PDA

View Full Version : "real hard science" Rachel Maddow vs Jono (sf US Pol)



Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2013, 01:56 AM
That's Dr Rachel Madcow, Mr Jono Sarfati.
That's a mere PolSci doctorate for Madcow, while my doctorate is in the real science of physical chemistry, so it's Dr Jono Sarfati to you.

Goughfather
02-06-2013, 02:10 PM
That's a mere PolSci doctorate for Madcow, while my doctorate is in the real science of physical chemistry, so it's Dr Jono Sarfati to you.

Maddow earnt her doctorate from Oxford. You've long since forfeited the right to be called "doctor".

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2013, 02:23 PM
Maddow earnt her doctorate from Oxford.
Irrelevant; Madcow's soft subject doctorate is worth much less than mine in a real subject from a good chemistry department.


You've long since forfeited the right to be called "doctor".
As long as my earned doctorate hasn't been withdrawn, I have every right.

Kevin Bonham
02-06-2013, 02:35 PM
Irrelevant; Madcow's soft subject doctorate is worth much less than mine in a real subject from a good chemistry department.

That sort of value is in the eye of the proverbial beholder. Maddow's doctorate, as it happens, was on HIV/AIDS and health care reform in American prisons. Social research involving prisons is both important and difficult.

Ian Murray
02-06-2013, 02:51 PM
... my doctorate is in the real science of physical chemistry,
But in your opinion, aren't doctors involved in physical sciences, like climate science, charlatans skewing their research solely to obtain grant funds?

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2013, 03:24 PM
But in your opinion, aren't doctors involved in physical sciences, like climate science, charlatans skewing their research solely to obtain grant funds?
Definitely not. Climate science is not real hard science about things you can test and repeat.

Kevin Bonham
02-06-2013, 06:08 PM
Definitely not. Climate science is not real hard science about things you can test and repeat.

Sciences based on observation rather than constructed experiment still involve data-gathering and the making of predictions which can then be potentially falsified. If anything, the difficulty of conducting experiments in climate science makes this a more difficult form of science than sciences in which everything can be lab-controlled.

Patrick Byrom
02-06-2013, 09:42 PM
But in your opinion, aren't doctors involved in physical sciences, like climate science, charlatans skewing their research solely to obtain grant funds?

Definitely not.
It's good to know that Jono doesn't agree with the fashionable right-wing conspiracy theories about climate science.


Climate science is not real hard science about things you can test and repeat.
Of course you can test climate science. You could even do repeatable experiments with the atmosphere - although I wouldn't advise it.

Ian Murray
02-06-2013, 09:45 PM
Definitely not. Climate science is not real hard science about things you can test and repeat.
Climate science is a multi-disciplinary field; some of the core disciplines have been suggested as:

Atmospheric and Physical Sciences: Climatology, Meteorology, Atmospheric dynamics, Atmospheric physics, Atmospheric chemistry, Solar physics, Historical climatology

Earth Sciences: Geophysics, Geochemistry, Geology, Soil Science, Oceanography, Glaciology, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction

Biological Sciences: Ecology, Synthetic biology, Biochemistry, Global change biology, Biogeography, Ecophysiology, Ecological genetics

Mathematics, Statistics and Computational analysis: Applied mathematics, Mathematical modelling, Computer science, Numerical modelling, Bayesian inference, Mathematical statistics, Time series analysis

These are not soft scientific fields. Those practised outside the confines of a laboratory make substantial contributions to human knowledge, testing hypotheses for conformity with recorded observations and metrics.

Jay
03-06-2013, 11:35 AM
Lonesome Earl,

I think Dr Jono was referring to 'climate science' as a whole that is indeed made up from the sum of parts of (at least in my opinion) some hard real physical sciences.

My issue is one of extrapolation vs interpolation. A lot of the 'climate science' we hear reported in the media is extrapolation or the results of extrapolation from a multi-variate and very complex set of models that we do not completely understand at this moment.

It's amazing the range of predictive results that can be obtained from modelling simple chemical behaviour where we know a lot about the system.

