Religion thread Zaku DL vs Ben Kenobi

[Guynemer]

Irregardless is a word.

Yes, but it shouldn't be. It was accepted as a sop to all the ignorant mother****ers who use that atrocity.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sure it is quite effective in certain circles to twist other peoples' words, but I never mentioned killing babies (personally I'm against abortion, but not being female I consider it none of my business).

So you are against child support too? Just sayin'. Takes two to tango unless your baby mama is the BVM.

As I said, condemning contraception - which is quite something else from abortion - is close to criminal, considering today's crowded Earth and sexually transmitted diseases.

There's this thing called abstinence. If you wait until marriage and then get it on, you don't have to worry bout STDs.

As for population control, why not just abort all the unwanted babies? Problem solved. Why is it wrong to use abortion as the ultimate fertility control?

I also note that while the Church has accepted evolution as a valid scientific theory, you seem to have missed this belated acceptance of scientific development.

What can I say? The church preaches that so long as the big guy in the sky is the man behind the curtain, they are down with evolution. Me, I'd rather wait for the sequels.

I'd say that religions in general only accept science and technology insofar as it doesn't collide with official religious doctrine - which in itself, by the way, is not particular helpful to scientific development in the first place.

Well man, you've almost got it. There's a reason homeboy doesn't flaunt all he's got. It ain't gonna help you if you get jacked. Some of this stuff is bad news, it's not that they are down on technology, just they want to stay out of the nasty stuff.

Given the official church record as regards dissenting opinion I'm surprised to find anyone advocating the idea that religious instutions promote scientific development at all

You gotta get out of that cave you been livin' and get down wit' it.

- which, again, is something different from accepting such developments. (I've also yet to learn about churches propagating off-planet colonization. The moon won't be available for human colonization for decades to come - if not longer -, and populating the moon will only further drain natural resources here.)

Church ain't like a book yo, where everything's listed. Lotta stuff they leave up to you. This is one.

How does that relate to the senseless atrocities committed en route (against fellow Christians, but of a different persuasion) and in the Holy Land? En passant the various Crusades essentially destroyed Byzantium - a bastion of Christendom in the Near East, which had been calling for aid in the first place.

Yeah, that was a real bad deal, but if you look at the facts, things come into clear. The 4th crusade was in a real bind when this righteous homie bails their ass out and promises them bling. But they gotta topple the castle for they can get any. So they get there, but the righteous dude bails on the bling, and gets his ass capped. Turns out the not-so righteous dude was one of the Byz on the outs, and the Crusaders were his unsuspecting posse for a failed coup. Bad news all 'round.

I'd say centuries of anti-Jewish propaganda had done plenty of preparation for the spread of antiSemitism in Europe. Even today there are those that claim that 'the Jews' killed Jesus, based on an inserted phrase in the New Testament.

Man, that's lame ****. Nobody's down wi' that no more. I dunno who you been rollin' with that, but it ain't the truth.

[Lorizael]

Irregardless is a word. Look it up.

Only for stupid people.

[Boris Godunov]

That is true, but until it is observed, it is not out of the realm of theory.

It's been observed.

And "theory" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Interesting point. Say that someone observed men playing hockey. Would people assume that a natural talent evolved in response to playing hockey, or would they conclude that there were pre-existing natural talents that coincidentally happened to also be helpful when playing hockey? Nylon eating bacteria are the latter.

This is one of your more retarded arguments.

[Ben Kenobi]

Great. Cite please?

Is calling an argument 'stupid', the same as refuting it?

If so your counter-argument is double retarded. So there.

[Boris Godunov]

Why should I bother? You won't be convinced by anything, because you're incapable of being convinced by it. The problem is that you approach science ass-backwards--you only accept that which validates your preconceived religious notions, and come up with retarded rejections like you're nylon bug statement, which only show how laughably bad your knowledge of science is. You've shown time and time again that you're impervious to reason, on any issue.

I'm just here to make sure the bull**** you spout doesn't go unchallenged.

Although I would like to hear how you are smarter than all those scientists--all of which who have taken more science courses than *you*--when it comes to speciation, which is something that Dobzhansky recorded in the 1960s, amongst oodles of examples. Since you base qualifications to speak about science on how many classes one has taken, shouldn't you shut the hell up when biologists tell you what's what?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why should I bother? You won't be convinced by anything, because you're incapable of being convinced by it.

Uh I was a Darwinist not all that long ago.

The problem is that you approach science ass-backwards--you only accept that which validates your preconceived religious notions

I have a problem when people who think they understand lecture me on science. I'm perfectly willing to consider scientific evidence. What you've offered here, is a complete waste of time.

I was a Darwinist first, and I left because things in Darwinism didn't hold together.

retarded rejections like you're nylon bug statement

What's wrong with the argument. Are you suggesting that the ability to digest nylon isn't related to the ability to digest other things? The argument is perfectly valid. We cannot conclude that just because animals can digest synthetic materials, that the animals evolved to eat them. It could also be that the animals already had the ability to digest nylon, but never exercised it until Nylon was introduced to their environment.

I'm just here to make sure the bull**** you spout doesn't go unchallenged.

Uh, right. Your arguments are triple-retarded. Take that.

Although I would like to hear how you are smarter than all those scientists--all of which who have taken more science courses than *you*--when it comes to speciation, which is something that Dobzhansky recorded in the 1960s, amongst oodles of examples.

Ok, glad we got that out of the way. If we are dealing with authorities, you'll be perfectly happy if I quote Darwinists? You don't think I've read these scientists who are wiser than either of us.

Since you base qualifications to speak about science on how many classes one has taken, shouldn't you shut the hell up when biologists tell you what's what?

So does that mean that scientists obey Darwin like a religion? It's a theory. If it works, great. All theories have rough edges, that's the whole point of them. Questioning Darwinism is a essential part of science.

[DaShi]

If you can't prove that god exists, how can you prove that evolution doesn't?

[Ben Kenobi]

Evolution claims to be an empirical theory.

God just isn't accessible through empirical means.

[DaShi]

Oh good. Prove that evolution doesn't exist.

[DaShi]

Or do you just prefer to believe something that some stone age pot head probably thought would make a good punchline?

[Ben Kenobi]

Catholicism dates to the neolithic? That's cool.

Always glad to learn new things.

[DaShi]

Ah, so your problem is that you are gullible. Make sense.

[fed1943]

What is the problem?
To me evolution just shows the infinite Knowledge of the Creator.

[JEELEN]

Hm. Some obvious misinterpretations here:

- evolution theory does not express anything on creation - which seems to be a common misconception among creationists -, meaning you can't conclude anything regarding God from it;

- Darwinism isn't the same as evolution (while Darwinists may be wrong, that does not imply there's somethng wrong with evoluton theory);

- also, religion (any religion) does not have any bearing on evolution theory - nor vice versa (the two are in different categories altogether, regardless of the fact that both represent some view upon reality - world view, if you will).

That apart, the discussion (if one can call it that) seems to drift somewhat off-topic - even for an off topic thread.