You're foolish if you don't believe in evolution. You're more foolish if you think evolution contradicts religion.

The bible specifically says that life was created in 6 days. Wait a minute, didn't you say that you had an MA in theology? Didn't you say that you were studying to become a scholar?! PAHAHA! Shows how much of a lying Catholic sack of shit you really are. Go ahead and call me a fundamentalist again, but you know it's true.

One post he's shouting that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, and the next he does just that. I'm thinking multiple personality disorder...

you say that it has been proven but it has not.

It's about as sound a theory as gravity, so if you don't believe one, I suggest you not believe the other either......

We believe in gravity because it's right in front of our face. If I wacked you in the face with a baseball bat until you were unconscious and you fell flat on the ground, I would see an example of gravity. But I still to this day have never seen an example of evolution OR the big bang for that matter. No physical processes have been shown that explain how evolution or the big bang occured.

It's not an example of gravity. It's an example of "things fall down". It's an example of the FSM pushing everything down to earth because He thinks they belong there. Gravity is "just a theory" that we use to explain "things falling down" without needing to invent a divine being. Deep down in our hearts we all know that gravity is just a bullshit theory and that it's really the FSM that's responsible.

if evolution is fact then why is it still the "theory of evolution."

Because you're too young to understand the scientific community's interpretation of the word "theory".

Two dictionary definitions of the word theory, one of which is derived from Mr. Webster himself.

1.) contemplation or speculation.
2.) guess or conjecture.

And for your information every time that science has ever challenged scripture, it is the science that changes, not the scripture.

Yes, there's only one interpretation for every word. And Imperator specifically said the scientific community's interpretation.

Webster again:
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

And the interpretation and the translation of the scripture changes. Science changes with accumulated knowledge, as does most people's interpretation of the Bible. There will always be dimwits that cling to outdated notions of course, but luckily most of humankind have common sense.

Ironically enough, based on my limited experience, I've found this to be the case as well......wonder why that is?

Because people will relentlessly fail to prove the Bible wrong or even discredit it in the slightest manner with their bullshit "theories". And the Bible predicts that as well :)

Hah, your precious Bible is the result of bullshit "theories" too. We don't have an absolute way of translating of ancient Hebrew, "only" theories about its vocabulary and syntaxis. The scripture has been retranslated countless times.

At 2/15/07 03:10 PM, Dre-Man wrote: No physical processes have been shown that explain how evolution or the big bang occured.

lul, wut? The physical process that explain how evolution occurs is genetic mutation. DNA mutates, if the mutation benefits the organism, that organism will reproduce more and as a result its offspring will inherit this beneficial mutation.

As for the big bang, there are a number of hypotheses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Specula tive_physics_beyond_the_Big_Bang

All in all, you can't really make this allegation since no physical processes have been shown that explain how the universe just transcended from almighty Yahweh's very fingers in six days.

Two dictionary definitions of the word theory, one of which is derived from Mr. Webster himself.

1.) contemplation or speculation.
2.) guess or conjecture.

Three cheers for he who doesn't know the difference between a dictionary definition and an analysis!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science

At 2/15/07 03:24 PM, Dre-Man wrote: ...

incorrect translations have nothing to do with my comment.

The bible specifically says that life was created in 6 days. Wait a minute, didn't you say that you had an MA in theology? Didn't you say that you were studying to become a scholar?! PAHAHA! Shows how much of a lying Catholic sack of shit you really are. Go ahead and call me a fundamentalist again, but you know it's true.

Fundamentalist swine!

I never said I had a MA in Theology. And I AM a scholar, just not of the professional variety....(yet)....

He can call me a fundamentalist all he wants for seeing 6 days as 6 days, regardless of whatever time differences and translation difficulties there could have been in the process of deciphering the book of Genesis, but when I see the Bible saying that life was created in 6 days, I believe it. Call me dogmatic, I really don't give a crap.

You DO realize a day in some cultures aren't defined by 24 hours......
Shit, we have a Jewish calender, a Gregorian calender, and a Chinese calender. Which one's right?

Speaking of, Happy Chinese New Year!

Furthermore, the mark of a Fundamentalist is believing a Literal interpretation of the bible.....

So I guess even me ribbing you wasn't far off from the truth......

One post he's shouting that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, and the next he does just that. I'm thinking multiple personality disorder...

Togu:
I'm thinking low IQ.

But I still to this day have never seen an example of evolution OR the big bang for that matter. No physical processes have been shown that explain how evolution or the big bang occured.

Consequently Dre-Man, I've never seen any physical processes that have shown or explained God's presence. It's a two way street.

Because people will relentlessly fail to prove the Bible wrong or even discredit it in the slightest manner with their bullshit "theories". And the Bible predicts that as well :)

bullshit "theories" led to every Church Council known to date, including Nicaea, Trent, and Vatican II.

Christ, WHY did people have to translate the Bible into English so idiots like Dre can ruin it? FUCK, I'm wishing it were still only sold in Latin right now.....

Oh BTW Dre-Man:

On the matter of "WORSHIPPING Saints":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_o f_Nicaea

"As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent adoration, not, however, the veritable worship which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone — for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever adores the image adores in it the reality of what is there represented."

(my emphasis). There's your PROOF against your "bullshit" theories on Catholic Saint worship. You may now slit your wrists....I suggest both down the street and across the road methods.....