# Devil takes up residence in the Vatican



## Capt. Beaky (11 Mar 2010)

The Pope's head exorcist has revealed that the Devil himself is culpable regarding the sexual/physical abuses within the Vatican's hallowed walls. (Today's METRO) Seemingly he has exorcised over 30k people in 25 years. He mentions that Cardinals and Bishops could have been got at by Old Nick. I just wonder if any of these Cardinals would have voted for a like minded Pope? Stalin, Hitler and poor Harry Potter come under the cosh of this diddery old antediluvian toad. Perhaps the Demiurgus is alive and well and living in Exorcists?


----------



## z107 (11 Mar 2010)

Priests should be allowed to get married.
As long as they can't, the priesthood will both attract paedophiles and also create them.


----------



## Sunny (11 Mar 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Priests should be allowed to get married.
> As long as they can't, the priesthood will both attract paedophiles and also create them.


 
So there are no married paedophiles????? What do you think paedophilia is?


----------



## jhegarty (11 Mar 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Priests should be allowed to get married.



I agree. I am not aware of any theological reason for the ban.



umop3p!sdn said:


> As long as they can't, the priesthood will both attract paedophiles and also create them.



I don't see any connection. Lots of paedophiles are married. 

However much abuse happened in the Church , 100 times it happened in normal homes.


----------



## pinkyBear (11 Mar 2010)

> Priests should be allowed to get married.
> As long as they can't, the priesthood will both attract paedophiles and also create them.


 In repect to paedophilia, how does that explain various coaches and other non clergy married men who have been convicted.

However in relation to the OP's post, I read the article this morning and my first thoughts were - this is an easy way for the vatican to avoid taking any responcibility for these actions. Just blame someone/something else...


----------



## truthseeker (11 Mar 2010)

The Devil made me do it.

Not really any different a defence to "I heard voices in my head telling me to do terrible things" except the Devil story will probably be considered culturrally acceptable in context with the Church and the belief system in imaginary beings whereas someone talking about voices in the head would be taken away for psychriatric assessment.


----------



## Complainer (11 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Seemingly he has exorcised over 30k people in 25 years.


3-4 each day, every day (with no annual leave or bank holidays)!


----------



## Purple (11 Mar 2010)

Complainer said:


> 3-4 each day, every day (with no annual leave or bank holidays)!



Well there's no way he'd get through that  workload if he had a family to look after!


----------



## RMCF (11 Mar 2010)

A made-up job if ever I heard it.

You'd think they would work out a few numbers first before releasing stupid figures to the press. Idiots.


----------



## Teatime (11 Mar 2010)

The Catholic Church organisation is a complete disgrace and their hierarchy are being exposed for the power hungry frauds that they are with each passing month.


----------



## haminka1 (11 Mar 2010)

so if i stick a knife in somebody's back on the street and blame it on the devil, it's ok?
and if i get drunk and do something stupid next Wednesday, do I blame St. Paddy or the snakes?
i just love it when people try to shift responsibility on someone/something else ... it wasn't me, Sam made me do it


----------



## Lex Foutish (11 Mar 2010)

Teatime said:


> The Catholic Church organisation is a complete disgrace and their hierarchy are being exposed for the power hungry frauds that they are with each passing month.


 
Well said, Teatime.


----------



## MrMan (11 Mar 2010)

haminka1 said:


> so if i stick a knife in somebody's back on the street and blame it on the devil, it's ok?
> and if i get drunk and do something stupid next Wednesday, do I blame St. Paddy or the snakes?
> i just love it when people try to shift responsibility on someone/something else ... it wasn't me, Sam made me do it



It's one thing to blame it on something/someone else, but nobody says it's ok. Perhaps the man was using the Devil as a metaphor?


----------



## jhegarty (11 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> It's one thing to blame it on something/someone else, but nobody says it's ok. Perhaps the man was using the Devil as a metaphor?




Exactly.  

The devil = evil.

He is saying the actions involved were evil, the same as people say about Hitler. It's not an excuse.


----------



## Chocks away (12 Mar 2010)

After he went down to Georgia he went across to Europe (using the Hadean tunnel), took the Spanish Train from Guadalqivir to Old Seville before hiding under a seminarians cassock, slipping over the borders of France and Italy and shimmying into the Vatican. Almost as interesting as the original hocus pocus story. But seriously, do many AAMers believe in the Devil and the conflict between Good and Evil?


----------



## jhegarty (12 Mar 2010)

Chocks away said:


> But seriously, do many AAMers believe in the Devil and the conflict between Good and Evil?




Devil or not the battle between Good and Evil is very evident in our world.


----------



## haminka1 (12 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> It's one thing to blame it on something/someone else, but nobody says it's ok. Perhaps the man was using the Devil as a metaphor?



this guy is head exorcist - these people actually believe in demons and devil and obsession and do exorcisms for living - he was definitely taking it literally


----------



## DrMoriarty (12 Mar 2010)

I'm reminded of the "awful" joke about the Irish exorcist.

