By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Roman Catholicism Exposed

 

Rate

Neutral 25 30.12%
 
Bad 44 53.01%
 
Good 14 16.87%
 
Total:83
Leadified on 19 October 2014
kljesta64 said:

Leadified said:

 Evolution is accepted by virtually every scientist in the Western world and is defined as a fact. 

 


again this evolution is fact nonsense.

show me one proof where one 'species' a fish for example evolved into another 'species'  an ape,dog,chihuahua,human...

Go back and reread my post, click the links and read what is there and do some research on evolution before you ask questions like this.



Around the Network
Nintentacle on 19 October 2014
Leadified said:
Nintentacle said:

We still have no observeable evidence that a species has turned into to something that looks different. Give me observeable evidence that some fish evolved into land creatures, or that we have evolved from something.

In other words, until we can trace back to the first human, and what was before them, or we do a really long-term study on a species, Evolution is not proven or unproven.

Here you go: http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ . Here's some more transitional forms: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms . Fish can't turn into a land creature in a time span you or I can observe, these thing literally do not happen overnight, these things take millions and millions of years. Ever wonder why bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics? That's evolution in action for you.

Also ever wonder where they are so many different types of dogs, big and small? That's just an example of microevolution, the only difference between microevolution and (marco)evolution is timescale. I think you should read this and educate yourself. http://evolutionfaq.com/.

Evolution is accepted by virtually every scientist in the Western world and is defined as a fact. If you somehow manage to prove evolution is wrong, all the science in the past 120 years is wrong and you can do this with the scientific method, you will win a Nobel Prize for that. And to that I say, good luck.

We still have no observable evidence.



WagnerPaiva on 19 October 2014
Soriku said:
Nintentacle said:
Leadified said:

Because Darwin died in 1882, there is no way that Darwin could have known about DNA or the genome. But science is not static, it's dynamic. It not like somebody just says something which they think is true and everyone agree that seems legit and everyone continues their merry way, case closed. Absolutely not. Darwin not being sure if his hypothesis is correct or not in the long term is meaningless.

We still have no observeable evidence that a species has turned into to something that looks different. Give me observeable evidence that some fish evolved into land creatures, or that we have evolved from something.

In other words, until we can trace back to the first human, and what was before them, or we do a really long-term study on a species, Evolution is not proven or unproven.

And the reverse.

Humans:

Just do more research on the fossil record and the other methods of making sense of evolution.

Or do you want modern day evidence of fish getting legs? How the hell are we going to provide evidence like that when evolution generally takes a long time? We also can't undo and redo evolution to show it happening. This goes the same for humans. Humans diverged fom other apes a long time ago. If you want other apes to become humans, you would need to find a way to undo evolution in a population before humans diverged, then show it happening again. At this point, the other apes can't become homo sapiens since they've taken a different path.

If you went to a store one day, came back to your home, and saw a car through the wall, blood on the floor, with fingerprints all over the place, what are you going to conclude? That there was probably a crash by somebody right? Or do you actually have to see it for yourself before being convinced?

"Evolution is not proven or unproven." This is just a lame, futile assertion that religious people make, not some sort of scientific consensus.


These graphics are so ridiculous that they really do all the debunking for me. If these animals evolved from each other, why are they all still here?

Let me tell you why: God Almighty, the one and only, all glory deserving, created them all.

A similar design does not mean a common ancestor, means that the Designer whas the same.



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

Nintentacle on 19 October 2014
XanderXT said:
This isn't how you help people to believe. You don't insult other religions or sects of Christianity. You should do it gently, not forcefully.

I've never insulted religions, I've only half-exposed them so far. I'll half-expose all things I know/think I can half-expose.





kljesta64 on 19 October 2014
Leadified said:
kljesta64 said:

Leadified said:

 Evolution is accepted by virtually every scientist in the Western world and is defined as a fact. 

 


again this evolution is fact nonsense.

show me one proof where one 'species' a fish for example evolved into another 'species'  an ape,dog,chihuahua,human...

Go back and reread my post, click the links and read what is there and do some research on evolution before you ask questions like this.

you dont even know what a fact means so please dont tell me what to do..you should do some more research yourself and by that I mean ask yourself some questions and try to find the answer instead of reading questions and just reading the anwers.



Tsubasa Ozora

Keiner kann ihn bremsen, keiner macht ihm was vor. Immer der richtige Schuss, immer zur richtigen Zeit. Superfussball, Fairer Fussball. Er ist unser Torschützenkönig und Held.

Around the Network
WagnerPaiva on 19 October 2014

Nintentacle, you are incorrigible... Look at what you done...



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

Leadified on 19 October 2014
Nintentacle said:
Leadified said:
Nintentacle said:

We still have no observeable evidence that a species has turned into to something that looks different. Give me observeable evidence that some fish evolved into land creatures, or that we have evolved from something.

In other words, until we can trace back to the first human, and what was before them, or we do a really long-term study on a species, Evolution is not proven or unproven.

Here you go: http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ . Here's some more transitional forms: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms . Fish can't turn into a land creature in a time span you or I can observe, these thing literally do not happen overnight, these things take millions and millions of years. Ever wonder why bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics? That's evolution in action for you.

