|
Really, really f*cking scary. (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ_Elyot |
| quote: |
“I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything.… I think we need to recognize that we don't know.”
...
“We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant and that is why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong.”
|
This is the scariest thing in the entire article. The man doesn't understand evolution at all. Darwin's theory of design by evolution has nothing to do with us choosing running shoes over high heels.
The guy should read this:
 |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| quote: | Originally posted by musicsnob_NOT
Are you serious? You wouldn't be able to seperate your personal beliefs for the greater good? Many past leaders in Canada have been religous (both Liberal and Conservative). Abortion was struck down during a Conservative government and yet they didn't do anything to try and overturn the decision. Let's also look at the rest of the articles that came out after this first article.
|
Yes, I am serious. The fact that there are questions to the journalistic integrity (oxymoron?) of the article, he still refused to answer the question. If indeed he DID acknowledge the theory of evolution, why didn't he say "I acknowledge the theory of evolution but I do not wish this interview to be centered around my religious beliefs" - that's perfectly acceptable.
Seems like a big ing backtrack to me.....
I don't, however, feel that a chirporactor from Cambridge has the credentials I would like in a Science Minister. |
|
|
| Elendil |
| quote: | Originally posted by love_child
The bible also doesn't explain why gasoline ignites when it comes in contact with fire. Or why a MVC application is better than an ORM application.
Know why? Because the bible doesn't answer scientific questions at all.
It however did teach that:
A man with super powers:
- Raised Others From the Dead
- Transmuted water into wine
- Replicated Food on Demand (Similar to Star Trek)
- Walked on Water
- Resurected Himself
- He could fly
- He could heal people by coming in contact with them and speaking words.
Its all magical fiction that has been passed on by man through tons of religions that have tried to describe the complex world around us and have failed. The bible is not the answer to science questions because it is not a scientific book.
I do not read the bible to answer scientific questions and I also do not read it to answer cooking questions. There is a reason for this that most Christians overlook.
When was the last time God or Jesus fixed your computer? Why don't you pray to him to heal your Hard Drives bad sectors? Because its bull. |
I'm not quite sure I understand the direction you're taking with your post; on one hand, it seems as if you're understanding that the bible is indeed a tome of knowledge centered around a mythology that is indeed powerful when understood in proper context, but on the other hand, you seem to be relegating the teachings within to the catagory of "bull".
The symbolism of the "miracles" is most often missed completely. Food to the hungry, sight to the blind, healing to the sick - these are all "esoteric code" for what the encounter with true self, ie the holy spirit, brings to consciousness in the human condition. You're right - the bible doesn't set out to answer scientific questions because it doesn't need to. Scientific questions address the dimension of physical reality only - they do not transcend barriers into the spiritual world or into metaphysical reality. There is a place for both. True science - truth within "truth" - is a union of opposites - represented in a union between highest science and highest spiritual development. Call it the only way to "eat through the tree of knowledge to attain access to the tree of life", which is hinted at in the myth of the fall, which so many are so quick to write off as hogwash. One path without integrating the other is a failure to move past the state of "coagulation", or in other words, a failure to move past the chaining down to corporeal material reality. |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elendil
I'm not quite sure I understand the direction you're taking with your post; on one hand, it seems as if you're understanding that the bible is indeed a tome of knowledge centered around a mythology that is indeed powerful when understood in proper context, but on the other hand, you seem to be relegating the teachings within to the catagory of "bull".
The symbolism of the "miracles" is most often missed completely. Food to the hungry, sight to the blind, healing to the sick - these are all "esoteric code" for what the encounter with true self, ie the holy spirit, brings to consciousness in the human condition. You're right - the bible doesn't set out to answer scientific questions because it doesn't need to. Scientific questions address the dimension of physical reality only - they do not transcend barriers into the spiritual world or into metaphysical reality. There is a place for both. True science - truth within "truth" - is a union of opposites - represented in a union between highest science and highest spiritual development. Call it the only way to "eat through the tree of knowledge to attain access to the tree of life", which is hinted at in the myth of the fall, which so many are so quick to write off as hogwash. One path without integrating the other is a failure to move past the state of "coagulation", or in other words, a failure to move past the chaining down to corporeal material reality. |
But personal spirituality has absolutely nothing to do with religious cults. I understand your nod to symbolism but it is all taken far too literally - that's the problem.
