|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

Default Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

January 7th, 2014, 13:07
Damian, that's how scientific theories work.

Scientists are not even saying the gravitation theory has been proved without a doubt. However, using all the evidence we have for it we can say with very high likelihood that the theory stands (which even that is more complex than you might think. you can't just drop an apple from a tree and say that's it you've proven it).

Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other. It is most commonly recognized and experienced as the agent that gives weight to physical objects, and causes physical objects to fall toward the ground when dropped from a height.
It is hypothesized that the gravitational force is mediated by a massless spin-2 particle called the graviton. Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, along with electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong force and weak force. Colloquially, gravitation is a force of attraction that acts between and on all physical objects with matter (mass) or energy. In modern physics, gravitation is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity proposed by Einstein, which asserts that the phenomenon of gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime.
So people like you and myself do not even have the understanding to disprove Gravitation, something you take for granted. Do you really think people who do not understand biology or the basics of physics can then disprove another theory which is just under as much scrutiny (if not more)?
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#521

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,169
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 18:43
Yep, a different point of view is opinion, and we are talking about facts about scientific terms and definitions. Damien is trying to weasel out of admitting he's wrong, yet again.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#522

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,985

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 19:56
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Yep, a different point of view is opinion, and we are talking about facts about scientific terms and definitions. Damien is trying to weasel out of admitting he's wrong, yet again.
I already admitted i was wrong about the words i used.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#523

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 20:04
I promised myself that I wouldn't do this but… well, here it goes.

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
I do understand your point of view both of you.
I understand that you belive in this.
I hope that you two can see that even though scientists on the TET side wants to
count a number of things as evidence, just as the creationist scientists wants to
count them as evidence for their agenda, there is not any real evidence observed.
However, this whole idea of TET has been invented and not observed, if you don't
count micro evolution.
TET is not science. It could be historic science but it does not qualify cause it lacks witness.
Once again, microevolution is evolution.
Even if you were right and this was some kind of massive conspiracy to fool everyone into believing in evolution, what is the motivation behind it, who stands to gain from people believing in evolution?

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
To belive in historic documents as them that is included in the bible.
What would you call that?
Written historic documents from 4000 to 1800years old depending on witch book you chose to read in the bible.

You have to understand that when they were written the bible did not exist.
Later when these scripts had been choosen to represent the word of God, the
individual books became a part of the bible.

So you do have to treat each document as a historic document
not as a part of a religiosbook.
Yes. So?
Why don't you take that up with Corwin, he knows more about the subject than I (and most likely you) ever will.

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
Since I have myself been filled with the different excuses, turnarounds and inventions of all the things that TET needs, not to be totaly disgraced,
It took the bigger part of my life to see through it.

for belief in TET people have invented meassurments of time that fits the geologic time scale. Still, it does not work but who cares…
The redshift was hijacked to be a doppfler effect. The invention of dark materia was needed. The invention of the Ort cloud. Now we have to think about paralel universes.
It gets so silly because TET simply can't do it.
Invented measurements of time? What does that even mean? I suppose all measurements of time are made up in one way or another (with the possible exception of Planck Time) but I doubt that is what you meant.
What does redshift/blueshift have to do with evolution and how is it not an example of the Doppler Effect?
What was dark matter/dark energy needed for? Certainly not to observe redshift/blueshift.
Who invented the Oort cloud and why? And once again what does it have to do with evolution or the age of the Earth?
Parallell universes are only required in one interpretation of quantum mechanics so you needn't think about them too much, they certainly are completely irrelevant to Evolution and the age of the Earth and the Universe.

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
Have you noticed that the age of the earth is expanding rapidly cause TET always need more billions of years to seem trustworthy.
It's been 4,5 billion years for as long as I can remember.

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
It's totaly out of hand. They make up a new caveman/apeman every now and then. It gets refuted but lives on for ages in text-books and museums.
All these "trees of life" has been refuted. They live on several of them posted in this thread, called evidence by evolutionists.
No they haven't and you have yet to provide any evidence that they have.

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
The second law of TD does aply to the universe no matter how much evolutionists cry out. It has not been refuted. The evo-side always do refute something else and say it's the same. It is not.
It's you who don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It does apply to the universe (given that it's a closed system). It does not apply to the Earth or anything on it as it is not a closed system. If you have any evidence that it is please present it.

