It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pope says evolution doesn't mean there's no God

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: chuck258


And before you start, I am an Atheist, but I want science and religion to peacefully coexist, throughout thought such as the pope has presented here, you want religion to drop dead and disappear.

You misunderstand. Religion is man made. Spirituality is different. Both science and religion catch up with the truth and move the goalposts.

I don't disbelieve in the spirit world I believe men in the world lie to us about that. Just as surely as they lie about everything else. They accomplish that through organized religion. That you are an atheist proves their ploy is working.

I don't believe in religion or science. By science I assume you mean the "theories" of Evolution, no god and Big Bangs?




posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Please don't equate religion and science like that. They aren't on equal footing, not by a long shot. Science doesn't move goalposts, it follows evidence and experimental data. Religion is notorious for moving goalposts while sticking with demonstrably false claims regardless of evidence.

There is no theory of "no god". Science doesn't have anything to say about god, because there is no objective evidence of its existence. Scientific theory is based on fact. Disbelief in god isn't a scientific viewpoint, it's merely the logical default. There's a big difference.


The Universe is the same as far as we can see. Stretch out your hand as far as it can go, there is no "wall" out there, which means the Universe goes on forever, which means it has always been there.


Stretching out your hand proves that the universe is infinite? No wonder you have trouble believing science. There is a limit to how much we can actually see because of the speed of light and the expansion of the universe. Just because we can't see a wall, doesn't mean there isn't a beginning or end of the universe. That's a question that even the best physicists cannot yet answer.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


Religion is notorious for moving goalposts while sticking with demonstrably false claims regardless of evidence.

You just described the Sciences, perfectly.

The theories of Evolution, the Big Bang and Life are just that, theories. Which "scientists", i.e., high priests firmly believe in.

But about moving goal posts, feel free to do that with every new scientific discovery. How do you think the Periodic Chart developed (is developing to this day)?



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


Just because we can't see a wall, doesn't mean there isn't a beginning or end of the universe. That's a question that even the best physicists cannot yet answer.

If you can't see the wall how do you know its there? If there is what s outside it? More Universe, I'll bet.

The "end" is in your mind.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It's always hilarious to see the profoundly ignorant "it's only a theory!" gambit in the wild, all the while trying to bash a methodology the poster clearly doesn't understand.

Bonus points for: "You changed your position in light of new evidence. That's moving the goalposts!" failure.

Moving the goalposts is moving your argument into a new unfalsifiable position when it is refuted. Example: creationists.




posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
, but then if it happened roughly 800 years ago then I'm not sure exactly how relevant it would be.


Is this still relevant or too off-topic since the killing was done for another reason:



For me it's relevant concerning what the Pope says about evolution as well. So for me it's on-topic, especially considering the ancient old methods of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy to adopt any philosophy, ritual, or belief that is or has become popular, especially when these philosophies could more easily be connected to or followed up by another philosophy that allows the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and their political friends to get away with butchering anyone they want (usually those who are in their way). The Roman Catholic interpretation of 'survival of the fittest' and evolution, Darwinism and social Darwinism (don't get distracted with the focus on occultists, as if they're the important and only ones to consider, I don't expect this documantary to say anything too negative about the entire Roman Catholic Hierarchy if it even mentions Roman Catholics at all in the other parts which I don't remember exactly):


edit on 30-10-2014 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-10-2014 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


It's always hilarious to see the profoundly ignorant "it's only a theory!" gambit in the wild, all the while trying to bash a methodology the poster clearly doesn't understand.

Don't lump me with the religious folk they are as misguided as the Scientists as to the origin of life. Both sides have theories and can't point to the smoking gun. The argument between them is whats "hilarious" to me.


Moving the goalposts is moving your argument into a new unfalsifiable position when it is refuted. Example: creationists.

I don't know who "engineered" life any more than you do. I do hold that intelligent design is behind it, though. Unless you "believe" life in the form of an egg, seed, the womb and cell division just sort of "happened in an electric mud puddle". Hey thats kind of like creation theory isn't it?

Both miss the mark…

but feel free to cast me into any "scientific category" you wish. If you knew my content here you would "realize" I am not on either "side". Both are arrogant.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

There is no scientific theory for religious creation beliefs. You're committing the false equivalence fallacy here.

The category I put you in is filed under "S" for "scientifically illiterate", as your posts have adequately demonstrated.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: uncommitted
, but then if it happened roughly 800 years ago then I'm not sure exactly how relevant it would be.


Is this still relevant or too off-topic since the killing was done for another reason:



That's an interesting video, not sure about the balance though.

But for me, it is off topic. The OP was that the Pope has said that he believes belief in God is not inconsistent with belief in evolution. The '800 years' comment I made was to any evidence that anyone had been sentenced to death and executed for stating the Earth was not the centre of the universe.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
There is a huge amount of the universe that is completely unseen by us. We don't know how big the universe actually is because our view is limited due to our location.

Look it up, it's a pretty well known fact.

