Bobby Jindal: The Future Of The GOP

#26
#26
I was positive that I stated the Bible was truth, yet not historical fact. Either my memory or your reading comprehension is poor.

I was referring to the...

The Biblical story of Genesis is much more credible than science.

...statement. This suggests you think the Adam and Eve myth is more credible than evolutionary theory.

And the point of my original post in this thread is Bobby Jindal seems to think the same thing.
 
#27
#27
I was referring to the...



...statement. This suggests you think the Adam and Eve myth is more credible than evolutionary theory.

And the point of my original post in this thread is Bobby Jindal seems to think the same thing.
Until science recognizes their logical fallacy in their stubborn refusal to state that God, Allah, Yahweh, any god, or any supernatural force (a force not found in nature) had to at least spawn the very first proton, then, yes the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 allegories are most certainly more credible than evolutionary theory and the Big Bang Theory.

I will also always hold that their is definitely divinity in humanity. There is none in the rest of the Animal Kingdom.
 
#28
#28
Until science recognizes their logical fallacy in their stubborn refusal to state that God, Allah, Yahweh, any god, or any supernatural force (a force not found in nature) had to at least spawn the very first proton, then, yes the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 allegories are most certainly more credible than evolutionary theory and the Big Bang Theory.

I will also always hold that their is definitely divinity in humanity. There is none in the rest of the Animal Kingdom.

in rjd's world, you sir, are unfit to hold political office.
 
#30
#30
Until science recognizes their logical fallacy in their stubborn refusal to state that God, Allah, Yahweh, any god, or any supernatural force (a force not found in nature) had to at least spawn the very first proton, then, yes the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 allegories are most certainly more credible than evolutionary theory and the Big Bang Theory.

I will also always hold that their is definitely divinity in humanity. There is none in the rest of the Animal Kingdom.

Seems like religion has the same fallacy, in that the explanation for the first particles is the same as the explanation for the origin of a divine being. "It just was."

Two kids throwing rocks from glass houses.
 
#32
#32
Seems like religion has the same fallacy, in that the explanation for the first particles is the same as the explanation for the origin of a divine being. "It just was."

Two kids throwing rocks from glass houses.
Your reading comprehension skills are as poor as RJDs.

The Bible never claims that God is subject to the Laws of Nature. The Bible states very clearly, throughout 72 books, that God is very much a supernatural being.

Thanks for playing...
 
#33
#33
hmm, I think you're reading a little too much into Jindal's remarks.

and citing wikipedia is about as reliable as citing the Onion.

The sources used for the wikipedia article are credible (albeit, it isn't of the foxnews credibility you like). If this were a democrat expressing that he thought manmade global warming be taught as fact in school science classes you would be all over it, wikipedia or otherwise.
 
#34
#34
Seems like religion has the same fallacy, in that the explanation for the first particles is the same as the explanation for the origin of a divine being. "It just was."

Two kids throwing rocks from glass houses.

Thank you.

Nobody knows. If people want to say God is eternal, by definition...then it should be equally reasonable to say the universe is eternal, by definition.
 
#35
#35
Your reading comprehension skills are as poor as RJDs.

The Bible never claims that God is subject to the Laws of Nature. The Bible states very clearly, throughout 72 books, that God is very much a supernatural being.

Thanks for playing...

What is this, some sort of "you're it, no tag backs" logic? If humanity prescribed to your reasoning, we'd still be hunting antelope with spears and living to a ripe old age of 35. Everything we don't know yet or understand is "supernatural." Ok.

Since you went the "well, he's supernatural. 'Nuff said" route, I don't see what argument you would have against a rubber-banding cyclical big bang theory. There's a neat little package of no real ending or beginning. But then again no one wrote that down for you in 72 books.
 
#36
#36
Seems like religion has the same fallacy, in that the explanation for the first particles is the same as the explanation for the origin of a divine being. "It just was."

Two kids throwing rocks from glass houses.
if this is the case, why is one so clearly superior to the other in the education system?
 
#37
#37
What is this, some sort of "you're it, no tag backs" logic? If humanity prescribed to your reasoning, we'd still be hunting antelope with spears and living to a ripe old age of 35.
Funny, I never realized that the Eqyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Brits abandoned divine worship and prescribed to the Theory of Evolution.
 
#38
#38
if this is the case, why is one so clearly superior to the other in the education system?

In my opinion, there is room for both. But it doesn't make sense to teach religion in a science class. They are two separate logic systems.