Must... resist... gnnnnnnnnnnnnrrrrrrrrrr.....



Teatime said:


> The Catholic Church organisation is a complete disgrace and their hierarchy are being exposed for the power hungry frauds that they are with each passing month.


+1

Interesting revelations on this morning's _Morning Ireland_ about ol' Ratfinger's previous form as bishop of Munich.


----------



## The_Banker (12 Mar 2010)

DrMoriarty said:


> I'm reminded of the "awful" joke about the Irish exorcist.
> 
> Must... resist... gnnnnnnnnnnnnrrrrrrrrrr.....
> 
> ...


 
Missed that... What was the general gist?


----------



## DrMoriarty (12 Mar 2010)

[broken link removed][broken link removed]


----------



## Slash (12 Mar 2010)

haminka1 said:


> this guy is head exorcist - these people actually believe in demons and devil and obsession and do exorcisms for living - he was definitely taking it literally



Not only do they believe in demons, they also believe in angels. And who is the Vatican's resident expert on the topic of angels? None other than our very own Dr Desmond Connell. So, if you want to know how many angels fit on the head of a pin, ould Des is yer man.


----------



## JoeB (12 Mar 2010)

Here's a link to an interview with Fr Amorth, who I think is the exorcist..

[broken link removed]

I posted that story in June, 2007 on boards... in this thread.....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055107933


And a quote from the Amorth interview..


			
				June 2000 issue of 30 Days said:
			
		

> Fr. Amorth: The smoke of Satan has entered everywhere. Everywhere! Perhaps we were excluded from the audience with the Pope because they were afraid that such *a large number of exorcists might succeed in chasing out the legions of demons that have installed themselves in the Vatican.*
> 
> 30 Days: You are joking, aren't you?
> 
> Fr. Amorth: It may seem like a joke, but I do not believe it is. I have no doubt about the fact that the demon tempts the authorities of the Church especially, just as he tempts every authority, those of politics and industry.



And another..



			
				June 2000 issue of 30 Days said:
			
		

> Fr. Amorth: I recall an illiterate peasant who, during an exorcism, spoke to me only in English and I had to have an interpreter. There are people who manifest a superhuman strength, *others who completely levitate from the ground* and whom it is impossible even for several men to keep seated in their armchair. But it is only the context in which these phenomena occur which makes us speak of demonic possession.




Pope John Paul II said that he who does not believe in the devil does not believe in the gospel, by which he meant that the devil is absolutely real, and present... and is as real as This post will be deleted if not edited immediately.

Of course I don't believe any of it....


----------



## Teatime (15 Mar 2010)

JoeBallantin said:


> Pope John Paul II said that he who does not believe in the devil does not believe in the gospel, by which he meant that the devil is absolutely real, and present...


 
Gabriel Byrne made a good devil in End of Days last night...


----------



## Firefly (15 Mar 2010)

pinkyBear said:


> ..
> 
> this is an easy way for the vatican to avoid taking any responcibility for these actions. Just blame someone/something else...


 
..someone whose existence can't even be proved - fantastic stuff.


----------



## Firefly (15 Mar 2010)

DrMoriarty said:


> [broken link removed]


 
The last paragragh of this post sums it up for me...

_In other developments this week, the head of a Benedictine monastery in Salzburg, Austria, admitted to sexually abusing a child decades ago and resigned. Dutch Catholic bishops announced an independent inquiry into more than 200 allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests at church schools and apologized to victims._

This problem is global and at the heart of it is the vatican who obviously knew/know what is going on.


----------



## Rois (25 Mar 2010)

Evil + D = Devil
God + O = Good 
God spelt backwards = Dog


----------



## VOR (26 Mar 2010)

Devil takes up residence in the times judging by the name of the journalist

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece


----------



## The_Banker (26 Mar 2010)

VOR said:


> Devil takes up residence in the times judging by the name of the journalist
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece


 
Brilliant!!!!!


----------



## Capt. Beaky (26 Mar 2010)

Well spotted VOR


----------



## VOR (29 Mar 2010)

I can't take credit for it. It was sent to me on email. I did a double take when I saw it though. What an unfortunate name for a journo on such a story.


----------



## Purple (29 Mar 2010)

I don't get the connection...


----------



## Caveat (29 Mar 2010)

His christian name is a euphemism for the sex act. 

It's predominantly an old fashioned upper middle class English thing though so I guess it may not be universally known. I guess 'bonk' is the new one.


----------



## Chocks away (5 Apr 2010)

In the crazy world of religion, is there a chance that the Pope is the Antichrist? After all we were told that Satan is very powerful .......


----------



## JoeB (5 Apr 2010)

Yes of course.. there's every chance... according to their own rules and view of the world.

In my view there is no antichrist anyway so no, I don't think the pope is anything other than a man, except possibly a coverer-upper, and maybe worse..

