Creationism - the anti-science.

[Rethel]

Never getting the point, aren't you?

 

[Bergin]

Never getting the point, aren't you?

Rethel,
Bacteria in hospitals evolve very fast.
We need new antibiotics quickly to be able to contrast the rate of their adaptation.

Independently of the semantics being used, this problem is critical - it involves you as much as an atheist or as a budhist.

So how do you propose to solve it?

 

[LeBrok]

Nope. If it would be true, then Copernicus would be burned.
He not only was not burned, but he was a priest, who occiupy
coupld of important church offices. And his books were printing
without problems. Galileo was going to be burn for interpretations
of the Bible - for religion heresy - but not for scientific theories.
One atheist in Poland was behaded by civil authority for publishing
about atheism, what could ruin social order, and church was against
it - no fire, no church involved, no mass persecution.
.

This is a great example of you being complete ignorant, and yet in your mind so educated.

Copernik was not only astronomer but also quite accomplished economist. He wrote books on economy, which were printed and read during his lifetime. However, the book on heliocentrism, though finished way before his death and shown to few trusted people, was published only after his death, according to Copernicus wish.

I don't have time to respond to more of your imaginary universe vision. You are gullible ignorant and utter dilettante, and nothing I can write will enlighten your mind.

 

[srdceleva]

The Bible doesn't say the Earth is six thousand years old anywhere. And believing in God and the Bible doesn't mean you are against science. People who believe that are ignorant then of the history and development of modern science as it almost exclusively developed from devoutly religious people. Creationism is supported by a minority of the Christians around the world and not by a majority.

Also a personal thread to attack rethel....shouldn't this issue be approached as a discussion and not a direct put down.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

 

[Bergin]

And believing in God and the Bible doesn't mean you are against science.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

for a good chunk of the last 6000 years, it did mean being against science (censure).
But religions do evolve too, by now.

 

[srdceleva]

for a good chunk of the last 6000 years, it did mean being against science (censure).
But religions do evolve too, by now.

No it didnt. Pascal , Descartes, Newton. They are literally the founders of modern science and they were all Christians and religious. The big bang theory was literally came up with by a Jesuit priest. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk with out him this forum wouldn't even be taking place. It's just absurd for atheists to claim some how science and religion are opposing each other. Religions that say God sits on a mountain and throws lightening bolts when it storms are a different type of religion. They could be described as explanitive religions. Judaism and Christianity were never like this.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

 

[Bergin]

No it didnt. Pascal , Descartes, Newton. They are literally the founders of modern science and they were all Christians and religious. The big bang theory was literally came up with by a Jesuit priest. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk with out him this forum wouldn't even be taking place. It's just absurd for atheists to claim some how science and religion are opposing each other. Religions that say God sits on a mountain and throws lightening bolts when it storms are a different type of religion. They could be described as explanitive religions. Judaism and Christianity were never like this.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

Religion has it's own rules and methods and science has it own. Believing or not in God has nothing to do with it.

For many centuries there have been Miracles and Saints and Divine interventions.
Any scientist going against such religious claims with empiric facts, would at least have been banished.
Do you agree?

Coexistance of science and religion is relatively young.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

 

[LeBrok]

No it didnt. Pascal , Descartes, Newton. They are literally the founders of modern science and they were all Christians and religious. The big bang theory was literally came up with by a Jesuit priest. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk with out him this forum wouldn't even be taking place. It's just absurd for atheists to claim some how science and religion are opposing each other. Religions that say God sits on a mountain and throws lightening bolts when it storms are a different type of religion. They could be described as explanitive religions. Judaism and Christianity were never like this.

Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

Keep in mind that everybody was christian or a religious person in europe back then. Everybody was raised in strong religious convictions. We can say that everybody was strongly indoctrinated from first months of their lives in christianity. They wasted half of their scientific thinking trying to consolidate religious beliefs with science.

 

[LeBrok]

Religion has it's own rules and methods and science has it own. Believing or not in God has nothing to do with it.

For many centuries there have been Miracles and Saints and Divine interventions.
Any scientist going against such religious claims with empiric facts, would at least have been banished.
Do you agree?

Coexistance of science and religion is relatively young.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Exactly, for last couple of hundreds of years we see how christian beliefs are updated and evolve to accommodate our understanding of science. We no longer can take bible literally. Instead we have to interpret it in the way, in new way, so it is not in conflict with science. Well, but few, who are trying to "bend" and discredit science to have their bible in literary sense.

 

[Rethel]

We no longer can
we have to

WHO WE??? Thou art include? etrified:

We can say

Are you in more than one person, or what?

Keep in mind that everybody was christian or a religious person in europe back then.

You never admit fail, do you?
Guy did rebut your claim and
you are trying to pretend like
nothing ever happend.

Believing or not in God has nothing to do with it.

Actually you are right, becasue beliving God has everything to do with it!
If someone does not belive him, his beliving in him is worthless.

 

[Rethel]

This is a great example of you being complete ignorant, and yet in your mind so educated.

Rather you are talking about yourself.