Also ever wonder where they are so many different types of dogs, big and small? That's just an example of microevolution, the only difference between microevolution and (marco)evolution is timescale. I think you should read this and educate yourself. http://evolutionfaq.com/.

Evolution is accepted by virtually every scientist in the Western world and is defined as a fact. If you somehow manage to prove evolution is wrong, all the science in the past 120 years is wrong and you can do this with the scientific method, you will win a Nobel Prize for that. And to that I say, good luck.

We still have no observable evidence.


Bold: Obervable evidence, Italics: Evidence of Evolution, Italics-Bold: Observed Evidence over thousands of years

But I could throw at you dozens of papers, research proving evolution is a fact and I still do not think you will change your mind, despite all that. Therefore there is no reason for this conversation to continue.



Illusion on 19 October 2014
Nintentacle said:

Since the Qur'an wasn't all so sweet, I'm doing the much-easier-to-expose Roman Catholic Church. As you probably know, It's the one with the Pope.

To make it short, it shouldn't even be called a branch of Christianity. They say stuff like, "The church is the universal sacrament of salvation", and "Non Christians can be saved through the church", when the Bible says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."

Along with crazy things like "The Eucharist is most important in the life of the Church because it is Jesus Christ. It is the Incarnation continued in space and time.", and "The Eucharist is a sacrament which really, truly, and substantially contains the body and blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. It is the great sacrament of God's love in which Christ is eaten...", when the Bible says "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".

Hope this was better than the Qur'an.


Hi there.  As a practicing Catholic I would just like to chime in here. 

You are absolutely correct that we believe the eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ that has been transformed into bread and wine during the Mass.  That said, besides Church tradition, there is also a lot of support for this belief in scripture and I would just like to share a little bit of it with you, if that's OK:

 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood; you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.  (John 6:53-56)

It's true that most non-catholic christians believe that Jesus was speaking metophorically when he said this.  It's important to note however, that most of the people listening to Jesus got up and walked away as soon as he spoke about eating his flesh:

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:60, 66)

These disciples clearly did not believe that Jesus was speaking metaphorically and the fact that Jesus allowed them to leave indicates that he also meant this teaching to be taken literally.

Finally, the words of consecration of the host during mass are taken directly from scripture during the last supper when Jesus first gave his disciples the Eucharist:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. (Luke 22:19-20)

I hope I was able to help here.  We Catholics definitely consider ourselves to be Christians, just like our Protestant brothers and sisters, and if you believe that Jesus is contained within the Eucharist then it really shows how much Christ is at the centre of our faith as well as our Church.



kljesta64 on 19 October 2014
Soriku said:
kljesta64 said:

Leadified said:

 Evolution is accepted by virtually every scientist in the Western world and is defined as a fact. 

 


again this evolution is fact nonsense.

show me one proof where one 'species' a fish for example evolved into another 'species'  an ape,dog,chihuahua,human...


You're not going to have modern day fish evolve into modern day apes, dogs, etc. They're on a different branch.

Even if it happened, it would take much longer than the the average human lifespan of 70-80 years. So even if it could happen, you wouldn't be alive to see it, and so you wouldn't believe in it.

We've already seen changes happening in bacteria and fruit flies FYI. Given enough changes, enough diversity (mutations and natural selection), and enough time, new species can form.

'can form' is not a fact right ? 



Tsubasa Ozora

Keiner kann ihn bremsen, keiner macht ihm was vor. Immer der richtige Schuss, immer zur richtigen Zeit. Superfussball, Fairer Fussball. Er ist unser Torschützenkönig und Held.

Nintentacle on 19 October 2014
Soriku said:
Nintentacle said:
Leadified said:

Because Darwin died in 1882, there is no way that Darwin could have known about DNA or the genome. But science is not static, it's dynamic. It not like somebody just says something which they think is true and everyone agree that seems legit and everyone continues their merry way, case closed. Absolutely not. Darwin not being sure if his hypothesis is correct or not in the long term is meaningless.

We still have no observeable evidence that a species has turned into to something that looks different. Give me observeable evidence that some fish evolved into land creatures, or that we have evolved from something.

In other words, until we can trace back to the first human, and what was before them, or we do a really long-term study on a species, Evolution is not proven or unproven.

And the reverse.

Humans:

Just do more research on the fossil record and the other methods of making sense of evolution.

Or do you want modern day evidence of fish getting legs? How the hell are we going to provide evidence like that when evolution generally takes a long time? We also can't undo and redo evolution to show it happening. This goes the same for humans. Humans diverged fom other apes a long time ago. If you want other apes to become humans, you would need to find a way to undo evolution in a population before humans diverged, then show it happening again. At this point, the other apes can't become homo sapiens since they've taken a different path.

If you went to a store one day, came back to your home, and saw a car through the wall, blood on the floor, with fingerprints all over the place, what are you going to conclude? That there was probably a crash by somebody right? Or do you actually have to see it for yourself before being convinced?

"Evolution is not proven or unproven." This is just a lame, futile assertion that religious people make, not some sort of scientific consensus.

Yes, I want modern day evidence of normal fish eventually getting legs. If we can supposively find animals from earlier stages of Evolution, there's no reason we wouldn't be able to find animals from "between" two species.

If you can't find a fish with legs that is millions of years old, then the only opinion would be to study certain species throughout a lot of generations.