Jay

(Oh and that's Dr Jay BTW)

P.S Interesting report about CFC's in today's media - I will have to try and get a copy of the paper referred to and read for myself

Rincewind
03-06-2013, 11:59 AM
Lonesome Earl,

I think Dr Jono was referring to 'climate science' as a whole that is indeed made up from the sum of parts of (at least in my opinion) some hard real physical sciences.

My issue is one of extrapolation vs interpolation. A lot of the 'climate science' we hear reported in the media is extrapolation or the results of extrapolation from a multi-variate and very complex set of models that we do not completely understand at this moment.

It's amazing the range of predictive results that can be obtained from modelling simple chemical behaviour where we know a lot about the system.

I think forecast or prediction are a better terms than extrapolation. On the whole, the climate scientists are conversant with the limitations of their forecasts for which there are at least two issues, uncertainties in the models and it parameters and changes to future behaviour (due to say policy changes or other unforeseeable outcomes) which will require that the forecasts be updated in an ongoing process.

The bigger issue with the popular media is they have a particular agenda to promote which skews news reporting towards sensationalism. Not in all cases and in all outlets, but in general there is that bias. In short, consumers should be cautious before accepting what they read in the papers or on news sites.

morebeer
03-06-2013, 12:46 PM
...The bigger issue with the popular media is they have a particular agenda to promote which skews news reporting towards sensationalism. Not in all cases and in all outlets, but in general there is that bias. In short, consumers should be cautious before accepting what they read in the papers or on news sites.

Science reporting in much of the media is also done by people who are not scientifically literate.

Ian Murray
03-06-2013, 05:52 PM
Lonesome Earl,

I think Dr Jono was referring to 'climate science' as a whole that is indeed made up from the sum of parts of (at least in my opinion) some hard real physical sciences.

My issue is one of extrapolation vs interpolation. A lot of the 'climate science' we hear reported in the media is extrapolation or the results of extrapolation from a multi-variate and very complex set of models that we do not completely understand at this moment.

It's amazing the range of predictive results that can be obtained from modelling simple chemical behaviour where we know a lot about the system.

Jay

(Oh and that's Dr Jay BTW)

P.S Interesting report about CFC's in today's media - I will have to try and get a copy of the paper referred to and read for myself
As Dr Patrick says, testing climate science is no real problem, e.g the 100K year ice-age cycle was predicted by a mathematician, Milankovic, nearly a century ago (no computers then), and confirmed decades later from ice cores.

antichrist
03-07-2013, 03:59 PM
Definitely not. Climate science is not real hard science about things you can test and repeat.

whereas Biblical creation is?

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2013, 12:02 AM
whereas Biblical creation is?
Biblical creation, like evolution from goo to you via the zoo, is primarily a matter of history. N.T. Wright points out:


“There are, after all, different types of knowing. Science studies the repeatable; history studies the unrepeatable. Caesar only crossed the Rubicon once, and if he’d crossed it again it would have meant something different the second time. There was, and could be, only one first landing on the moon. The fall of the second Jerusalem Temple took place in AD 70 and never happened again. Historians don’t see this as a problem and are usually not shy about declaring that these events certainly took place, even though we can’t repeat them in a laboratory.

“But when people say, ‘But that can’t have happened because we know that that sort of thing doesn’t actually happen,’ they are appealing to a would-be scientific principle of history, namely, the principle of analogy. The problem with analogy is that it never quite gets you far enough. History is full of unlikely things that happened once and once only, with the result that the analogies are often at best partial. In any case, if someone declares that certain kinds of events ‘don’t normally happen’ that merely invites the retort, ‘Who says?’

“So how does the historian work when the evidence points toward things that we do not normally expect? … Sooner or later questions of worldview begin to loom in the background, and the question of what kinds of material the historian will allow onstage is inevitably affected by the worldview in which he or she lives.” [Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church, HarperOne, New York, pp. 64–65, 2008.]

Adamski
04-07-2013, 12:10 AM
I have read some of N T Wright on the New Testamant. A good writer and a good passage quoted by Dr Jono.

I also agree with Dr Jay. A lot of the "climate science" I see involves unwarranted extrapolation from a small sample.