Copernik was not only astronomer but also quite accomplished economist. He wrote books on economy, which were printed and read during his lifetime. However, the book on heliocentrism, though finished way before his death and shown to few trusted people, was published only after his death, according to Copernicus wish.

Nope. It was presented even to the pope, and parts were published when he was alive.
He was writing and correcting his book whole life, and he was the one who start the
publishing - he simply did not manage to do on time the publishing of whole book,
and this is why it was printed finaly in the same year when he died.

And the book was later published again couple of times.
And many others scientific books were written, published and disscuss in Middle Ages.
The point is, that you either have some mythical view about the Christianity, either
you calumniate Christianity on purpose. Both are not witnessing about you good.

Now, be a good scientific cultist, and belive in 20k years old dinosaurs.

 

[Rethel]

Rethel,
Bacteria in hospitals evolve very fast.

And still is a... bacteria!
Thousands of generations, and did not
evole into something else, wonderfully
proving, that macroevolution isnt real.

We need new antibiotics quickly to be able to contrast the rate of their adaptation.

Can she evolved to be fire resistant?

So how do you propose to solve it?

As above.

 

[Bergin]

Actually you are right, becasue beliving God has everything to do with it!
If someone does not belive him, his beliving in him is worthless.

Rethel,
sorry I might believe in God, but maybe I prefer to believe Lilith.
Just joking, but please don't be so quick at throwing a judgement about what is/is not worth it.


Btw, I have a question to the moderators regarding the rules of the forum:
Is blasphemy allowed or not?

 

[Diomedes]

I kinda like Rethel. Not necessarily because I agree with her/him, but because in this forum she/he fights the "system" and does not give a sh1t at all, hehe.

 

[Angela]

Rethel,
sorry I might believe in God, but maybe I prefer to believe Lilith.
Just joking, but please don't be so quick at throwing a judgement about what is/is not worth it.


Btw, I have a question to the moderators regarding the rules of the forum:
Is blasphemy allowed or not?

Which statements strike you as blasphemous? I have to confess that where certain threads are concerned I don't read them unless I get a complaint or notice in the activity thread either a question or a particularly egregious comment.

What is allowed is pretty broad, as you can see once you've been here a while. What I'd really like is the ability to give infractions or bans for abject stupidity and ignorance, for which I don't have the tolerance you seem to possess, but alas, I don't have it.

 

[Bergin]

Which statements strike you as blasphemous? I have to confess that where certain threads are concerned I don't read them unless I get a complaint or notice in the activity thread either a question or a particularly egregious comment.

What is allowed is pretty broad, as you can see once you've been here a while. What I'd really like is the ability to give infractions or bans for abject stupidity and ignorance, for which I don't have the tolerance you seem to possess, but alas, I don't have it.

No statement stroke me as blasphemous,... yet.


Thomas Aikenhead was the last man sentenced to death (at the age of 20) in Britain for blasphemy. The year was 1697.
He was a medical student.
https://web.archive.org/web/2011100...a.org/uuhs/duub/articles/thomasaikenhead.html


The charges were that for more than twelve months Aikenhead had blasphemed against God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Scriptures, and all revealed religion. Five student 'friends' appeared as prosecution witnesses. Aikenhead was accused of having said that theology was "a rhapsody of feigned and ill-invented nonsense" and made up of "poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras". It was reported that he had called the Old Testament "Ezra's Fables" and the New Testament "the History of the impostor Christ who learned magic in Egypt and picked up a few ignorant blockish fisher fellows". The 'friends' told the court that Aikenhead rejected the Trinity as "not worth any man's refutation", scoffed at the incarnation as contradictory, professed pantheism, and denied creation.


Blasphemy is still illegal in few countries (including EU ones).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy

 

[srdceleva]

Keep in mind that everybody was christian or a religious person in europe back then. Everybody was raised in strong religious convictions. We can say that everybody was strongly indoctrinated from first months of their lives in christianity. They wasted half of their scientific thinking trying to consolidate religious beliefs with science.

You can deny it all u want, modern science stemmed from very religious people who cited their faith many times as an inspiration for their research and never considered it a hindrance or a contradiction to what they were doing. They were highly educated and enlightened individuals, they weren't just cradle Christians who never considered their faith and indoctrinated robots. Any one who doesn't agree with atheists is indoctrinated and can't think on his own....

 

[srdceleva]

Exactly, for last couple of hundreds of years we see how christian beliefs are updated and evolve to accommodate our understanding of science. We no longer can take bible literally. Instead we have to interpret it in the way, in new way, so it is not in conflict with science. Well, but few, who are trying to "bend" and discredit science to have their bible in literary sense.

Many books and stories in the Bible were never taken literally, St Augustine wrote about this in the 4th century only American protestantism claims the Bible should be interpreted as 100 percent literal in every scripture.

 

[srdceleva]

Which statements strike you as blasphemous?

I think he just meant it as a general question


Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk

 

[srdceleva]

Have you ever wondered, if All Mighty God can create a rock so big that even he can't lift?

very popular riddle used by communists in Czechoslovakia.

I have a question. If everything is all an accident and none of existence has any original meaning. Why does life, which comes from matter, strive so hard to keep living and not want to go back to being lifeless matter? where does this will come from?