The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but that's not my choice. I'm for freedom of religion & if someone wants to have a belief about the perpetual virginity of Mary, then that's their business or whatever. Having a "belief in" evolution is like having a "belief in" 1+1=2; if someone wants to do that, then I suppose I have to be consistent if that's something they're doing as a religion and be for freedom of religion - it's their business or whatever to have a "belief in" those things. For me, it's not a "belief in" evolution or 1+1=2; it's a matter of science.

Do you actually know of anyone who has a belief in evolution, as though it's some sort of religious thing, rather than a matter of science?

If not, then this discussion is moot anyways, and may even be a strawman argument.

It's OBVIOUSLY the choice of those who follow that line of thinking...If a leader of a religion like the Pope says he believes in evolution and also the perpetual virginity of Mary, do you think those are rather conflicting, unless of course -- one supersedes the other? Obviously there's a conflict there insofar as the "natural birth process" goes. So that you don't believe it doesn't mean the Pope and millions of Catholics plus more probably don't believe it. Doesn't matter if the two don't mix scientifically according to you. I personally do not believe in the "perpetual virginity of Mary," but some will vociferously defend the belief. There's more, but I'll try to get back to this later. Thanks.

 

[Pogo]

Why is that? If you can't explain, that's ok, I understand. But since you said it, you might want to consider explaining your viewpoint in detail as to how and what scientists found out. Thanks. And have a good evening.

You will understand it as soon as you aquire a basic understanding of thermodynamics, something more complicated than evolution which 3+ years of explanation has not yet dented your lack of understanding. That my basic explanation was not sufficient already indicates that you have even less understanding of it than the idiot who made the original statement. but if you really want to know, get a dictionary and probably at least another science based High School education. Until then, it is over your head as quantum physics is to a five year old.

Thermodynamics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[shunyadragon]

Why is that? If you can't explain, that's ok, I understand. But since you said it, you might want to consider explaining your viewpoint in detail as to how and what scientists found out. Thanks. And have a good evening.

I believe he explained it very well. You just need to look up the basic physics of Thermodynamics;

 

[shunyadragon]

Of what? Certainly you do not have KNOWLEDGE of how the so-called first cells multiplied. Only conjecture. Furthermore, there is absolutely no basis of knowledge to rest the idea that finches change/evolve/morph to anything but finches.

Since your intentionally ignorant of science I do not expect you have any KNOWLEDGE of the sciences of evolution or even Methodological Naturalism. You are stuck in ancient mythology over 2,000 years old.

 

[YoursTrue]

You will understand it as soon as you aquire a basic understanding of thermodynamics, something more complicated than evolution which 3+ years of explanation has not yet dented your lack of understanding. That my basic explanation was not sufficient already indicates that you have even less understanding of it than the idiot who made the original statement. but if you really want to know, get a dictionary and probably at least another science based High School education. Until then, it is over your head as quantum physics is to a five year old.

Thermodynamics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh so thermodynamics is more complicated than the theory of evolution...you say...lol ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since your intentionally ignorant of science I do not expect you have any KNOWLEDGE of the sciences of evolution or even Methodological Naturalism. You are stuck in ancient mythology over 2,000 years old.

Since you are stuck on believing everything science says...and what scientists write and declare ... (Have a good evening...)

 

[YoursTrue]

Since your intentionally ignorant of science I do not expect you have any KNOWLEDGE of the sciences of evolution or even Methodological Naturalism. You are stuck in ancient mythology over 2,000 years old.

You and your fellow believers really haven't explained anything. In fact, at this point I'm beginning to think you and your fellow believers do not understand much. Except to repeat what others say. Therefore ... Have a Nice Day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since your intentionally ignorant of science I do not expect you have any KNOWLEDGE of the sciences of evolution or even Methodological Naturalism. You are stuck in ancient mythology over 2,000 years old.

Go back to the first cell and what happened to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go back to the first cell and what happened to it.

Do we need to know what a murderer had for breakfast nineteen and a half years ago to convict that person of murder?

 

[anotherneil]

It's OBVIOUSLY the choice of those who follow that line of thinking...If a leader of a religion like the Pope says he believes in evolution and also the perpetual virginity of Mary, do you think those are rather conflicting

I think I'd use the word "inconsistent", here, rather than "conflicting".

To me the Pope is just a person, like you or me or anyone else; he can think or believe or not believe whatever he wants, just like anyone else.