Science is based on systematically trying to disprove the null-hypothesis, to reveal more about the world around us.

Religion is based on faith, and systematically conforming the world to it.
 
#39
#39
Funny, I never realized that the Eqyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Brits abandoned divine worship and prescribed to the Theory of Evolution.

I never realized the advancements of those people were made by accepting everything they didn't know as supernatural.
 
#40
#40
What is this, some sort of "you're it, no tag backs" logic? If humanity prescribed to your reasoning, we'd still be hunting antelope with spears and living to a ripe old age of 35. Everything we don't know yet or understand is "supernatural." Ok.

Since you went the "well, he's supernatural. 'Nuff said" route, I don't see what argument you would have against a rubber-banding cyclical big bang theory. There's a neat little package of no real ending or beginning. But then again no one wrote that down for you in 72 books.

Exactly. Or what if the universe and time itself exist in a closed manifold, with no "beginning" or "end"? There is a wealth of theories out there that are just as reasonble, and better, then the "God Theory". The only thing they lack is being written in a magic book taught from childhood.

To me, using the Bible as a guide to scientific explanations is a fallacy. Because whatever probability you give to "supernatural forces" beginning everything, you have to place a lower probability that it was a "God", and an even lower probability that it was the "Abrahamic God", and a yet even lower probability that it was the "Christian God" sent to earth on a suicide mission to sacrifice himself, to himself, for the rest of us.
 
#41
#41
In my opinion, there is room for both. But it doesn't make sense to teach religion in a science class. They are two separate logic systems.

Science is based on systematically trying to disprove the null-hypothesis, to reveal more about the world around us.

Religion is based on faith, and systematically conforming the world to it.
don't agree with the final sentence nor that the two are mutually exclusive, but I certainly believe that there is plenty of room for both.

I'm not for advocating one over the other, but simply presenting what we know and the possibilities.
 
#42
#42
don't agree with the final sentence nor that the two are mutually exclusive, but I certainly believe that there is plenty of room for both.

I'm not for advocating one over the other, but simply presenting what we know and the possibilities.

Hmm, I concede that the final sentence didn't come out very well. I agree that more possibilities are better than less. I don't think religion and science are exclusive of one another. I just think they work in opposite ways.
 
#43
#43
I just think they work in opposite ways.
That is an extremely recent phenomena compared to the history and/or advancement of both science and religion.

It is also a phenomena in which the scientific community has been the catalyst for.
 
#44
#44
That is an extremely recent phenomena compared to the history and/or advancement of both science and religion.

It is also a phenomena in which the scientific community has been the catalyst for.

Ok, I'll bite. Would you elaborate on that?
 
#45
#45
Ok, I'll bite. Would you elaborate on that?
Theocratic civilizations spent the better part of history advancing mathematics and science in efforts to glorify their gods through both conquests made largely by gains in weapons technology and building projects made largely by gains in engineering.

The Greeks and Romans advanced gains in philosophy and more abstract and reasoned thinking, through mythology and working out to basic treatises on philosophical matters.

Christendom, the Catholic Church, educated Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, and Newton. While the Church publicly reprimanded some of these great thinkers, they never ex-communicated or broke ties with them. The trials were show trials intended more to appease those, outside the Church hierarchy, who were accusing the Catholic Church of moving away from the Bible than to actually impeded any of the scientific gains made by these men.
 
#46
#46
Christendom, the Catholic Church, educated Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, and Newton. While the Church publicly reprimanded some of these great thinkers, they never ex-communicated or broke ties with them. The trials were show trials intended more to appease those, outside the Church hierarchy, who were accusing the Catholic Church of moving away from the Bible than to actually impeded any of the scientific gains made by these men.

I find it a reprehensible that the Church decides to wait 359 years to absolve Galileo of heresy (for suggesting the absurd notion that the earth revolves around the sun), yet never once excommunicated Hitler or any other Catholic member of the third reich for their crimes against humanity.
 
#48
#48
I find it a reprehensible that the Church decides to wait 359 years to absolve Galileo of heresy (for suggesting the absurd notion that the earth revolves around the sun), yet never once excommunicated Hitler or any other Catholic member of the third reich for their crimes against humanity.
As it concerns Galileo:
Secondly, the admonition against Galileo WAS NOT an excommunication, but rather a censure, and the Holy Office did this to protect Galileo from radical zealots like Lorini and Caccini. It did not prevent Galileo from discussing heliocentrism hypothetically, and no such admonition was given to the Jesuits, who largely supported Galileo's findings and were free to teach them all they wanted. In effect, this was the Vatican's way of giving Galileo a firm slap on the hand. The Holy Office was effectively telling him never to play the role of theologian again, and to keep his place as a scientist.

