farmerman wrote:set, is your sig line a true and honest copy?
Setanta wrote:the bible . . . we know from new data that it was never changed, only if the apostles wrote it diffrently then they were supposed to, but we know that didnt happen beacue god made them inflamible.
-- member name withheld for decency's sake
Gotta love those "inflamible" apostles
Setanta wrote:Yeah, Hey-Zeus, that's an actual quote . . . the source is a new member who shows all the signs of being an ultramontane catholic of the Hutton Gibson type--you know, Second Vatican Council was a plot by the Jews, etc. . . .
Almost makes ya thankful for Spendi and George.
You know, ya can't make **** like that up . . . truth is always stranger than fiction . . . just take Spendi . . . please . . .
George's politeness,whilst laudable,falls short of doing justice to the situation herein.
The last two posts are a mish-mash of the sort of thing one hears from ladies of the lower middle-class who have diplomas and what not in social studies type "disciplines" and have had the floor wiped with them in debate and are tempermentally unable to face up to it.
The first one is a "I'm going to say my piece and then I'm off" type of thing.With,of course,a well rehearsed,trite and snidey accompanying snort to immediately precede the slam of the door.One finds such things amusing when deployed by ladies of the type I mentioned but when grown men resort to such tactics one does wonder a little about the internalising of them generally.This is especially so as it isn't the first time such a feminine trick has been used.
The only thing missing,which I thought was de rigueur in these circumstances,was the charge that the other is indulging in a "cry for help" which is a Freudian strategy long discredited and justly so.Happily this oversight was remedied a little later causing no small jollity.
There isn't the slightest influence of "Abrahamic centricism",whatever that is and flashy though it sounds in some quarters,in the position I take although I do understand the hysterical need to offer assertions to the contrary.
Some of us do know the score and will not be deflected by fatuously selected quotes gleaned from a putative reading of history however fancy they might sound to tabloid readers and game show viewers.Biotech industries in cahoots with medical "science" are in collision with human reproduction ethics and there are billions at stake.
ID and such like are mere external "here today" manifestations in this battle.If opponents of ID are to be non beneficiaries in this clash they are simple dupes.
ID is simply the hot spot and whatever anyone thinks about the details of it it is on the side of resistance to experiments on human embryos and will be supported by all who share that resistance.
To question the right of people to oppose such experiments cannot be justified out of contempt for their methods even when the contempt is reasonable.
Because scientists can do certain experiments does not mean they should do them against the wishes of large sections of the population and,indeed,many scientists themselves.Europe is against experiments on human embryos and is thus shown to be willing to forego the materialistic potential said to accrue from them or possibly doesn't wish to inflict the negative possibilities on its populations.
Science,according to many statements on this thread,takes no account of human behaviour or of human utility.If it did it would become subjective.Thus it is necessary for human groups to put a check on its activities until they can be justified within the group.If ID is the vanguard of this check in the US it has my support irrespective of the methods it employs and I firmly believe that if opponents of ID had any idea of how fast an unrestricted science can outdistance the rest of the population which provides its funds they might pause for thought if not exactly change their tune;a process which is off the radar of fixed and very limited minds.
The tenor of the two posts referred to is more fitting to a street corner than to a debate about a serious issue.
In the first thousand years of the current era, the cult of christianity required over three centuries just to be officially recognized and tolerated. There after, it took them the rest of the millennium to reach all parts of Europe, amid a welter of blood as tribal chieftains such as the Merovingians and Carolignians recognized the political value of allying with the church for an excuse to slaughter "pagans," such as the Saxons whom Charlemagne campaigned against for every year of more than forty years. The feudal relationship of warrior client and tribal chieftain which the Frankish confederation institutionalized and spread throughout Europe existed before and had no reference to christianity. The evidence is very good that the church annoyed Charlemagne who wanted no part of being a "holy Roman emperor." A simple comparison of Anselm's biography (he was raised and educated in Charlemagne's court at Aachen) with almost no mention of organized religion, and the hilarious lunacy of Nottker the Stammerer (think Spendi, a thousand years ago) with his flying bishops and churchmen lecturing and correcting the most powerful monarch of the age gives the lie to the substance of Spendi's contentions. The Babenberg and Luxembourg emperors constantly made war on the Pope in their successful effort to prevent the church from asserting spiritual authority over temporal rulers. The Norge tribal chieftains of Norway sailed off to Iceland and Greenland to escape the impositions of a king whose authority they were unwilling to recognize and the christian sycophants who surrounded him and gave an illusion of authority to his power grab. Henry II instigated the murder of Thomas a Becket to assure the authority of the crown over the mitre. No amount of reference to penances done by temporal rulers change the reality of the political situation. Societies were based upon temporal relationships, military, political and commercial, without reference to theology or purported ecclesiastic authority.