I have asked that question, on the Boards Christanity forum, whether or not the RCC could have been infilitrated by the devil or evil,.. I never really got a  response.. so I rephrased the question as what mis-deed would be so serious as to cause Christians to begin to doubt the nature of the Roman Catholic Church, .. and again, no responses..

I would have thought that the current scandals would be enough to cause even the most devout of believers to doubt the veracity of the RCC, but it seems not.. even though a few people have left the church there's no landslide..

I feel the RCC is an evil, criminal organisation which lusts after power.. this is the exact opposite of what it portrays itself to be..

The fact is that no religion would appear to be true, and it is quite likely, or overwhelmingly likely, that there is no God.. only us.

The one question remains as to where the universe came from... this is tricky, but positing a God type figure gets us no closer to an answer..


----------



## z107 (5 Apr 2010)

> and it is quite likely, or overwhelmingly likely, that there is no God.. only us.


Why?


----------



## JoeB (6 Apr 2010)

Well.. where's the evidence for Gods existence? There doesn't really seem to be any at all...

I cannot disprove the existence of anything.. including The Tooth Fairy for example, or Russells Teapot. It would usually be up to the people who claim that something exists to be able to demonstrate the reasons for their belief... otherwise in virtually all cases they'd be considered crackpots... but religious belief seems to be immune from people correctly calling the beliefs delusional, to a degree that would normally warrant a stay in a lunatic asylum. Why is faith (i.e belief without evidence) afforded such protection?

I cannot give this subject fair treatment.. there are many books on the subject, well worth reading in my opinion.

I'd consider the actions of the RCC to be evidence against the existence of God... or at least evidence against the existence of the RCC god.


----------



## Teatime (6 Apr 2010)

Well said JoeBallantin, completely agree with both your posts.


----------



## daithi (6 Apr 2010)

*Christ-AntiChrist particle physics*

If you collided a Christ particle and an Antichrist particle in the Large Hadron Collider would you find the God Particle?

I'll get me coat..

daithi


----------



## MrMan (6 Apr 2010)

JoeBallantin said:


> Well.. where's the evidence for Gods existence? There doesn't really seem to be any at all...
> 
> I cannot disprove the existence of anything.. including The Tooth Fairy for example, or Russells Teapot. It would usually be up to the people who claim that something exists to be able to demonstrate the reasons for their belief... otherwise in virtually all cases they'd be considered crackpots... but religious belief seems to be immune from people correctly calling the beliefs delusional, to a degree that would normally warrant a stay in a lunatic asylum. Why is faith (i.e belief without evidence) afforded such protection?
> 
> ...



Why is faith afforded such protection? Well to broaden that, if you were to lock people up for believing that there were higher powers than them responsible for the creation of the human race, you would also come down on those who react on 'gut instinct' and making decisions because it 'feels right'. We are not cold calculated products of science, so many things we do are out of instinct and cannot be explained. why do people do random acts of bravery when the odds on survival are low? 
We are not all the same and some people choose to believe that there is a God, some believe that we descended from Apes, and there's the big bang theory. Of course none of us are any the wiser, yet only the God theory seems to attract derision and snide remarks. 
If you equate believing in God as being as reasonable as believing in the Tooth Fairy then happy days, you can bask in the perceived idiocy of Catholics and every other religion, if not then thats fine also.


----------



## Purple (6 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> some believe that we descended from Apes, and there's the big bang theory.



I, like many people, accept the evidence that apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor (not that we are descended from apes) but if some other theory is proposed that is backed up with more convincing had data then I’ll change my mind.
The big bang theory is a different matter as I don’t understand the physics behind it but I do accept the work of the many thousands of scientists who support the theory because they understand it and the rationale behind it.

Both are theories, based on evidence. Neither are proposed as universal truths without any scientific evidence to back them up.


----------



## Teatime (6 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> We are not all the same and some people choose to believe that there is a God, some believe that we descended from Apes, and there's the big bang theory. Of course none of us are any the wiser


 
What?! Are you a Creationist?


----------



## Latrade (6 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> Why is faith afforded such protection? Well to broaden that, if you were to lock people up for believing that there were higher powers than them responsible for the creation of the human race, you would also come down on those who react on 'gut instinct' and making decisions because it 'feels right'. We are not cold calculated products of science, so many things we do are out of instinct and cannot be explained. why do people do random acts of bravery when the odds on survival are low?


 
On the latter point, there's plenty of research and evidence to back up the processes behind actions and behaviour, though the conclusion tends to be we're predictably irrational. I often act on gut instinct even though I consider myself generally rational. It's nothing to do with faith, just part of my evolution.

However, you don't answer the question. Why am I protected under law for being a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc, but not a Scientologist? The point is valid in that if you protect one set of beliefs you must protect them all, yet that's not the case.


----------



## MrMan (7 Apr 2010)

Purple said:


> I, like many people, accept the evidence that apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor (not that we are descended from apes) but if some other theory is proposed that is backed up with more convincing had data then I’ll change my mind.
> The big bang theory is a different matter as I don’t understand the physics behind it but I do accept the work of the many thousands of scientists who support the theory because they understand it and the rationale behind it.
> 
> Both are theories, based on evidence. Neither are proposed as universal truths without any scientific evidence to back them up.