Goughfather
04-07-2013, 12:11 AM
Biblical creation, like evolution from goo to you via the zoo, is primarily a matter of history.

At least you acknowledge that you're not doing anything even closely resembling science.

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2013, 12:20 AM
History is indeed full of unlikely things that only happened once but the rest of them don't contradict scientific understanding or posit entities outside the realm of scientific knowledge.

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2013, 04:18 AM
At least you acknowledge that you're not doing anything even closely resembling science.
I was acknowledging no such thing. And what would a shyster lawyer like you know about science?

Desmond
04-07-2013, 07:57 AM
I was acknowledging no such thing. And what would a shyster lawyer like you know about science?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2013, 09:08 AM
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
More than you.

antichrist
04-07-2013, 09:12 AM
History is indeed full of unlikely things that only happened once but the rest of them don't contradict scientific understanding or posit entities outside the realm of scientific knowledge.


couldn't God create another Earth near ours with same life so prove that was how the Earth was created. He could just suspend laws of nature so would not effect our planet in any way - even turns the lights off every night so to speak, it would look like another moon

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2013, 09:23 AM
History is indeed full of unlikely things that only happened once but the rest of them don't contradict scientific understanding or posit entities outside the realm of scientific knowledge.
Chemical evolution (http://creation.com/dickerson-chemical-evolution-and-the-origin-of-life) certainly does. We don't see spontaneous generation today. No wonder more and more materialists, like your friend Martin Line (http://creation.com/science-creation-and-evolutionism-refutation-of-nas#txtRef28), are desperately seeking solutions in panspermia.

Desmond
04-07-2013, 09:38 AM
More than you.
I know enough to know that believing fables before evidence isn't it.

Rincewind
04-07-2013, 10:38 AM
I know enough to know that believing fables before evidence isn't it.

Indeed, Jono's publicly stated position is the antithesis of science.

See... What fruitcakes believe (http://creation.com/what-we-believe)

My favourite bits are (with some bolding added)...


The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

Underpinning science is the fact that all knowledge is contingent on the evidence currently available. New evidence can (and has) re-written science. For example, before Einstein everyone though Newton was the final word on gravitation. So Jono pisses any scientific credibility he may have had up against the wall with this tenet. But wait there's more.

The bible is open to interpretation right? Wrong...


The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

In other words leave your brain at the door. Ignoring the circularity what this means is what the bible says is literally true. To make it really clear they also state exactly what they mean by this is a ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis that is more conservative than even the Catholic church. Many of the following tenets are not specifically biblical teachings but used to distinguish those at creation.com from more honest positions which do not blatantly ignore evidence...


The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

That takes care of most mainstream religions include the Catholics and Anglicans.


Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.

We don't hold with this old-age creation nonsense.


The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.

Again old-age creationism is popular so we better really make sure we distinguish ourselves from them.


The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

I think there is something in genesis about the fossil record.


The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture. Nor has the day-age idea (so-called ‘progressive creation’), or the Framework Hypothesis or theistic evolution.

Yeah non of these hypothesis which try to fit the facts should be believed. The only way to process facts is as follows...


By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Translation: Ignore facts, stick your fingers in your ears and say la-la-la until you feel better and then claim that your trashy books have "never been refuted."

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2013, 12:32 PM
Chemical evolution (http://creation.com/dickerson-chemical-evolution-and-the-origin-of-life) certainly does.

Ah another attempt to drag discussion away from the demonstrated problem with your case and onto more familiar ground. We were discussing "history" which in this context referred to the history of humanity.

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2013, 12:57 PM
I know enough to know that believing fables before evidence isn't it.
I agree; that's why I don't believe chemical evolution. But you do.

Desmond
04-07-2013, 05:50 PM
I agree; that's why I don't believe chemical evolution. But you do.Nothing I believe requires chemical evolution to be true. But even if I did, it would be a curious sticking point from someone who believes in unicorns, dragons, talking snakes, continents that move at running speed, day and night existing before the sun, common ancestry for all but one species, magic incantations, blood sacrifices, zombie who is his own father, et cetera.