I come across people who I agree with on some things but disagree with on other things, but as I stated before, I'm for freedom of religion; so if anyone wants to believe something to do with someone from a long time ago never having had their cherry popped because their religious dogma or doctrine tells them that they're required to do so, I'm not going to tell them not to do that.

How does that affect me? It doesn't prevent me from having a job, being able to pay my bills, putting food on my plate, putting a roof over my head, engaging in recreational activities that I enjoy, etc.

If it doesn't affect me, then I'm not going to judge someone for believing something that I don't believe or don't agree with; generally speaking the personal experiences of others are different from mine & because of that, we take different paths on our journey through life, and that can and does lead us to different perceptions, opinions, understandings, findings & conclusions - and we are or should be aware of this. Normally people share their experiences with each other so we can learn things from each other.

On the other hand, when there are some people trying to prevent everyone from learning about something that does or may help deal with something like health problems, because it doesn't fit in with their religious beliefs/dogma/doctrine, such as the theory of evolution, then that can and probably does affect me any everyone else in a negative way; such as when that education and knowledge might be able to lead them to finding a cure for something like cancer.

, unless of course -- one supersedes the other?

I don't know how either one of them can supersede the other; they have nothing to do with each other, as far as I'm aware.

Obviously there's a conflict there insofar as the "natural birth process" goes.

Yes & that's why as someone who isn't religious, I am summarily dismissive about it.

So that you don't believe it doesn't mean the Pope and millions of Catholics plus more probably don't believe it.

I'm not sure what drove you to tell me this - something that I already understand. I would expect or presume that they do believe it, since they're rather insistent that it's true.

Doesn't matter if the two don't mix scientifically according to you.

I'm not able to follow along with your thought process, here, but the only thing I can think of to say about this is this: would it matter if it were according to someone else?

I personally do not believe in the "perpetual virginity of Mary,"

This just shows me that you're being sensible about it.

but some will vociferously defend the belief.

Now I'm not sure if you're contradicting yourself, or if you're just generally saying that you have a desire to support or advocate for freedom of religion, including holding religious beliefs.

There's more, but I'll try to get back to this later. Thanks.

You're welcome!

 

[metis]

The reality is that despite the Pope's declaration that evolution is the way organisms came about on the earth, it is nevertheless within his vocabulary to say as the Pope and dogma the absolute certainty that Mary is the "eternal virgin." That's just one thing.

The Pope and the Church teach what they think is likely correct, but they also accept that they are by no means the final word. IOW, the Church is not the Gestapo.

Secondly, the Pope and the Church do believe all life was ultimately created by God one way or another.

 

[metis]

I'm beginning to think based on your comments that the theory of evolution is about on the same level as the dogma of the eternal virginity of Mary. Among other things.

Not really.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Pope and the Church teach what they think is likely correct, but they also accept that they are by no means the final word. IOW, the Church is not the Gestapo.

I'll say this: According to Catholic Church reasoning, dogma is currently considered infallible. Said to be revealed by the holy spirit. And the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is declared as dogma. Infallible. Now that would seem to be in contrast to the theory of evolution, wouldn't it? I'd certainly like to hear your take on this. Even though the Pope has said that evolution is how life came about. How would you and other Catholics perhaps reason on the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary regarding evolution?

 

[Valjean]

Why is it "just wrong"?

For starters, Earth is not an energetically closed system.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think I'd use the word "inconsistent", here, rather than "conflicting".

Ok. Thanks for help with the vocabulary.

To me the Pope is just a person, like you or me or anyone else; he can think or believe or not believe whatever he wants, just like anyone else.

When the Church (Catholic, of course) claims something is dogma, according to the definition currently, it is infallible. Now I am not a theologian, but I'm figuring for something to be declared infallible it means it cannot be wrong or reversed.

I come across people who I agree with on some things but disagree with on other things, but as I stated before, I'm for freedom of religion; so if anyone wants to believe something to do with someone from a long time ago never having had their cherry popped because their religious dogma or doctrine tells them that they're required to do so, I'm not going to tell them not to do that.

How does that affect me? It doesn't prevent me from having a job, being able to pay my bills, putting food on my plate, putting a roof over my head, engaging in recreational activities that I enjoy, etc.

If it doesn't affect me, then I'm not going to judge someone for believing something that I don't believe or don't agree with; generally speaking the personal experiences of others are different from mine & because of that, we take different paths on our journey through life, and that can and does lead us to different perceptions, opinions, understandings, findings & conclusions - and we are or should be aware of this. Normally people share their experiences with each other so we can learn things from each other.

