Evolution and Big Bang are lies from Hell

[Silk]

The immaculate bit is when the god impregnates a married virgin wife of a carpenter.

Do try to keep up old boy

ACTUALLY the Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Catholic Church maintaining that from the moment when she was conceived the Blessed Virgin Mary was kept free of original sin and was filled with the sanctifying grace normally conferred during baptism. It is one of the four dogmas in Roman Catholic Mariology. Mary is often called the Immaculata (the Immaculate One), particularly in artistic and cultural contexts. The Immaculate Conception should not be confused with the perpetual virginity of Mary or the virgin birth of Jesus; it refers to the conception of Mary by her mother, Saint Anne.

 

[Lokki 7]

No it's not. The conception referred to in "the immaculate conception" is the conception of the virgin mary, not of jesus. The immaculate conception is the dogma that from the moment of her conception the virgin mary was free from sin.

Unlike all those other sinful newly borns? Right, gottcha. Makes perfect sense now.

 

[Silk]

No it's not. The conception referred to in "the immaculate conception" is the conception of the virgin mary, not of jesus. The immaculate conception is the dogma that from the moment of her conception the virgin mary was free from sin.

Beat me to it.

 

[Acker79]

Unlike all those other sinful newly borns? Right, gottcha. Makes perfect sense now.

I think the dogma means she will remain free from sin, for life.

I didn't write it, and I'm not a believer. Just pointing out the error/misconception.

 

[Twizzle]

And he's a member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee!

As is Todd Akin who got into a spot of bother for saying he believed that if women were legitimately raped their bodies had ways of preventing her from getting pregnant. ("Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child")

The child of a rape, if considered carefully;
a pregnant woman carries a child she is spiritually embittered about. She probably feels in some way 'divorced' from this innocent. Created always by violence, never an acceptable creation.
Born, it wears the features of the rapist, a constant reminder of a serious nightmare situation that wasn't welcomed.
And the poor child is innocent, already....a victim.
What a start, "born equal". Or NOT.

 

[Acker79]

The child of a rape, if considered carefully;
a pregnant woman carries a child she is spiritually embittered about. She probably feels in some way 'divorced' from this innocent. Created always by violence, never an acceptable creation.
Born, it wears the features of the rapist, a constant reminder of a serious nightmare situation that wasn't welcomed.
And the poor child is innocent, already....a victim.
What a start, "born equal". Or NOT.

Not in agreement with Mike Huckabee, then? Huckabee to Akin: 'Horrible' rapes created some extraordinary people - Los Angeles Times

 

[Easy 10]

where did the matter come from to create that enormous explosion Just a thought.

Just what I was thinking in the disabled toilet today during my morning excavation.

 

[Silk]

Just what I was thinking in the disabled toilet today during my morning excavation.

Evacuation, maybe?

 

[JonathanLivingstonSeagull]

I could point you too many people who DO believe in both science and God, they must be all deluded and uneducated professors of science.

that's more or less the state of it, yes. plus - name names

 

[Twizzle]

Will religion one day be uncovered as the lie from hell?
I understand this is what the thread is about, but who would get this idea across to the loving religious?
They would kill you to prove how deeply loving is their God

 

[Easy 10]

Evacuation, maybe?

No, definitely excavation. It took some digging out.

 

[Silk]

that's more or less the state of it, yes. plus - name names

Why don't YOU say what it is that makes you think scientists are all atheists?

 

[Dub-67]

And if you get a chance, read this, it may interest you:

"... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

Albert Einstein 1954.

Your turn!

Einstein also famously said 'god does not play dice'

He certainly didnt believe in a personal God thats true, but he never described himself as an atheist either.

From wickipedia;
'"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."'

 

[magoo]

More to the point magoo you don't need to "believe" in science. It doesn't take any faith. Science is testable and is able to prove or disprove most of its theories over time. When science is wrong it changes its mind.

Religion requires faith to "believe" in what it says because there is little to no actual evidence that most of its claims have or ever will happen.

Therefore it is unnecessary to "believe" in science, so I would argue that you can be scientific and also religious at the same time.

To clarify, you have belief in god, but an understanding of science. I would say that a huge number of people fall into this category.

yes I know you don't 'believe' in science as such, bit pedantic...

 

[Silk]

No, definitely excavation. It took some digging out.

Fair play he he he

 

[Lokki 7]

I didn't write it, and I'm not a believer. Just pointing out the error/misconception.

I don't care, I blame YOU now.

 

[Triggaaar]

Just pointing out the error/misconception.

It wasn't a misconception, it was an immaculate conception

 

[dingodan]

 

[magoo]

I could point you too many people who DO believe in both science and God, they must be all deluded and uneducated professors of science.

To my mind believing in science and religion is like believing in Thor and Rama.

 

[Brovion]

As Albert Einstein told the world energy and mass are inter changable. All the mass (stars/planets/earth) in the universe was once energy, at the very early stages of the big bang.

A nuclear bomb converts mass into energy....so the thoery goes that the reverse happened at the initial stages of the big bang and that energy was converted into mass.

Your next question though will be where did the energy come from well no-one really knows....however, there have been theories that our universe sits on a membrane and that our universe is part of a multiverse (the best anology I think is that our universe sits on one piece of sliced bread in a loaf) and it is our membrane (bit of silced bread) and another membrane (another bit of sliced bread) colliding that caused the energy that started off the big bang (however, this is just one theory).

Yeah, I was aware of all that I was just asking the Creationist (as I believe that is topbanana's guilty secret) as he was wondering where all the energy had come from, where he thought the physical 'stuff' had come from if the Big Bang is just some preposterous lie.

Anyway, it'll be a pointless argument, a bit like discussing 9/11 with one of the Tin Foil Hat crew.