Capablanca-Fan
05-07-2013, 04:20 AM
Nothing I believe requires chemical evolution to be true.
Of course you must. An atheopath must believe that life evolved from non-living chemicals.


But even if I did, it would be a curious sticking point from someone who believes in unicorns,
No I don't. I believe that the aurochs once existed, as do all sensible people, and this is what the Hebrew word re'em meant (http://creation.com/the-unicorn).


dragons,
Only that they were what we now called dinosaurs (http://creation.com/crouching-tiger-hidden-dinosaur).


talking snakes,
Only one, and that wasn't an ordinary snake.


continents that move at running speed,
That's the only way they could push up mountains, produce pressure-shocked minerals, and leave subducted plates much cooler than the surrounding mantle (http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html)—a slow process over millions of years would give it time for the temperature to equilibrate.


day and night existing before the sun,
Of course, as long as there was a light source and rotating earth (http://creation.com/how-could-the-days-of-genesis-1-be-literal-if-the-sun-wasnt-created-until-the-fourth-day).


common ancestry for all but one species,
What are you on about? We believe in creation of separate kinds which then diversified into different species.


magic incantations, blood sacrifices, zombie who is his own father, et cetera.
Now you're just being an idiot.

Rincewind
05-07-2013, 11:25 AM
What are you on about? We believe in creation of separate kinds which then diversified into different species.

So chimpanzees are the same kind as man?

Ian Murray
05-07-2013, 06:16 PM
https://cartoonbank.licensestream.com/LicenseStream/ContentStorage_CondeNast/246/BaseComps/xns3flhi.jpg

Desmond
05-07-2013, 07:48 PM
Of course you must.Guess again.

Meanwhile, there are enough fantasy elements in your beliefs to run a Dungeons and Dragons campaign.

Rincewind
05-07-2013, 07:58 PM
Meanwhile, there are enough fantasy elements in your beliefs to run a Dungeons and Dragons campaign.

I once played a D&D campaign set in ancient Mesopotamia (as a backdrop).

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2013, 01:40 AM
So chimpanzees are the same kind as man?
No. They are not even as similar as evolutionists love to claim. See Cohen, Jon, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%”, Science 316(5833):1836, 29 June 2007 | DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836. In particular, the Y-chromosomes in male chimps and male humans are “horrendously different from each other”; Hughes, J., and 16 others, Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463(7280):536–539, 28 January 2010.

Desmond
11-07-2013, 08:01 AM
No. They are not even as similar as evolutionists love to claim. See Cohen, Jon, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%”, Science 316(5833):1836, 29 June 2007 | DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836. In particular, the Y-chromosomes in male chimps and male humans are “horrendously different from each other”; Hughes, J., and 16 others, Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463(7280):536–539, 28 January 2010.
Actually the fusing of chromosome 2 is a slam dunk for common ancestry.

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2013, 08:20 AM
Actually the fusing of chromosome 2 is a slam dunk for common ancestry.
What would you know? See for example Heads I win, tails you lose: The power of the paradigm (http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm), The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 1: re-evaluating the evidence (http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1), The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data (http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2).

Rincewind
11-07-2013, 10:19 AM
No. They are not even as similar as evolutionists love to claim. See Cohen, Jon, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%”, Science 316(5833):1836, 29 June 2007 | DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836. In particular, the Y-chromosomes in male chimps and male humans are “horrendously different from each other”; Hughes, J., and 16 others, Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463(7280):536–539, 28 January 2010.

From Jon Cohen's item...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/1836/F1.medium.gif

Desmond
11-07-2013, 10:41 AM
What would you know? See for example Heads I win, tails you lose: The power of the paradigm (http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm), What would a Rolls Royce engineer know about biology. I'd rather list to "Kenneth Miller ... Professor of Biology" thanks all the same.

Rincewind
11-07-2013, 11:05 AM
No. They are not even as similar as evolutionists love to claim. See Cohen, Jon, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%”, Science 316(5833):1836, 29 June 2007 | DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836. In particular, the Y-chromosomes in male chimps and male humans are “horrendously different from each other”; Hughes, J., and 16 others, Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463(7280):536–539, 28 January 2010.

