Ant, do you plan to watch the show?

@Robert

Do you understand the question, Robert?
What specific catholic doctrine advises the bible should be read as science?

I want a quote.

Do you think all christians reject evolution?
Do you think all christians think the earth was creAted in 6 days?

What cave do you live in?
Your backward religious bigotry is outdated.

Do you think all germans are nazis too?

Chris OConnor wrote:Ant, do you plan to watch the show?

you must have missed where i said i already have.

ant wrote:@Robert Do you understand the question, Robert? What specific catholic doctrine advises the bible should be read as science? I want a quote. Do you think all christians reject evolution? Do you think all christians think the earth was creAted in 6 days? What cave do you live in? Your backward religious bigotry is outdated. Do you think all germans are nazis too?

Oh, so now ant says it is "backward religious bigotry" to defend modern science against obsolete dogma, and probably evidence of Nazi sympathies to boot. Yes ant, all scientists are Nazis. Be nice to the men in white coats when they come to help you.

Bigotry is the refusal to engage in reasoned debate with those of a contrary view. I am perfectly happy to debate anyone, especially someone who promulgates the perverse lies about science we see here from ant.

Ant, as is well known to those familiar with his devious methods, has invented his own imaginary perfect Christianity, and resolutely ignores the real Christianity that the rest of us know and love, or not.

In the real Christianity, Roman Catholicism is an actual institution that is nearly 2000 years old. One of its main central thinkers was Saint Augustine. I know ant will scoff that Augustine does not represent current Catholic thought, but as the festering pit link I gave in my last post illustrates, ant is talking through his butt in making such claims.

To cite someone whom ant has quoted approvingly, the Christian apologist James McGrath says "City of God looks like pretty strong, if not quite conclusive, evidence that Augustine was a young-earth creationist." MGrath's blog is quite interesting on the detail of Augustine's views of YEC as the basis of the Catholic dogma of original sin. He goes too easy on the fact that until the Enlightenment anyone who doubted the real existence of Adam would risk being burnt at the stake like Giordano Bruno.

Young earth creationism is the conventional Christian dogma that Genesis provides an accurate scientific explanation for the creation of the universe. All ant's daggers cast towards Giordano Bruno cannot conceal that ant is engaged in religious propaganda, rationalisation and apologetics, deceptively trying to pretend the Christian institutions are something they are not.

Verbal language may not be the language of the universe, but it is how we communicate; and when we communicate, we should at least make an attempt to be clear and accurate in what we are communicating. NDT clearly misspoke when he said that the BB was a far back as we can see and the production was clearly misleading when it represented the BB as a horrific and dynamic explosion. The "Wall" as represented by Atronomers, is specified as the CMBR at approximately 380,000 years after the BB which had to be a very smooth explosion according to the majority theory of this time.

There's a lot of potty mouth in this thread!

Lets preserve our dignity and yell at eachother with a bit more creativity.

Pinkies up, gentlemen.

ant wrote:What specific catholic doctrine advises the bible should be read as science?

The overlap isn't because bible=science. Why would you assume that? The overlap is because they both offer sources of knowledge. What specific catholic doctrine says genesis should only be read metaphorically?

NDT clearly misspoke when he said that the BB was a far back as we can see

Why do you consider that an error? Can we not "see" through math, if the language is metaphorical? Of course we can. The same language is used regarding behavioral algorithms. quantum mechanics, and large hadron colliders. Sometimes the heft of information conveyed through a metaphor is more educational and powerful than accurate language. Your chosen language may make it all sound weird and confusing. Cosmos isn't intended to take the place of a college course.

You finally get some science education and you're immediately more intellectually arrogant than many other scientists. Don't expect a production for laymen to value pedantic accuracy over flowery metaphor. Sit back and enjoy the show rather than arrogantly assuming you know better than the people that made it.

Robert Tulip wrote:

ant wrote:@Robert Do you understand the question, Robert? What specific catholic doctrine advises the bible should be read as science? I want a quote. Do you think all christians reject evolution? Do you think all christians think the earth was creAted in 6 days? What cave do you live in? Your backward religious bigotry is outdated. Do you think all germans are nazis too?

Oh, so now ant says it is "backward religious bigotry" to defend modern science against obsolete dogma, and probably evidence of Nazi sympathies to boot. Yes ant, all scientists are Nazis. Be nice to the men in white coats when they come to help you.

Bigotry is the refusal to engage in reasoned debate with those of a contrary view. I am perfectly happy to debate anyone, especially someone who promulgates the perverse lies about science we see here from ant.