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
Because of the mocking of plain and simple truths in favour of a young earth
it's not easy to reach you.
It does not matter if sombody says it's silly to talk about all the evidence for a young earth, the evidence is still there.
Because of your refusal to present any evidence or to concede when you are clearly and plainly wrong, it's not easy to reach you.

conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evil, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.

rational, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those of observation, experience and reflection.
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devils Dictionary
peko is offline

peko

Watchdog

#524

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 117

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 20:11
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
I already admitted i was wrong about the words i used.
Yes, but then you tried to backtrack out of it, by referring to "different points of views". Inconsistent at best.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#525

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,985

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 20:49
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Yes, but then you tried to backtrack out of it, by referring to "different points of views". Inconsistent at best.
I was referring to how you use circumstantial evidence to say that your point of view is fact and i say that the circumstantial evidence is not necessarily fact.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#526

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 21:00
Wow! So now you are lying about what I said? I never said anything of the sort. Actually quite the contrary. I (and others) have said multiple times in this thread that evidence supports theories or hypotheses but rarely (if ever) proves something as a fact.

Are you really this thickheaded or are you purposely being stubborn?

In any case, it makes the case for creationism and it's proponents look more foolish.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#527

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,985

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 22:32
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Wow! So now you are lying about what I said? I never said anything of the sort. Actually quite the contrary. I (and others) have said multiple times in this thread that evidence supports theories or hypotheses but rarely (if ever) proves something as a fact.

Are you really this thickheaded or are you purposely being stubborn?

In any case, it makes the case for creationism and it's proponents look more foolish.
So evolution is not fact. Got it.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#528

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 23:04
No, but it's the best explanation for the evidence we have.

There's no evidence for creationism, or young Earth. No direct measurements of a God or intelligent design.

The only tangible thing, is an old book of fairy tales, that's been terribly mistranslated and distorted from an ancient oral tradition.
Last edited by Thrasher; January 7th, 2014 at 23:27.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#529

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,985

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 23:17
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
So evolution is not fact. Got it.
In a strict usage of the term, nothing can be a fact that depends on empirical evidence i.e. experience of the world, since you can't look in every cupboard to see if a unicorn is there (or not there)…. So proof (and fact), strictly speaking, only apply to a priori logical derivations from assumed axioms. That's restricted to mathematics and logic. Such as syllogisms:

Socrates is a man,
all men are mortal,
therefore Socrates is mortal.

That constitutes a fact, but only because the conclusion "Socrates is mortal" is already implied in the predicate axioms (i.e. the first two lines): *If* Socrates is a man *and if* all men are mortal then it logically has to be the case that Socrates is mortal.

But, none of that implies that the *evidence* for evolution isn't overwhelming.
Last edited by Roq; January 7th, 2014 at 23:33.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#530

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 977

Default 

January 8th, 2014, 00:56
Originally Posted by Roq View Post
In a strict usage of the term, nothing can be a fact that depends on empirical evidence i.e. experience of the world, since you can't look in every cupboard to see if a unicorn is there (or not there)…. So proof (and fact), strictly speaking, only apply to a priori logical derivations from assumed axioms. That's restricted to mathematics and logic. Such as syllogisms:

Socrates is a man,
all men are mortal,
therefore Socrates is mortal.

That constitutes a fact, but only because the conclusion "Socrates is mortal" is already implied in the predicate axioms (i.e. the first two lines): *If* Socrates is a man *and if* all men are mortal then it logically has to be the case that Socrates is mortal.

But, none of that implies that the *evidence* for evolution isn't overwhelming.
I see.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#531

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

January 8th, 2014, 09:12
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
Perhaps one of the mutations allowed them to survive in ice and maybe there were no polar bears before the flood?
No, no, no.

This one is an easy one. The bible can and can not be read at multiple levels (if you want the number of level, just translate level in hebrew, see how much it makes in number both in writing and oral forms, divide and you get the number)

The ark story speaks of animals from the Earth. What must be understood is that animals that needed to be saved.

The Christian god is all knowning god so it was known before creation of the world that the world would be flooded at some point down.

Polar bears did not need to be saved. Because ice floats. And despise the rise of water temperature, their natural habitat did not have time to melt.
That is why they did not join the ark. Seals, sea lions neither. Fish either (even though the change in water get them to migrate, that is another story) You cant drown a fish. Polar bears just went the flood like that, with their habitat mostly unchanged.