It is quite probable that Galileo was trying to write a book that would keep his readers entertained while he simultaneously educated them. But this method, combined with the fact that he pushed heliocentrism as absolute truth again, became Galileo's undoing. The pope (Galileo's friend) was a geocentrist, and the irreverent writing style of the book made him look like an idiot. This came at a time when the Catholic Church was still reeling from the Protestant Reformation. It is unknown if the pope ever read the book, and in all probability his advisers discouraged it. The pope's defenders immediately went into action, and once Galileo was caught in that political machine, the poor fellow never stood a chance. He was tried on suspicion of heresy. His book was banned, and Galileo was found guilty and ordered to be imprisoned. It is suspected that the pope was the one responsible for having his sentence commuted to house arrest. He remained under house arrest (in his own villa) for the remainder of his life. This may seem harsh to us living in the 21st century, but keep in mind that with a heresy verdict on his head, Galileo's life was in danger. He could have been captured and killed by any number of princes and lords who viewed heresy tantamount to treason. Had he fled to Protestant territories, his fate would have been the same, since Protestants viewed heliocentricity as heresy too. House arrest was by far the most humane and charitable way of protecting a man with a price on his head. As long as he was under the guard of a Church deputy, his safety could be assured, and the Vatican could plausibly claim he was being punished for his "crime."

Contrary to popular urban legend, the Galileo inquisition was a political one, not a scientific one. Galileo was tried and condemned for what was perceived to be an attack on the pope, along with an attempt to preach scientific theory as theological truth. The Catholic Church never officially condemned Copernicus' theory of heliocentricity. It did condemn one of Galileo's statements that the sun is the center of the universe. On that point, the Catholic Church was actually right.

The Catholic Knight: The Galileo Inquisition Fully Explained

As for the Hitler question, Hitler had not been a practicing Catholic since before WWI. There were Catholic bans in place in Germany as early as 1933, followed by marked violence against Catholics. Pope Pius XI negotiated with Hitler to lift the bans and reduce the violence against Catholics living in Germany, in return, the Vatican made a deal that it would refrain from speaking out against the Nazi's. Note, this was all prior to Kristelnacht in 1938 and decidedly prior to Nazi Germany's external aggression.

Was this a poor decision by Pope Pius XI? Yes. Was it as reprehensible as revisionist historians make it out to be? No. The Catholic Church did what it could to protect its members (just as the Lutheran Church did). At the time, German Jews were not being sent to concentration / death camps. By the time they were, the Nazi machine was too powerful. Any proclamation in opposition coming out of the Vatican would have undoubtedly led to millions more Catholics being killed in the final solution (3 million European Catholics were put to death in Nazi Prison Camps).
 
#49
#49
As it concerns Galileo:


As for the Hitler question, Hitler had not been a practicing Catholic since before WWI. There were Catholic bans in place in Germany as early as 1933, followed by marked violence against Catholics. Pope Pius XI negotiated with Hitler to lift the bans and reduce the violence against Catholics living in Germany, in return, the Vatican made a deal that it would refrain from speaking out against the Nazi's. Note, this was all prior to Kristelnacht in 1938 and decidedly prior to Nazi Germany's external aggression.

Was this a poor decision by Pope Pius XI? Yes. Was it as reprehensible as revisionist historians make it out to be? No. The Catholic Church did what it could to protect its members (just as the Lutheran Church did). At the time, German Jews were not being sent to concentration / death camps. By the time they were, the Nazi machine was too powerful. Any proclamation in opposition coming out of the Vatican would have undoubtedly led to millions more Catholics being killed in the final solution (3 million European Catholics were put to death in Nazi Prison Camps).

Who cares if any one kills christians?

:blink:
 
#50
#50
Who cares if any one kills christians?

:blink:
I always enjoy it when someone tries prove the Catholic Church as a terrible institution for its lack of action taken during WWII. Last time I checked, the Catholic Church didn't have a military in the 1930s. The question alone ludicrously implies that had the Catholic Church ex-communicated, a non-communicant, Hitler, that the Holocaust would never have occurred.

"Now, go away or I shall have to taunt you a second time."
 

VN Store



Back
Top