 
It is interesting though that you say that you do accept the work of scientists because they understand it even though you don't, are you putting your faith in their work by any chance?
Theories based on evidence are just that, theories.


----------



## MrMan (7 Apr 2010)

Teatime said:


> What?! Are you a Creationist?


 
I just keep an open mind to all possibilities as I believe that a question that has an answer that is out of reach for the human race is one that won't be answered in my lifetime.


----------



## MrMan (7 Apr 2010)

Latrade said:


> On the latter point, there's plenty of research and evidence to back up the processes behind actions and behaviour, though the conclusion tends to be we're predictably irrational. I often act on gut instinct even though I consider myself generally rational. It's nothing to do with faith, just part of my evolution.
> 
> However, you don't answer the question. Why am I protected under law for being a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc, but not a Scientologist? The point is valid in that if you protect one set of beliefs you must protect them all, yet that's not the case.


 
I wouldn't object to scientologists having the same rights as the others you mention. As for faith and evolution, I guess its just a matter of perception. Luckily we don't all make rational choices all of the time and better still we don't get locked up for making harmless choices that others deem borderline insane.


----------



## haminka1 (7 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> We are not all the same and some people choose to believe that there is a God, some believe that we descended from Apes, and there's the big bang theory.



actually, MrMan, those, who don't want believe in Adam and Eve, don't believe in humans having descended from apes either - they believe that apes and humans had common ancestors - there is a slight difference between those two.
the thesis that we descended from apes was a deliberate anti-darwinist misinterpretation which wanted to belittle and mock darwin's theory of evolution of species. and the big bang theory isn't such a nonsense either - still better than believing in someone creating the universe in 7 days.


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> It is interesting though that you say that you do accept the work of scientists because they understand it even though you don't, are you putting your faith in their work by any chance?


 I only have a vague understanding of the physics behind the big bang theory but I do understand that the theory has been developed over decades and that it is based on scientific theory and logical deduction and that it is open to critical review.


MrMan said:


> Theories based on evidence are just that, theories.


 You say that as if it diminished them in some way. A scientific theory, once proposed, will be attacked by other scientists all over the world some of whom will spend their life trying to pick holes in it. A scientific theory that withstands that sort of review is a remarkable thing.

Creationism is not a theory since it is not based on any scientific information. It is based on nothing more than 3000 year old tribal writings. Its proponents argue in its favour by looking at the gaps in evolutionary theory rather than the mountain of information supporting it.


----------



## MrMan (7 Apr 2010)

haminka1 said:


> actually, MrMan, those, who don't want believe in Adam and Eve, don't believe in humans having descended from apes either - they believe that apes and humans had common ancestors - there is a slight difference between those two.
> the thesis that we descended from apes was a deliberate anti-darwinist misinterpretation which wanted to belittle and mock darwin's theory of evolution of species. and the big bang theory isn't such a nonsense either - still better than believing in someone creating the universe in 7 days.



I didn't say that the big bang theory was nonsense, i just said people have different beliefs, why you believe one unconfirmed theory over another is up to the individual. 
Apes and humans had common ancestors, so where did they come from? Where did the first ancestor come from?


----------



## MrMan (7 Apr 2010)

Purple said:


> I only have a vague understanding of the physics behind the big bang theory but I do understand that the theory has been developed over decades and that it is based on scientific theory and logical deduction and that it is open to critical review.
> You say that as if it diminished them in some way. A scientific theory, once proposed, will be attacked by other scientists all over the world some of whom will spend their life trying to pick holes in it. A scientific theory that withstands that sort of review is a remarkable thing.
> 
> Creationism is not a theory since it is not based on any scientific information. It is based on nothing more than 3000 year old tribal writings. Its proponents argue in its favour by looking at the gaps in evolutionary theory rather than the mountain of information supporting it.



But has a scientific theory given us a definitive answer? For me to prove that you are wrong is not enough to make me right, it just means that until someone proves their theory is fact we are all still clueless.


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> I didn't say that the big bang theory was nonsense, i just said people have different beliefs, why you believe one unconfirmed theory over another is up to the individual.


 It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that evolution and creationism are in any way comparable as robust theories. Evolution is based on observed fact and deduced theories which, in many cases, have later been backed up by conclusive fact. There is no evidence whatsoever to back up creationism. 



MrMan said:


> Apes and humans had common ancestors, so where did they come from? Where did the first ancestor come from?


 Read a few books! Start with junior cert level biology. 



MrMan said:


> But has a scientific theory given us a definitive answer? For me to prove that you are wrong is not enough to make me right, it just means that until someone proves their theory is fact we are all still clueless.


 Evolutionary theory is what links many known facts into a holistic proposition. What you say above is akin to saying that because we cannot conclusively prove that time is not a constant there could be a fairy city under the Rock of Cashel.