I, as an inquiring person, do like to know how people think. Not everyone will say, so I particularly respect those who do explain in a decent manner.

 

[YoursTrue]

Now I'm not sure if you're contradicting yourself, or if you're just generally saying that you have a desire to support or advocate for freedom of religion, including holding religious beliefs.

I have my opinions on certain things, and in the long run or short run, depending on how a person sees it, I believe God sees each one of us and understands how and why we think and feel the way we do. That means to me that God makes the final decision.

 

[metis]

I'll say this: According to Catholic Church reasoning, dogma is currently considered infallible.

Absolutely false, as that is believed by the Church to only happen when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, and that has only happened twice in the 2000 years of Church history. Even then, how a congregant deals with this is up to them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Absolutely false, as that is believed by the Church to only happen when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, and that has only happened twice in the 2000 years of Church history. Even then, how a congregant deals with this is up to them.

At any rate, you believe the entire Bible is myth. And I'm pretty sure you relegate that belief to the account of Mary and her getting pregnant and moreso, staying a virgin throughout her life. Yes, it's Catholic dogma. Interesting. Of course, you cast that aside by saying the Bible is mythical anyway. And it's possible Spinoza and Einstein believed that way, too, although I doubt they believed in their different ways anything the Catholic Church teaches. Somehow I don't think the Pope in concert with the Roman Catholic Church would agree with the idea that the entire Bible is mythical but I haven't had the opportunity to ask him. However, looking up more about the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary," I read this: "In the modern usage, a dogma is a truth that must be believed with divine and catholic faith. By contrast, “heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and catholic faith” (Code of Canon Law, can. 751)." 'must be believed...' (Code of Canon Law 751-)

Dogma

In contemporary Catholic theology, a dogma is a truth that has been infallibly defined by the Church’s Magisterium to be divinely revealed. However, the term ha...

www.catholic.com

If you believe it's not dogma, or that dogma is considered infallible by the RCC, thank you for honestly declaring your belief that you (1) believe the entire Bible is mythical, and if I understand you correctly, (2) the RCC does not necessarily believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as an infallible dogma.

 

[metis]

At any rate, you believe the entire Bible is myth. And I'm pretty sure you relegate that belief to the account of Mary and her getting pregnant and moreso, staying a virgin throughout her life. Yes, it's Catholic dogma. Interesting. Of course, you cast that aside by saying the Bible is mythical anyway. And it's possible Spinoza and Einstein believed that way, too, although I doubt they believed in their different ways anything the Catholic Church teaches. Somehow I don't think the Pope in concert with the Roman Catholic Church would agree with the idea that the entire Bible is mythical but I haven't had the opportunity to ask him. However, looking up more about the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary," I read this: "In the modern usage, a dogma is a truth that must be believed with divine and catholic faith. By contrast, “heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and catholic faith” (Code of Canon Law, can. 751)." 'must be believed...' (Code of Canon Law 751-)

Dogma

In contemporary Catholic theology, a dogma is a truth that has been infallibly defined by the Church’s Magisterium to be divinely revealed. However, the term ha...

www.catholic.com

If you believe it's not dogma, or that dogma is considered infallible by the RCC, thank you for honestly declaring your belief that you (1) believe the entire Bible is mythical, and if I understand you correctly, (2) the RCC does not necessarily believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as an infallible dogma.

I'm sick & tired of you twisting my words and having me saying things I did not say nor imply. How is that moral in any way? How is that being Christian?

Believe what you want, fabricate all the stories you want, but I'm done.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm sick & tired of you twisting my words and having me saying things I did not say nor imply. How is that moral in any way? How is that being Christian?

Believe what you want, fabricate all the stories you want, but I'm done.

ok -- I'm just going by what I read about Catholic dogma, what it means and now I'm learning more about Cardinal Ratzinger. Very interesting. Sorry you're sick and tired but I don't know where I've twisted your writing. But thanks anyway, sorry you feel that way. Now I wonder if you got bar mitzvah'd when you joined a synagogue. I doubt it. Now I wonder if Einstein and Spinoza were bar mitzvah'd. Although born Jews, I suppose, from Jewish mothers.
My doctor is a Jew from Iran and he was bar mitzvahed in his 40's in the U.S. because of the situation in Iran before he left. He has the code of Maimonides on his wall an we talked about that for a while. He does not really know the Bible, the Torah...but that's how it goes. Take care. Life is interesting and I look forward to the future. And history of Cardinal Ratzinger and his writings certainly are very interesting. Each, however, to his own, that's for sure.