I note you used double quotes on the phase I bolded above. It is reasonable to assume that you are quoting verbatim from one of the two articles above. Can you please point me to precisely were these words are used.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2013, 12:23 AM
What would a Rolls Royce engineer know about biology. I'd rather list to "Kenneth Miller ... Professor of Biology" thanks all the same.
Yes, this pretend-Christian dines out on this argument, but the Rolls Royce engineer shows up the faulty logic behind it.

Desmond
13-07-2013, 07:35 AM
Yes, this pretend-Christian dines out on this argument, but the Rolls Royce engineer shows up the faulty logic behind it.
Roman Catholics are not pretend Christians.

You still didn't give me a reason why I should spend my time reading an article from a person with no discernable credentials in the area, let alone lay any weight to it.

Rincewind
13-07-2013, 10:24 AM
No. They are not even as similar as evolutionists love to claim. See Cohen, Jon, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%”, Science 316(5833):1836, 29 June 2007 | DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836. In particular, the Y-chromosomes in male chimps and male humans are “horrendously different from each other”; Hughes, J., and 16 others, Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463(7280):536–539, 28 January 2010.

I note you used double quotes on the phase I bolded above. It is reasonable to assume that you are quoting verbatim from one of the two articles above. Can you please point me to precisely were these words are used.

I didn't think so.

Ian Murray
13-07-2013, 05:20 PM
Yes, this pretend-Christian dines out on this argument, but the Rolls Royce engineer shows up the faulty logic behind it.
I note that Kenneth Miller's CV, inter a lot of alia, lists 51 refereed journal articles. I can't seem to find any for Dominic Statham. Is he above peer review?

antichrist
13-07-2013, 07:20 PM
I note that Kenneth Miller's CV, inter a lot of alia, lists 51 refereed journal articles. I can't seem to find any for Dominic Statham. Is he above peer review?

do you mean like Kasparov when judiging the brillliancy prize at 1992 Olympaid Manila? We get that type occasionally

Would Hawking, Einstein and Darwin fit the category?

Rincewind
13-07-2013, 07:24 PM
I note that Kenneth Miller's CV, inter a lot of alia, lists 51 refereed journal articles. I can't seem to find any for Dominic Statham. Is he above peer review?

He is also above even obtaining a research degree. Regarding output I can find one patent and some guff in "Journal" of Creation and on creation.com. As any review of these was likely performed by Jono they are scientifically worthless.

antichrist
13-07-2013, 08:03 PM
He is also above even obtaining a research degree. Regarding output I can find one patent and some guff in "Journal" of Creation and on creation.com. As any review of these was likely performed by Jono they are scientifically worthless.

it would be like Newton doing a review of Einstein, after Einstein has debunked Newton's theories

antichrist
14-07-2013, 06:57 AM
Originally Posted by Jono

Darwin explicitly claimed ‘No organism wholly soft can be preserved’.

RW
Yes soft tissue fossils were practically unknown in Darwin's time. However it is no longer 1859.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

and RW's response here tells it all - there has been the heightened clash in the English speaking world between religion and science ever since 1859 with the religionists losisng every step of the way - except a court case or education board majority here or there, but in the long term have gone the way of the evolutionists. So Jono you must recognise you are also going the way of the dinosaur - with flesh or no flesh

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2013, 04:24 AM
Roman Catholics are not pretend Christians.
I said that Kenneth Miller was.


You still didn't give me a reason why I should spend my time reading an article from a person with no discernable credentials in the area, let alone lay any weight to it.
By the same token, why should I even bother to respond to you and your ilk here?

Desmond
17-07-2013, 07:34 AM
I said that Kenneth Miller was.On what basis?