----------



## z107 (7 Apr 2010)

A creationism Vs Evolution thread! - where did this pop out of? 
It's been a while since we've had one of these. Maybe we'll find the answer this time.



> It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that evolution and creationism are in any way comparable as robust theories. Evolution is based on observed fact and deduced theories which, in many cases, have later been backed up by conclusive fact. There is no evidence whatsoever to back up creationism.


As far as theories go, they are both as bad as each other.
Evolution isn't based on experiments that can be recreated. Any empirical evidence is questionable, and is not back up by 'conclusive fact'.


----------



## z107 (7 Apr 2010)

> Well.. where's the evidence for Gods existence? There doesn't really seem to be any at all.


What happened prior to the Big Bang, before space and time existed? First there was nothing, and then it exploded.


----------



## Graham_07 (7 Apr 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> First there was nothing, and then it exploded.



Here we go another NAMA / banking thread


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> As far as theories go, they are both as bad as each other.
> Evolution isn't based on experiments that can be recreated. Any empirical evidence is questionable, and is not back up by 'conclusive fact'.


 Rubbish. There is well documented evidence of evolution all around us. It has been observed and documented in plants and animals. There is a fossil record of animals that are now extinct which can be shown to demonstrate a progressive adaptation of changing environments. 

There is not one piece of evidence anywhere that backs up creationism. In fact there is a mountain of evidence that disputes the events outlines in the various conflicting creation stories in the bible.


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> What happened prior to the Big Bang, before space and time existed? First there was nothing, and then it exploded.


If time isn’t a constant (as proposed by Einstein) then there was no time before the big bang.


----------



## z107 (7 Apr 2010)

> Rubbish. There is well documented evidence of evolution all around us. It has been observed and documented in plants and animals.


Has someone sat watching a plant or an animal evolve? did they then successfully repeat the experiment? That's how empirical scientific theory is formed. Everything from colliding particles to dropping weights off the tower of Pisa is done in this fashion. Experiments that can be repeated and observed.



> If time isn’t a constant (as proposed by Einstein) then there was no time before the big bang


That's why I put 'before space and time existed'. It just adds to the enigma.



> There is not one piece of evidence anywhere that backs up creationism. In fact there is a mountain of evidence that disputes the events outlines in the various conflicting creation stories in the bible.


Creationism isn't just Bible Creationism. There's also evolutionary Creationism and probably a whole lot more.
Why don't you post something that disproves Creationism?


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Has someone sat watching a plant or an animal evolve?


Yes, the evolution of the Peppered Moth over the last 200 year has been observed and studied in detail.



umop3p!sdn said:


> did they then successfully repeat the experiment? That's how empirical scientific theory is formed. Everything from colliding particles to dropping weights off the tower of Pisa is done in this fashion. Experiments that can be repeated and observed.


 Not all scientific theory (or fact) is deducted by repeatable experiment. It is often based on observation. For example plate tectonics is accepted as fact despite the fact that scientists have not moved any tectonic plates in laboratories. The existence of black holes is also accepted as a fact by most people despite the fact that they have not been recreated in labs either.




umop3p!sdn said:


> Creationism isn't just Bible Creationism. There's also evolutionary Creationism and probably a whole lot more.
> Why don't you post something that disproves Creationism?


 Yes, the celestial teapot and the giant spaghetti monster cannot be disproved either. The same applies to fairies, pixies or goblins. Is it reasonable to suggest that they are in fact real just because it cannot be proven that they are not? I would rather say that until one single piece of evidence supporting creationism is proposed it cannot be given any scientific value.


----------



## elefantfresh (7 Apr 2010)

> The existence of black holes is also accepted as a fact by most people despite the fact that they have not been recreated in labs either.



I wouldn't be so sure about that Purple


----------



## z107 (7 Apr 2010)

Why do I get that deja vu feeling?
Same old arguments, again and again and again...

Read the 'Criticism and controversy' section of the peppered moth article. It'll save me cutting and pasting chunks of it.

Can we break it down to this?
1. Do you completely denounce all forms of Creationism.
2. Do you believe Evolution to be true?

(BTW,  plate tectonics isn't accepted as fact, it's still a theory)


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Can we break it down to this?
> 1. Do you completely denounce all forms of Creationism.
> 2. Do you believe Evolution to be true?


Yes and yes.



umop3p!sdn said:


> (BTW,  plate tectonics isn't accepted as fact, it's still a theory)


Only by the kind of people who believe in creationism.


----------



## z107 (7 Apr 2010)

> > Can we break it down to this?
> > 1. Do you completely denounce all forms of Creationism.
> > 2. Do you believe Evolution to be true?
> 
> ...



Okay that's fine. 
I prefer to keep an open mind. Years ago, I thought Evolution was scientific fact, until I started reading the Creationists' view point. Unless someone comes up with a proof for one or the other, I'll keep questioning both theories. 