Ant, as is well known to those familiar with his devious methods, has invented his own imaginary perfect Christianity, and resolutely ignores the real Christianity that the rest of us know and love, or not.

In the real Christianity, Roman Catholicism is an actual institution that is nearly 2000 years old. One of its main central thinkers was Saint Augustine. I know ant will scoff that Augustine does not represent current Catholic thought, but as the festering pit link I gave in my last post illustrates, ant is talking through his butt in making such claims.

To cite someone whom ant has quoted approvingly, the Christian apologist James McGrath says "City of God looks like pretty strong, if not quite conclusive, evidence that Augustine was a young-earth creationist." MGrath's blog is quite interesting on the detail of Augustine's views of YEC as the basis of the Catholic dogma of original sin. He goes too easy on the fact that until the Enlightenment anyone who doubted the real existence of Adam would risk being burnt at the stake like Giordano Bruno.

Young earth creationism is the conventional Christian dogma that Genesis provides an accurate scientific explanation for the creation of the universe. All ant's daggers cast towards Giordano Bruno cannot conceal that ant is engaged in religious propaganda, rationalisation and apologetics, deceptively trying to pretend the Christian institutions are something they are not.

You're so outdated and ill- informed regarding the church's position and men of the cloth that were influential on Catholic doctrine, it's become embarrassing, Robert.
Pasting stories of dialogue behind closed doors is something I've grown accustomed to from you.
But, then again, youre a mythicist, which means your breed is laughed at by historical scholars because of its shoddy history and conspiratorial promotions.

Many scientists since Darwin’s time have realized that scientific searching can result in the awesome realization that creation is an ongoing process, set in motion by an Eternal Creator.

In 1881, only 10 years after Darwin published The Descent of Man, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was born in France. After extensive study of hominid fossils and early human societies, this Jesuit paleontologist in 1938 completed his most important work, The Phenomenon of Man. His religious superiors found his thinking unorthodox and forbade him to publish.

After Teilhard’s death in 1955, many of his works began to be translated and published. He originated the concept that humans are a phenomenon of Earth’s evolutionary adventure, which is moving toward the Omega Point, the Cosmic Christ. The influence of Teilhard’s ideas has been far-reaching because very early he integrated broad scientific knowledge with a deep sensitivity to religious values.

At vespers on July 24, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI endorsed Teilhard’s thinking. In a homily about the priesthood, rooted in God’s power and goodness, he said: “The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: In the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.”

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newslet ... spx?id=236

Evolution is accepted by the Church with the provision that God is recognized as the underling force of the entire process.
The Theory of Evolution does not exclude a God from the process of evolution. Frankly, it says NOTHING about a god, as it shouldn't. You're the one adding to the theory itself when you start preaching, "There is no God because Evolution is true!"
Science isn't looking for god, Robert. Get that through your head. The scientific community is not publishing "We didn't find God here either" studies for peer review. Are they? Prove me wrong.

I'll take a quote from Augustine over McGrath any day of the week:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions … Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.1

I could go on but I always have to stop short with you because I remember you don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to religion because of your myopic, idiotic characterization of people who profess a belief in God.

Name one scientist burned at the stake for practicing science, Robert.

There's no objection here that the church did not suppress certain individuals who held beliefs about nature contrary to the teaching of the church. Yes, suppression is wrong. But to support the characterization of the history of the church as evil, and anti-science is a bald-faced lie when you bother to perform honest research. The Conflict Thesis that started this entire idiotic claim has been recognized as bogus and not worthy of validation. What you're doing is using arguments you've apparently read from the back of some cereal box. That's how idiotic they are.

You want to debate me about the churches contribution or lack thereof to the development of science here on BT?
I'd kick the crap out of you and your arguments.

I say the church was not this evil-eyed cartoon character, plotting against science that you and Cosmos imply that it was.

How about it.

Put up or just shut up.

Thanks

The overlap isn't because bible=science. Why would you assume that? The overlap is because they both offer sources of knowledge. What specific catholic doctrine says genesis should only be read metaphorically?

There's a distinction between the type of knowledge offered.
One can say the difference is a "why" as opposed to "how"


I'm not in the mood really to turn this thread about Cosmos into a what's in the bible argument cause there's a lot in it. I don't disagree there are metaphorical tales included. I do not believe literal interpretations of the Bible are held by all religious people.

I think it's petty clear the Bible is mostly a progressive account of the nature of man and his relationship with one (not many) God. The Bible documents several historical figures and their struggle with faith.

Thanks

Using math is not the same as 'seeing,' and that is not what NDT meant anyway. Everything to the left of the 'WALL' is speculation.