All that must be understood is that the bible can and can not be read on different levels at the same time.
Once got, it all fits.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#532

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,071

Default 

January 8th, 2014, 09:40
Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
Things tends to fall to pieces.
Even the dna chain in spite of beeing able to repair itself degenerates.
Why do you have a problem with the expression?
It's the opposit to evolve.
Its happens with everything thats not mantained in a proper way.
So, for life to exist you need mantainance, or it degenerates
Who would provide this in TET?
Evolution: take a carpet, roll it up. Unroll it. Unrolling it is evolution. That is one issue with speaking a bastardized language, it gives room for people to forget and spin.

So let's see. Entropy tears out the christian god because entropy makes the multiplication of bread and fishes impossible. Pushing up entropy means that there cant be both at the same.

Either you admit entropy and therefore, you do not believe in the multiplication of breads and fishes and therefore you do not believe in jesus the lord who multiplied fishes and breads. If you keep believing in a god, it means that you do not believe in jesus and therefore that you put one unknown god before the christian god. See 2nd commandment for the salvation of the christian soul.

Or you believe in jesus the lord and cant admit entropy and thermodynamics. If so, you cant bring it up to disqualify evolution.

Now, reading why evolution should be impossible in an environment that is subjected to entropy.

Lets set this: the solar system is a close system. From an evolutionary point of view, it is not a good hypothesis because of cosmic rays, among other things, that are supposed to play a part in the occurence of mutation.
But lets remember something: the fantastic fours. When they took up their space flight, they were bathed in cosmic rays to return as Mr.Fantastic (Richard Reeds), the Invisible Girl (Susan Storm), the Human Torch (Johny Storm) and the Thing (Benjamin Grimm)

But we know that the Sentinels, that are human machinery designed by human supremacists to track down and eliminate mutants, do not list the fantastic four as mutants. They do not list the juggernaut as a mutant either as he was born out of a magic light coming from a long lost and forgotten crystal.
It makes a strong case why you can dismiss cosmic rays as having a part in mutation occurrence.

Once this is established, why should evolution be impossible in the close system of the solar system because of entropy?
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#533

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,071

Default 

January 9th, 2014, 01:48
Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
No, no, no.

This one is an easy one. The bible can and can not be read at multiple levels (if you want the number of level, just translate level in hebrew, see how much it makes in number both in writing and oral forms, divide and you get the number)

The ark story speaks of animals from the Earth. What must be understood is that animals that needed to be saved.

The Christian god is all knowning god so it was known before creation of the world that the world would be flooded at some point down.

Polar bears did not need to be saved. Because ice floats. And despise the rise of water temperature, their natural habitat did not have time to melt.
That is why they did not join the ark. Seals, sea lions neither. Fish either (even though the change in water get them to migrate, that is another story) You cant drown a fish. Polar bears just went the flood like that, with their habitat mostly unchanged.

All that must be understood is that the bible can and can not be read on different levels at the same time.
Once got, it all fits.
Thanks that was interesting.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#534

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

January 9th, 2014, 02:16
Damian, I'm pretty sure CA was being facetious and sarcastic….
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#535

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,169
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

January 10th, 2014, 00:01
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
Damian, I'm pretty sure CA was being facetious and sarcastic….
HAHA, yeah i was duped.


Did dinosaurs walk with humans though?
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#536

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

January 10th, 2014, 00:02
I'm sure Damian was just trying to be polite to a crazy poster.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#537

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,985

Default 

January 10th, 2014, 00:34
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
Did dinosaurs walk with humans though?
Raquel Welch did, and took her hair stylist with her. But that was a movie and those guys have a propensity to make things up that exceeds even creationists. Unfortunately, a million years ago dinosaurs were long extinct and the apes around at the time weren't a patch on Raquel anyway.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#538

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 977

Default 

January 10th, 2014, 01:02
One Million Years B.C.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#539

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,985

Default 

March 16th, 2014, 09:53
You know i dont understand how you can be a theistic evolutionist, ie believe in the bible and Evolution. If God took millions, even thousands (ala Hugh Ross) of years, he cannot all powerful. If he is not all powerful, then parts of the bible are also a lie. If parts of the bible are a lie then how can you trust it. If you cant trust it then you can just throw it away…
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#540

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:19.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch