Originally posted by snowinscotland
You are mistaken. It is the Flying Spagetti Monster that alters test results etc by touching them with his noodly appendage. Evidence for the FSM (and the fact that lack of Pirates is the real reason for Global Warming) can be found on the FSM website.

FSM is yet another Creation of God's infinite sense of playfulness.

Originally posted by rwingett
Do you really think this discussion will move forward without the ad hominems?

🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
False. Several thousand priests have in just the past few decades.

www.bishopaccountability.org

There are about one billion Catholics in the world, so if "several thousand" means, say, 10,000, then that makes the percentage about .0001%. Even if it was 1%, that would still be inconsistent with the claim that "Catholics like buggering little boys." A small percentage do like to do that, but a huge majority do not.

For the record, I'd just like to say that I believe that abusing children in any way is evil, and I think that the Catholic Church hierarchy was evil in the way they tried to sweep the problem under the rug, or even worse in some cases to continue to let known child-molestors to continue to have contact with children. I would guess that 99% of Catholics would agree with me.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
There are about one billion Catholics in the world, so if "several thousand" means, say, 10,000, then that makes the percentage about .0001%. Even if it was 1%, that would still be inconsistent with the claim that "Catholics like buggering little boys." A small percentage do like to do that, but a huge majority do not.

For the record, I'd just l ...[text shortened]... ue to have contact with children. I would guess that 99% of Catholics would agree with me.

You misunderstand. There was supposed to be subtle sarcastic humor in that post. I guess I failed to include it.

Ivanhoe was stereotyping people in the quoted post. Therefore I stereotyped him. See?

Originally posted by rwingett
It's only tinkering from here on out. Fine tuning dates and and filling in holes. The adjustments will get smaller and smaller as time goes on.

every generation thinks they have solved science only to be proven bitterly wrong.

It's called historical perspective...many people on this forum should get one.

Originally posted by Iron Monkey
an unverifiable assertion, as is 'God exists' or 'God doesn't exist'.

science changes...it always does and always will.

Originally posted by Red Night
every generation thinks they have solved science only to be proven bitterly wrong.

It's called historical perspective...many people on this forum should get one.

Who thinks they have "solved science"?
Only someone who doesn't understand what science is would suggest that.

Science is merely collecting testable evidence from which hypotheses can be put forward.

Religion claims to have all the answers with no evidence.
Scientists (the good ones!) say "we don't know but we're working on it".
I leave you to judge which approach to the world is the rational one.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You see a couple of similar features in a creature that has as much
in common with a deer as anything else if it was really a living
creature at all, and call it a relative to a whale, and this for you is
observable science and evidence. Personally, seeing life and the
balance that we see through the entire universe to support life to me
suggests desig ...[text shortened]... hout evidence or
witnesses it is just that you have closed your mind to the possibility.
Kelly

It's still more believable than making men from mud, women from ribs and some Godly spirit creating everything in 6 days.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
One of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, the late Dr. Steven J. Gould, postulated his "punctuated equilibriam(sic)" theory because his careful examination of the fossil record lead him to believe that the Darwinian model of "gradualism" was unsupportable.

I'm not trying to argue against evolution per se, I'm just trying to point out that scientists can even disagree over what constitutes a "gap."

But Gould's PE idea is entirely encapsulated within standard evolutionary theory. Gould's idea of "sudden" comes out at 10,000 or 100,000 years; easily long enough for the changes to happen gradually. Gould's idea has been shown to be overly simplistic many times, by many authors (although chiefly Dawkins).

Originally posted by Red Night
science changes...it always does and always will.

Yes. That's its strength. It takes new evidence into account to become stronger.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have a complete bridge, show me!
Kelly

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Not that you'll read it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can see physical artifcasts, that is what you see, you [b]claim they
were 'wrought by evolution' and between your ears you are right.
Kelly[/b]

You must be the polar opposite of William Paley.

He finds a watch on the ground and assumes a designer.

You find a watch on the ground and suggest that the watch might not have been made by anyone or any process.

Originally posted by shavixmir
It's still more believable than making men from mud, women from ribs and some Godly spirit creating everything in 6 days.

Hey you have your stories I have mine.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You must be the polar opposite of William Paley.

He finds a watch on the ground and assumes a designer.

You find a watch on the ground and suggest that the watch might not have been made by anyone or any process.

You really don't need anyone to talk to do you, you are quite adept
to putting words in other people's mouths and running along as if
you know what you believe and what others believe too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Hey you have your stories I have mine.
Kelly

But he has EVIDENCE!