There are plenty of sites and forums dedicated to Creationism Vs Evolution, so I don't think we are going to get anywhere here. It's unfortunate that you appear to have made your mind up.


----------



## VOR (7 Apr 2010)

I have also made my mind up. I read about the recurrent laryngeal nerve and that did it for me. It satisfied me on the theory of eveolution. 

If you are not squemish take a look at the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW7NlkKaF38

Why on earth would any one have created sucha nerve for the giraffe?


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> I prefer to keep an open mind.



I also like to keep an open mind. If anyone presents one shred of scientific evidence to support creationism I will look at it. If that evidence leads to a more convincing theory supporting creationism over evolution them I will accept it. 
Can you point to one single piece of evidence to support creationism?


----------



## z107 (7 Apr 2010)

> I also like to keep an open mind. If anyone presents one shred of scientific evidence to support creationism I will look at it. If that evidence leads to a more convincing theory supporting creationism over evolution them I will accept it.
> Can you point to one single piece of evidence to support creationism?



[Reply = same post, but with creationism/evolution reversed.]


----------



## VOR (7 Apr 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> [Reply = same post, but with creationism/evolution reversed.]



(In a high pitched crying voice) Won't somebody _please _think of  the giraffes?


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> [Reply = same post, but with creationism/evolution reversed.]


[broken link removed]


----------



## MrMan (7 Apr 2010)

Purple said:


> It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that evolution and creationism are in any way comparable as robust theories. Evolution is based on observed fact and deduced theories which, in many cases, have later been backed up by conclusive fact. There is no evidence whatsoever to back up creationism.
> 
> Read a few books! Start with junior cert level biology.
> 
> Evolutionary theory is what links many known facts into a holistic proposition. What you say above is akin to saying that because we cannot conclusively prove that time is not a constant there could be a fairy city under the Rock of Cashel.



1 The fact that you speak of here is that observations have been made and theories deduced, and those _theories_ have lead to what exactly? A conclusion maybe? I'm not ruling anything out, but nobody can point to the answer yet.

 2 Read a few books! Start with junior cert level biology. 
So the first human and their creation can be traced through the medium of literature even at junior cert level, if only i wasn't being brainwashed in bible studies I might have read it.

 3 Evolutionary theory is what links many known facts into a holistic proposition. What you say above is akin to saying that because we cannot conclusively prove that time is not a constant there could be a fairy city under the Rock of Cashel.
And wouldn't it be great if there was one. It's just that we accept easily that there are different species of animal always being discovered, and that there are so many hidden species in the oceans of the world, but why can't we accept that anything is posssible? Our quest for scientific proof seems to lack any colourful thinking and only wants answers in black and white even when there aren't any.


----------



## z107 (7 Apr 2010)

Purple, for my links, type this into google or bing 
'evidence for creationism'


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Purple, for my links, type this into google or bing
> 'evidence for creationism'



I did. There's none.


----------



## z107 (7 Apr 2010)

So evolution is a fact then? Is that what you want to hear? There can be no doubt?

You'd better let the scientific community know that the theory of evolution has been upgraded to fact, courtesy of an internet search by Purple.


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> So evolution is a fact then? Is that what you want to hear? There can be no doubt?
> 
> You'd better let the scientific community know that the theory of evolution has been upgraded to fact, courtesy of an internet search by Purple.



Where did I say it's a fact?


----------



## z107 (7 Apr 2010)

You said believe evolution to be true. There's apparently no room in your mind for alternative theories.

Anyway, here's more of the same:
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=541297

To be honest, I'm really not interested in regurgitating the same old stuff over and over again.


----------



## elefantfresh (7 Apr 2010)

> To be honest, I'm really not interested in regurgitating the same old stuff over and over again


LOL! its taken to page 4 to get to this point!


----------



## Latrade (7 Apr 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> So evolution is a fact then? Is that what you want to hear? There can be no doubt?
> 
> You'd better let the scientific community know that the theory of evolution has been upgraded to fact, courtesy of an internet search by Purple.


 
Actually the scientific community are aware it is a fact. They're also aware that most people who debate on internet forums about this tend to have no concept of what fact and theory mean in science. Fact is what we observe. We observe and have evidence (ample) for evolution, plate techtonics, black holes, gravity, etc. We theorise as to what the cause is.

Evolution = fact. Natural Selection = Theory.

Things fall due to gravity = Fact. Newton's gravitational theory was improved by Einstein's gravitational theory.

In the same way there are still gaps in our understanding of gravity, (things still fall down to the earth. The moon and earth causes our tidal system. Planets still revolve around the sun), we still have gaps in our understanding of evolution, but species still evolve over time. 

And evolution is completely falsifiable. It's simple really; a human skeleton from the Jurasic Era would pretty much do that immediately.


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2010)

Well put Latrade.

Most creationists accept that there is some form of adaptation. They dispute whether species evolve from other species. In that sense they dispute evolution.


----------



## z107 (7 Apr 2010)

> They're also aware that most people who debate on internet forums about this tend to have no concept of what fact and theory mean in science. Fact is what we observe.