In the Wars of the Reformation, Catholic France saw their main chance in warring against Catholic Spain. Although it required more than a century, the victory at Rocroi in 1643 assured that France would secure its ends in securing that portion of the Spanish Netherlands which now constitute the north of France, and in indirectly supporting the rebellion of the Protestant Dutch agains their Catholic Spanish masters. In the Thirty Years War, Richelieu saw France's best interests in supporting Protestant Sweden against Catholic Austria with direct military operations by Turenne in the Rhineland and large, continuous subsidies in gold to Sweden. Henry Tudor saw his best interests in abandoning Catholicism to establish a church of his own, under the temporal authority of the crown.
Spendius peddles a fairy tale consonant with his prejudices cobbled together from ill-remembered passages he read and misunderstood decades ago, and sheer ignorance. He wants to assert that religious establishment had such a crucial contribution to society for the simple reason that he has taken contrarian positions since he visited this thread like a recurring plague. George adds his feeble historical ignorance because it is consonant with his religious prejudices. Neither has offered a shred of evidence for the preposterous contention that organized religion is necessary to the foundation of stable societies.
spendiQuote:
Science,according to many statements on this thread,takes no account of human behaviour or of human utility.If it did it would become subjective.Thus it is necessary for human groups to put a check on its activities until they can be justified within the group.If ID is the vanguard of this check in the US it has my support irrespective of the methods it employs and I firmly believe that if opponents of ID had any idea of how fast an unrestricted science can outdistance the rest of the population which provides its funds they might pause for thought if not exactly change their tune;a process which is off the radar of fixed and very limited minds.
How you arrive at your conclusions is, to me, always fascinating. You start with a specific grain with some truth and then blow it out into a universal piece of bullshit.
If you better understood the history of the movements of Creationism and ID in the US, youd see that what you pose as truth is only 180 off the mark. ID has no basis in fact and credibility by which to be the "moral rudder" of science or less as a spokesmodel for society. Most sciences think it a grand joke . Its a feeble attempt to recover lost territory that the US SUpreme Court took from the Creationist Lobby, which , still active, is fleecing little old ladies and rich folks like the A bramsons to donate money
to what, quote mining? building museums with no exhibits? realigning laws of science?
Maybe your satisfied living in thatch roof huts and dying at 35, Im not.
Quote:. The evidence is very good that the
Wow!No wonder scientifics are confused.
The rest of Setanta's last post has no sense of humanity.It is positing things,whatever they are is beyond me,on a bunch of labels.
Just explain the Gothic spire and the Magian dome or the flat 2D icons of all early depictions and the perspective paintings of,say,Rembrandt.Why didn't Greeks get to infinity dynamics.What happened about AD 1000 in northern Europe.Why did it happen amidst forests and under very variable weather and didn't happen in deserts or semi deserts with little weather variations.
Why is aetheism,scepticism and stoicism linked with end times and cultural exhaustion?
What was the role of monasticism in our culture's springtime?
Quote:If you better understood the history of the movements of Creationism and ID in the US, youd see that what you pose as truth is only 180 off the mark.
More labels.More toy soldiers.
The US is 280 million people I gather.(I'm surprised to discover today,according to the Sunday Times anyway,that there are 60 million Catholic VOTERS.)
These are all "people".Individuals.Not to be grouped under labels for the convenience of over-simplified theorising.
Quote:ID has no basis in fact and credibility by which to be the "moral rudder" of science or less as a spokesmodel for society.
It has if it wins elections.Do you wish Red and Blue to become more polarised than they are now?Your whole direction balanced on a hanging chad or a one state "fix".At least our two parties are not divided on any emotive issues.
Great post spendi
got as far as
spendius wrote:The last two posts are a mish-mash of the sort of thing one hears from ladies of the lower middle-class...
From the moment I saw your post I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it...
spendi wrote:The tenor of the two posts referred to is more fitting to a street corner than to a debate about a serious issue.
Not much future to be had taking a feather to a gunfight, spendi.
Quote: ... A 2002 resolution by the American Association for the Advancement of Science called I.D. "an interesting philosophical or theological concept," but not one that should be taught in science classes. In fact, the Discovery Institute doesn't call for teaching I.D. in school either, only the "controversy" over Darwinism. But most scientists don't believe there is one. The institute's "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," whose operative sentence reads "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," has been signed by about 350 scientists. (AAAS has 120,000 members.)
Newsweek
Sidebar: An interesting, if lengthy article:
WHO ARE THE CREATION "SCIENTISTS"? (also provides a concise history of the development of the ID-iot proposition)
Quote:Movement hopes to bridge the gap between evolution and creationism
Movement hopes to bridge the gap between evolution and creationism
Saturday, January 21, 2006
By Steve Eighinger
Herald-Whig Staff Writer
More than 10,000 pastors nationwide have signed "The Clergy Letter" of support for Evolution Sunday Feb. 12, a day designed to bring attention to a movement that believes there is a way to bridge the gap between the theory of evolution and creation theology ...