By the same token, why should I even bother to respond to you and your ilk here?Well, given your corresponding complete lack of discernible credentials in 99% of the subject areas you write about, what makes you think your ilk is any better.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2013, 10:29 AM
On what basis?
Because he disagrees with Christ about Genesis, and aligns with atheopaths to attack the Bible. If it looks like a wolf, sounds like a wolf, acts like a wolf, and goes to wolves to get help to attack the sheep, it has no grounds for righteous indignation when the sheep doubt that it’s really a fellow sheep (cf. Matthew 7:15). I'm very familiar with this wolf, e.g. My letter to the editor, Christianity Today (refuting Kenneth Miller) (http://creation.com/letter-to-the-editor-christianity-today-refuting-kenneth-miller) (2004); Mutilating Miller (http://creation.com/review-finding-darwins-god-by-kenneth-miller), by John Woodmorappe and Jonathan Sarfati: A review of Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth R. Miller, Cliff Street Books, New York, 2000


Well, given your corresponding complete lack of discernible credentials in 99% of the subject areas you write about, what makes you think your ilk is any better.
But then, one of my critics had to admit (http://creation.com/refuting-compromising-critic-cmi-seminar):

Jonathan is indeed highly intelligent and knows a lot about nearly everything (physics, biol., chem., geol., anthropology, and even the Bible and Hebrew)

Desmond
17-07-2013, 11:02 AM
Because he disagrees with Christ about Genesis, and aligns with atheopaths to attack the Bible. And yet is no different from the Roman Catholic position, which also takes a theistic evolution stance.



But then, one of my critics had to admit (http://creation.com/refuting-compromising-critic-cmi-seminar):

Jonathan is indeed highly intelligent and knows a lot about nearly everything (physics, biol., chem., geol., anthropology, and even the Bible and Hebrew)Wow that's amazing I'm sure your mum must be very proud; imagine how much better it would be if you were highly intelligent and specialized. i.e. like experts in each of those disciplines.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2013, 12:47 PM
And yet is no different from the Roman Catholic position, which also takes a theistic evolution stance.
The RC church allows for special creation, which it taught for most of its history, and doesn't ally with atheopaths to attack the Bible as KM does.


Wow that's amazing I'm sure your mum must be very proud;
She is, but I tend not to mention it because you might think she was biased ;)


imagine how much better it would be if you were highly intelligent and specialized. i.e. like experts in each of those disciplines.
This critic thought I was.

antichrist
17-07-2013, 12:49 PM
Jonathan is indeed highly intelligent and knows a lot about nearly everything (physics, biol., chem., geol., anthropology, and even the Bible and Hebrew)

AC
but I consider that you make a fool of yourself in most of the fields above, the chem part I dont know.

My Catholic dentist tells me how he was taught how humans have evolved with 5 different shapes of teeth.

My Catholic Hungarian bro in law tells me that God set off the big bang about 13 bil years ago. Is it because they are Catholics that they are more sensible?? Because they do not have to believe in the Bible literally coz they can go along with the Popes accepting evolution mid last century.

Desmond
17-07-2013, 07:28 PM
The RC church allows for special creation, which it taught for most of its history, and doesn't ally with atheopaths to attack the Bible as KM does.How is he supposedly "attacking the bible"?



This critic thought I was.Perhaps you don't quite understand what specialized means or the benefits thereof. Here's someone to help you out:

VxiQ0G42SaE

antichrist
21-07-2013, 03:10 PM
The RC church allows for special creation, which it taught for most of its history, and doesn't ally with atheopaths to attack the Bible as KM does.
..

You are wrong there. There is a Catholic book printed in Sydney that attacks Bible-believing Christians, I have a copy somewhere. It is a classic really, plenty of funny cartoons lampooning Bible-Believers

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2013, 05:23 AM
You may be a fundamentalist atheist if.... (http://www.tektoonics.com/test/parody/fundyath.html)

When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he's just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself.

Rincewind
23-07-2013, 10:03 AM
When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he's just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself.

You might be a rightwing nut job if...

When Camille Paglia says no one is born gay she is an enlightened cultural commentator who just happens to be a lesbian. When she says that "God was mans greatest idea," she's a just a leftard bigot with a penchant for pornography and smoking pot.

antichrist
23-07-2013, 10:17 AM
You might be a rightwing nut job if...

When Camille Paglia says no one is born gay she is an enlightened cultural commentator who just happens to be a lesbian. When she says that "God was mans greatest idea," she's a just a leftard bigot with a penchant for pornography and smoking pot.

Don't chicks get a say in the greatest idea stakes?