So to be clear, are you stating that you have no concept of what fact and theory mean in science? This is an internet forum that you are posting on.

Observation is interpreted, and this can cause problems. I do not believe there is anything you could call 'scientific fact'.
For me, a fact is something that 100% true, that can never be disproven, either now or in the future. Quite a tall order.
However, in order to study science, many things are 'accepted as fact'. Otherwise we'd never get anywhere. There is, of course, always room for doubt.



> Things fall due to gravity = Fact. Newton's gravitational theory was improved by Einstein's gravitational theory.


So is Newton's law of universal gravitation a fact?


----------



## DrMoriarty (7 Apr 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> So evolution is a fact then? Is that what you want to hear? There can be no doubt?


If it's good enough for Einstein and Mary Coughlan, it's good enough for me!


----------



## VOR (7 Apr 2010)

Getting back to the RCC and ongoing revelations. Norway is evolving in to the new shame for the Church ( sorry, I couldn't resist)

[broken link removed]


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2010)

DrMoriarty said:


> If it's good enough for Einstein and Mary Coughlan, it's good enough for me!



Lol


----------



## MANTO (7 Apr 2010)

*fact*

[broken link removed]
*–noun* 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: _Your fears have no basis in fact. _

2. something known to exist or to have happened: _Space travel is now a fact. _

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: _Scientists gather facts about plant growth. _

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: _The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. _

So is it fact that the definition of fact can actually be bent to suit what you call a fact.


----------



## elefantfresh (7 Apr 2010)

I suppose that depends if its a known or an unknown.


----------



## haminka1 (8 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> I didn't say that the big bang theory was nonsense, i just said people have different beliefs, why you believe one unconfirmed theory over another is up to the individual.
> Apes and humans had common ancestors, so where did they come from? Where did the first ancestor come from?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution


----------



## MrMan (9 Apr 2010)

haminka1 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution




The very 1st person/ape/spider etc, where did everything start? I don't believe that wikipedia has the answer to this question.


----------



## Complainer (9 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> The very 1st person/ape/spider etc, where did everything start?


Wasn't it the chicken?


----------



## Purple (9 Apr 2010)

Complainer said:


> Wasn't it the chicken?



... or the egg?


----------



## DrMoriarty (9 Apr 2010)

Slightly back on topic... () this CBC/BBC documentary offers some interesting insights into where the current bit of bother in the Vatican started.


----------



## The_Banker (9 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> The very 1st person/ape/spider etc, where did everything start? I don't believe that wikipedia has the answer to this question.


 

Fair point.. But if creationism is where things started (God created man/woman/animals etc..) then who created God? Did he create himself or was there a big bang in the cosmos billions of light years ago which created God?

I don't buy the whole "God should be worshipped and adored" ethos of the Catholic Church. If someone or something wants me to adore and worship it then they better do something to prove there power to me.
There is too much smoke and mirrors in the Catholic Church for my liking.


----------



## MANTO (9 Apr 2010)

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/head-start-human-ancestor-revealed-2131255.html?from=dailynews 

Head start: Human 'ancestor' revealed.

The mystery deepens


----------



## MrMan (9 Apr 2010)

The_Banker said:


> Fair point.. But if creationism is where things started (God created man/woman/animals etc..) then who created God? Did he create himself or was there a big bang in the cosmos billions of light years ago which created God?
> 
> I don't buy the whole "God should be worshipped and adored" ethos of the Catholic Church. If someone or something wants me to adore and worship it then they better do something to prove there power to me.
> There is too much smoke and mirrors in the Catholic Church for my liking.



I'm not putting forward the idea that 9 God or Gods are the reason behind our being, I'm just saying that until something is confirmed, little can be ruled out. If someone said aliens were our creators I wouldn't knock it to touch either becuase we simply have so little in terms of answers and more importantly the capacity to answer such questions.


----------



## Sunny (9 Apr 2010)

IF God exists, the consequences of going through life denying his existance are probably severe. 
If he doesn't exist, living your life while believing that a higher power exists and we all have to answer to him does not sound like the end of the world.
So on the basis of covering my ass, I declare that God exists!


----------



## DrMoriarty (9 Apr 2010)

Sunny said:


> So [...] I declare that God exists!


Don't you mean wager?

God, where's ClubMan when you need him?!

Or should that be the other way around?


----------



## The_Banker (9 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> I'm not putting forward the idea that 9 God or Gods are the reason behind our being, I'm just saying that until something is confirmed, little can be ruled out. If someone said aliens were our creators I wouldn't knock it to touch either becuase we simply have so little in terms of answers and more importantly the capacity to answer such questions.


 
Ok, that is a fair enough answer. On that basis no one has proven to me that God (or Gods) exists so I am not going to going to defer to the Catholic Church (or the Pope) as Gods representative on earth.


----------



## Purple (9 Apr 2010)

Groucho Marx was seen at mass once and when asked why he was there he said that he’d hate to be kept out of heaven on a technicality.