Fascinating that in well over a decade, a few hundred "scientists" have "Signed on" to the ID-iot proposition, while in less than 2 years, over 10,000 (and still counting) clergy have signed on to
The Clergy Letter Project:
Quote:An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible - the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark - convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
Sunday, February 12, 2006, coincident with the 197th anniversary of Darwin's birth, the letter will be read by thousands of pastors to millions of worshipers nation wide.
Lets look at part of that letter again ...
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children ...
The Roman Catholic Church also has "issues" with the ID-iot proposition:
Quote:Vatican gives nod to Darwin, not Design
VATICAN CITY, Jan. 19 (UPI) -- The official Vatican newspaper has published an article praising as "correct" a recent U.S. court decision that intelligent design is not science.
"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, The New York Times reported Thursday.
"But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science," he wrote, calling intelligent design unscientific. "It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious." ...
ID-iocy is as ID-iocy does. If ignorance be bliss, the ID-iot crowd must indeed be a happy lot.
I used to do that on-
"We are gathered here today to join this---"
So I know the feeling.
The foundation of evolutionary theory in the higher animals rests on reproduction and the criteria the female decides upon to send on into destiny judged by her without recourse to extraneous matters.Scent,size,colours,fighting ability and such like are often given as reasons.
How come the Western human female,excluding a small number of celebrities, is denied these natural modes of judgement for economic and political purposes.One would expect on evolution's sound principles,which I wouldn't dream of denying,that a small number of successful men,who have quite sufficient sperm,would be called upon by the ladies to father all the offspring.
As we don't practice this method in general,although I have heard of specific cases to the contrary,how would a pure scientific approach address itself to this obvious and pressing problem.
If the IDers can be accused of bringing The Bible in through the back door why can't ID opponents be accused of bringing eugenics in by the same entrance.Maybe the ID opponents fancy themselves as superior males and are simply laying out a claim to all the ladies,Dr Stranglove style, which they will obviously be able to do when evolutionary science triumphs and religion is a thing of the past. I'm assuming that the ID opponents are actually superior males in the eyes of the ladies because if they are not they will have to accept rejection on sound scientific principles or prove themselves worthy by fighting or distort their science to pull the wool over the ladies' eyes by some sleight of hand which would be totally unscientific.
The eugenics issue has been raised a few times in the last 100 years and has been soundly rubbished.
How has it come about that natural selection,ladies choice,has been ditched in the Christian world in favour of sharing the ladies out reasonably evenly,much to their annoyance as both Lola and Harriet Martineau and many others have made quite plain,and has caused the neat rows of little boxes to sprout up,breeding hutches to an evolutionist of course,and many other linked social phenomena when barracks would be much more efficient to house the 90% of sub-standard males.
Answer-
Because the theologians,over many centuries, worked out how to become the ONLY culture that ever had a chance of lasting and employed a belief system to achieve it which has,hopefully,been done.
I suppose evolutionists,in order to prevent inbreeding,would issue permits and organise mass blood tests until after about 3 generations when they became hopelessly confused and,if everything hadn't gone entirely to the cleaners,ask the theologians to come back and sort it out if any theologians still existed.
The 90%,and I'm being generous there,of reject men would obviously need to be physically restrained in some way to prevent them breaking out and going on the rampage although conscripted prostitutes might solve that for a while again on a permit basis issued for satisfactory production quotas met.
Or have I misread Darwin?
Spendiin order to misread Darwin, you must first read him. Its obvious youve done neither.
Some good posts there timber. I should be working and I stopped to read the links, I guess Cardinal whatsisname got his wrist slapped from "Eggs XVI"
Quote:Spendiin order to misread Darwin, you must first read him. Its obvious youve done neither.
Not another contentless assertion.
Counter the post for goodness sake Man.
.your the only one here that is perfectly capable of having afun argument with himself.
Id hate to have you on a debate team, youd give up your proposition before the debate started.
More blather.
Can't you counter the post or what?
You know, "debating" with Spendi is kinda like knockin' down a cripple and then kickin' 'im . . . not a very satisfying exercise, no matter how ridiculously simple . . .
Set
Setanta wrote:You know, "debating" with Spendi is kinda like knockin' down a cripple and then kickin' 'im . . . not a very satisfying exercise, no matter how ridiculously simple . . .
Now you've gone too far. Quick picking on us crips.
BBB
How do you know?You haven't tried debating yet.
You're just talking to a mirror.
Can't you answer the post either.
Well-I knew you couldn't so I expected all this bombast and pointlessness.It's the only method you know so I assume it works where you are.
I just spotted some more of it on another thread.It was just the same.Pure crap.
Go for the post wimpo.
spendius wrote:Go for the post wimpo.
"Wimpo?" Now you've gone and stepped in it.
BBB