And personal spirituality has even less to do with a higher being. Most people who are indeed 'close to attaining access to the tree of life', don't have a belief in a higher being, they just believe in the power they have within to make a positive difference. That is true spirituality in my eyes. Nothing to do with a story book and outdated interpretations of such. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by English Rachel
Not if they are in a position of responsibility that is in direct conflict with their beliefs. |
I'm not certain one can make the leap that having a personal belief in creationism is a direct conflict with being the minister of science? Many people are very good at separating their beliefs from their professional obligations.... Paul Martin is a devout Roman Catholic and he was full bore in favour of legislation to legalize same sex marriage.... I believe he was even threatened with excommunication and went ahead. I would contend that Mr. Goodyear should be given the benefit of the doubt until such time as it becomes apparent that his personal convictions prevent him from executing his professional responsibilities. |
|
|
| El K Dee |
Lets put all religious believers together on a boat and ship them to Antartica.
This thread was bound for mocking the Bible and people of faith. |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I'm not certain one can make the leap that having a personal belief in creationism is a direct conflict with being the minister of science? Many people are very good at separating their beliefs from their professional obligations.... Paul Martin is a devout Roman Catholic and he was full bore in favour of legislation to legalize same sex marriage.... I believe he was even threatened with excommunication and went ahead. I would contend that Mr. Goodyear should be given the benefit of the doubt until such time as it becomes apparent that his personal convictions prevent him from executing his professional responsibilities. |
You're missing the point. The initial article made it seem like HE REFUSED TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION which would make him nothing like Paul Martin (if that's his story). The second article changes things slightly (but that's not the article I am talking about) so refusing to believe in evolution IS in direct conflict, especially if he is being public about it. Personal beliefs should be kept that way. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by English Rachel
You're missing the point. The initial article made it seem like HE REFUSED TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION which would make him nothing like Paul Martin (if that's his story). The second article changes things slightly (but that's not the article I am talking about) so refusing to believe in evolution IS in direct conflict, especially if he is being public about it. Personal beliefs should be kept that way. |
No, Rachel, I think you're extrapolating what he said into something more. What he said was he refused to answer the question, which is understandable as it was clearly a trap. You've now extrapolated that to mean that he's incapable of properly executing the duties of his office; I am simply pointing out that your conclusion is unfounded unless there is some evidence that his beliefs are interfering with his job. |
|
|
| aflyonthewall |
| quote: | Originally posted by English Rachel
You're missing the point. The initial article made it seem like HE REFUSED TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION which would make him nothing like Paul Martin (if that's his story). The second article changes things slightly (but that's not the article I am talking about) so refusing to believe in evolution IS in direct conflict, especially if he is being public about it. Personal beliefs should be kept that way. |
It's quite obvious that you have completely missed the point of what being a Canadian is. I am SHOCKED that as a new resident, you have not taken some time to understand our history and the way we have been able to develop a society of tolerance.
There are and have been, many issues that could serve to divide a nation and most of them are social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and capitol punsihment. Many times people/polls will show wide support for positions that are different from public policy or law. Canadians have for generations been able to say to themselves "I disagree, but for the great good of society, I go along", allowing us to enjoy the social harmony that we do.
There is NO evidence that this minister is in any way trying to impose his personal views on public policy....so enough of the crap.
I think you should either take some time to understand the society you chose to join, or go the home to England. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by aflyonthewall
I think you should either take some time to understand the society you chose to join, or go the home to England. |
otay... that may have been a little uncalled for. |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| quote: | Originally posted by aflyonthewall
It's quite obvious that you have completely missed the point of what being a Canadian is. I am SHOCKED that as a new resident, you have not taken some time to understand our history and the way we have been able to develop a society of tolerance.
There are and have been, many issues that could serve to divide a nation and most of them are social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and capitol punsihment. Many times people/polls will show wide support for positions that are different from public policy or law. Canadians have for generations been able to say to themselves "I disagree, but for the great good of society, I go along", allowing us to enjoy the social harmony that we do.
There is NO evidence that this minister is in any way trying to impose his personal views on public policy....so enough of the crap.
I think you should either take some time to understand the society you chose to join, or go the home to England. |
Don't you think that societies the world over have learned the art of compromise? How perfectly ignorant of you to take a discussion on an open message board and make is societal.
The issue I have is with Stephen Harper choosing a Minister who, in my opinion, is unsuitable for the role if he cannot be POLITICAL about his beliefs to the media. It is, after all, politics.
To get personal with me is both unneccessary and offensive. |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
No, Rachel, I think you're extrapolating what he said into something more. What he said was he refused to answer the question, which is understandable as it was clearly a trap. You've now extrapolated that to mean that he's incapable of properly executing the duties of his office; I am simply pointing out that your conclusion is unfounded unless there is some evidence that his beliefs are interfering with his job. |
Understood, but as a Minister, you would think his advisors would have assisted him with being able to answer such a question that wouldn't evoke this kind of reaction from people. I think having anyone in that position that hasn't given thought to these kind of questions and the responses they're going to give MEANS he isn't capable of properly executing the duties of his office. |
|
|
|
|