----------



## MrMan (9 Apr 2010)

It could also be said that christianity has been borne out of a woman lying about how she got pregnant and everything just got out of hand, who knows at least its the weekend.


----------



## Chocks away (9 Apr 2010)

DrMoriarty said:


> Don't you mean wager?
> 
> God, where's ClubMan when you need him?!
> 
> Or should that be the other way around?


Club Med perhaps?


----------



## shanegl (9 Apr 2010)

Sunny said:


> IF God exists, the consequences of going through life denying his existance are probably severe.
> If he doesn't exist, living your life while believing that a higher power exists and we all have to answer to him does not sound like the end of the world.
> So on the basis of covering my ass, I declare that God exists!



Which one?   Believing in the wrong one can be worse than not believing at all.


----------



## daithi (9 Apr 2010)

*god stuff*

I remember driving through Ohio and seeing a huge billboard with the words
HELL IS REAL
I found myself wishing that someone would put up a billboard 2 miles further down saying OH NO IT ISN'T
 

daithi


----------



## DublinTexas (10 Apr 2010)

Conventional Science is based on a compromise of the majority of scientists/people believes and their interpretation of any evidence. 

There will always be people who do not accept the majority and that are why we have a sort of a democracy where everyone is allowed to believe in his or her own interpretation, but the majority’s version is spread in schools/followed. 

That is the same for talking about evolution, manmade global warming or life on other planets. 

I personally think humans evolved with the help of humans from the Twelve Colonies who came to this version of earth and I don’t care which of the Lords of Kobol created this version of earth. I’m thankful they did.


----------



## Latrade (12 Apr 2010)

daithi said:


> I remember driving through Ohio and seeing a huge billboard with the words
> HELL IS REAL
> I found myself wishing that someone would put up a billboard 2 miles further down saying OH NO IT ISN'T
> 
> ...


 
Pah, that's nothing, best sign is going through Kilkenny. Under a STOP sign, some cad had written "Hammer Time!"


----------



## Latrade (12 Apr 2010)

DublinTexas said:


> I personally think humans evolved with the help of humans from the Twelve Colonies who came to this version of earth and I don’t care which of the Lords of Kobol created this version of earth. I’m thankful they did.


 
And just how do Toasters fit into this theory?


----------



## Firefly (12 Apr 2010)

The_Banker said:


> Fair point.. But if creationism is where things started (God created man/woman/animals etc..) *then who created God? *Did he create himself or was there a big bang in the cosmos billions of light years ago which created God?


 
Great question. I honestly think that we do not have the intellectual capability to answer these type of questions. Another one...where does space end - do you get to a point where you hit a wall...what's on the other side of the wall. What's the largest number (infinity)? What about infinity +1, or infinity +1 +1......


----------



## MANTO (12 Apr 2010)

We will all know one day, or maybe we wont, maybe we will just cease to exist


----------



## Arabella (13 Apr 2010)

As Voltaire mused, "If God didn't exist man would have invented Him". Like most things, the Devil is in the detail , so both entities are inextricably linked. If this is correct then both of these jokers co-exist in St. Peter's chair but Old Nick's star is in the ascendent at the moment. This has nothing to do with the Age of Aquarius - purely because Vatican officials refused to "Let the Sunshine in"


----------



## Purple (13 Apr 2010)

DublinTexas said:


> I personally think humans evolved with the help of humans from the Twelve Colonies who came to this version of earth and I don’t care which of the Lords of Kobol created this version of earth. I’m thankful they did.



Yea, but Caprica has been a big disappointment.


----------



## Arabella (14 Apr 2010)

Read today that a priest in the USA has called for the Pope to stand down. If this rallying call gathers momentum it may cause the heirarchy to rethink. Has a Pope stepped down before?


----------



## Teatime (15 Apr 2010)

Arabella said:


> Read today that a priest in the USA has called for the Pope to stand down. If this rallying call gathers momentum it may cause the heirarchy to rethink. Has a Pope stepped down before?


 
I read this book recently - "The fisherman's net: the influence of the Popes on history". Written by a priest I think. Fascinating stuff with the popes being a law unto themselves. A few popes abdicated and there were several "anti-popes" where there were dispute on who was the rightful pope e.g. the French cardinals (influenced by king) had a pope in Avignon and the Italian cardinals had their pope in Rome. At one point there were 3 anti-popes.


----------



## Purple (10 May 2010)

It seems that the Cardinal of Vienna has [broken link removed] and is now naming names in the Vaticans cover up of child sexual abuse.


----------



## Chocks away (10 May 2010)

Good for him. But we need a few more bigwigs coming forward to be heard. As the OP says, St Peter's Chair may have an imposter. Dan Browne could learn a thing or two from these (mostly) well fed bishops and cardinals. This fasting and humility/penitence doesn't seem to have penetrated their hypocritical aurae. This post will be deleted if not edited immediately wept!


----------