Also, even if we could see everything, that doesn't prove or disprove how many cycles the universe has gone through.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

G.B. Shaw is also an interesting Darwinist philosopher:



It's really nothing new for the Roman Catholic Hierarchy to have no issues with evolutionary philosophies, either they themselves will use them for their own sinister purpose or they have their political allies do it (they're very good at covering all their bases and welcoming any philosophy that doesn't expose any of their schemes). Compare these views:





You may also google:

"Eugenics in Austria," Eugenics Review (vol. 26:4), highlighting the moderating influence of Catholicism on eugenic programs (1)

The Roman Catholic connections to social Darwinism and eugenics are much better hidden, like someone else has pointed towards in the comments here, they know their stuff.
edit on 30-10-2014 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
the Inquiry into God seems to have been one of the first questions...the Theory of Evolution is the details required for the inquiry to be rigorous with regard only to biological origins.

comparing and contrasting the two and concluding that Evolution disproves God is the equivalent of saying that the theory of just about anything of the many other areas of scientific inquiry disproves God.

I'm all about the Top Down view of reality...strict Evolutionists are all about Bottoms Up.



edit on 30-10-2014 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


The category I put you in is filed under "S" for "scientifically illiterate", as your posts have adequately demonstrated.

Like I said, both are arrogant, you just demonstrated that by "categorizing " people. Uncomforting to not have categorized everything isn't it?

Why for Gods sake, you might have to admit you don't know either…



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria


Also, even if we could see everything, that doesn't prove or disprove how many cycles the universe has gone through.

More presumptive. And I'm Mickey Mouse, wait Donald Duck… prove I'm not.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Creationism hasn't been a dogmatic issue in the Catholic church for a very long time.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

So when you do it it's ok but when someone else does it and it's a different opinion than your it's not ok, typical. *roll eyes*



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Sabiduria


Also, even if we could see everything, that doesn't prove or disprove how many cycles the universe has gone through.

More presumptive. And I'm Mickey Mouse, wait Donald Duck… prove I'm not.


If you say you are Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse. No one is going to argue against you.

You are probably Bright enought to know that Your not any of them. But i Guess its up to you to figure out what you are. Who else would care?



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You literally have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to science. The sad thing is that you seem genuinely convinced that you do. Good old Dunning-Kruger rearing its head again.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
What happens to the Theory of Evolution when in the next few years or less top universities introduce the subjects of Quantum Biology and Quantum Chemistry for degree programs?

is it renamed to Classical Evolution during a book burning?

these debates are almost as if we've learned nothing from the past.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Oddly enough, I responded to this and it didn't seem to go through. Let's try this again.


originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Barcs


Religion is notorious for moving goalposts while sticking with demonstrably false claims regardless of evidence.

You just described the Sciences, perfectly.


Oh really? So you can cite me examples of "the sciences" moving goalposts and following false claims with no respect to the evidence? I'd love to see it. Science doesn't work like that. The big difference between religion and science is that religion is already set in stone and won't modify the faulty idea, even when evidence goes against it, while science modifies the idea whenever new or contradictory evidence is discovered. They are night and day. Equating them is beyond silly. One is faith, one is fact. They are polar opposites.


The theories of Evolution, the Big Bang and Life are just that, theories. Which "scientists", i.e., high priests firmly believe in.


There are MOUNTAINS of evidence in support of evolution and a good amount in favor of the big bang. They are scientific theories and based on fact. Could you please cite me some papers that talk about the "theory of life". I've never heard of such a theory in science. Also, scientific terms are not proper nouns and do not need to be capitalized. I understand you are trying to equate them to religious terms, but that is not the case.


But about moving goal posts, feel free to do that with every new scientific discovery. How do you think the Periodic Chart developed (is developing to this day)?


Now it makes sense. You don't understand what moving the goalposts means. Expanding a theory when new evidence is discovered is not moving the goalposts, it's following the evidence. Moving the goalposts is sticking with the same wrong idea when contradictory evidence emerges, and instead of changing the faulty idea, they change the criteria for the said idea to something that cannot be known.


If you can't see the wall how do you know its there? If there is what s outside it? More Universe, I'll bet.

The "end" is in your mind.


You don't know if it's there and neither do I. Just because we can't see the end, doesn't mean there is no end or that we should assume it's infinite. We are tiny little specs of dust compared to the size of the known universe and that's being generous. There could be hundreds or even billions of other universes out there, but we simply don't have the technology or capability to figure this out yet. Perhaps one day we shall, but using scientific unknowns to support your idea is fallacious reasoning.


Like I said, both are arrogant, you just demonstrated that by "categorizing " people. Uncomforting to not have categorized everything isn't it?


No. Science is not "arrogant." People are arrogant. Science is a method of fact discovery that has been proven reliable by the numerous pieces of functioning technology, knowledge of medicine, and other things that make our lives better. The fact that you are using a product of science (computer or smart phone) to denounce science as religious belief is downright comical. The internet doesn't work because you have faith in it. It works because the concepts have been rigorously tested, and folks figured out how to do it, just like with all science.


More presumptive. And I'm Mickey Mouse, wait Donald Duck… prove I'm not.


Cartoon characters are products of human imagination and creativity. They are not real, therefor I can definitively say that you are not Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck; unless of course you legally changed your name to one of those.

Science doesn't care about what you can't prove wrong. It cares about what you CAN prove. That's how burden of proof works. If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on YOU to back it up, not the other person to prove it wrong. Can you prove that you ARE Mickey Mouse? Didn't think so.

edit on 30-10-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join