Celtic Heroes

A bit off topic, but what do people think on the work of Gregor Mendel?

Mendel's work was excellent, and certainly ahead of its time. And now genetics has become the most interesting and informative part of evolutionary theory. What genetics shows us is simply amazing: from evolution as a whole, to human migratory patterns.

For those who do not know, he was a monk who was researching the variation of the peas through their colour in the monasteries garden, his research caused him to question his religion and burn his work before his death.

Where is your source for this claim? You state "for those who do not know," yet you don't seem to know yourself.

Even the Wikipedia source you linked makes no mention of this claim. It says nothing of him questioning his faith.

In fact, the Wikipedia page shows quite a different picture than you present.

First off, it says that he couldn't afford his schooling, and one biographer says "He became a monk because it enabled him to obtain an education without having to pay for it himself."

That alone could raise the question of "Was he entirely faithful upon entering?"

Then it goes on about his work in peas, of course, and that he then researched and bred bees after that. All provided by the monastery, of course. He then became the Abbot of the Monastery (hardly sounds like one who has lost his faith, and perhaps even suggests that he became more faithful during time there) and stopped experimenting after that because he was too busy with administrative duties, as well as fighting the government regarding taxation of religious institutions.

A second biographer states that it was the subsequent Abbot (after his death) that burned Mendel's work in order to avoid taxation issues.

There is nothing of him questioning his faith, and nothing of him burning his work.

Through it all, of course, is the fact that the Monastery was entirely supportive of his work; there seems to be no conflict with his beliefs and findings.

Wouldn't this prove that through research and understanding people can realise the truth and flaws in their religion?

Certainly no... even if your account were accurate (which at first glance it certainly does not appear to be) how is one man's experience proof for anything? It is no more different than using the example of one atheist who goes through a stressful life experience and finds comfort in God.

If you want to use education in your argument, you should look at broader trends, not individuals. You could look at the percentage of scientists who reject the notion of God in any given scientific body; you could look at the correlation between higher education (regardless of discipline) and atheism. Those are things to consider.

A bit off topic, but what do people think on the work of Gregor Mendel?

Mendel's work was excellent, and certainly ahead of its time. And now genetics has become the most interesting and informative part of evolutionary theory. What genetics shows us is simply amazing: from evolution as a whole, to human migratory patterns.

I see. I only studied his work in depth, not his religion. I guess the source for his religion was an awful one. Although as you probably know all sources vary in the information, both in truth and depth. For example, if you search 'Gregor Mendel' in Google, the first two sources have many conflicting 'facts' so it's hard to differentiate between what's true and what's not. Howevere I will take you word on it.

wow you guys are still going at it. Well I'll post a few quotes that probs been posted before and see where that goes

“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
― Carl Sagan

Sati is a remarkable funeral custom once popular in the western India. When a husband died, his wife would throw herself upon his burning funeral pyre, setting herself ablaze and dying along with her spouse.


•God kills over 50,000 people for looking at an ark. (1 Samuel 6:19)
•God kills 70,000 people because King David decided to have a census. (1 Chronicles 21:7-14)
•God approves of slavery, and instructs owners to beat their slaves. (Proverbs 29:19)
•And, finally, God makes sure that if you are guilty of even the smallest transgression, you shall suffer endlessly for all eternity, following a dramatic homecoming for Jesus, who will be extremely pissed off at everyone for putting him to death, even though it was just the Romans and even though he knew what was going to happen beforehand, and he could have easily avoided it by using his power as God to perform a miracle and prove who he was. (See the entire book of Revelation)

I just get annoyed at people who say "I have nothing against gays, just homosexuality", kinda like saying "I have nothing against agnostics, just atheists."

Crystal have you ever read the bible? He wanted to destroy the world with the ark because of sinners and noah was righteous. King davids people were killed because they wanted to kill david. God doesnt approve of slavery. It was a popular idea of humans. Humans created hell with original sin. Therefore sending themselves to hell. Jesus was not pissed off he was willingl to put to death. Try reading the bible then guess.

The original sin idea should be taken off just like the slavery one.

So you get pregnant, you choose not to abort the child but you are a crack addict, is it fair for the baby to have to suffer the rest of his life possibly being retarded and have to go through withdrawal when it's born? Yet, it's completely fine for "us" to have to live with the "sin" of two people only because they didn't obey god and gained knowledge.

And as for the ark, ever think of how many innocent animals died? And how entire populations would've been killed over God's crusade that everyone needs to follow him or burn in hell. Gets old fast to know your parents would hang you if you tried studying evolution just because your Christian and you can't do that (example of how God treated sinners, even though I don't get why if sinning is bad it's supposedly hard to resist thanks to him).

The bible isn't something you should go with anymore lets be honest, people wrote it, it's secular, a lot doesn't apply to us anymore besides its lessons, we shouldn't try maintaining morals that simply don't apply anymore (hating homosexuality, slavery, killing people over being "sinners", etc.)

How is life equal and abortion is asked to be illegal, yet some people still approve of the death sentence. Who gives anyone a right in that case to kill a sinner besides God.

Don't have time for full reply but the difference between abortion and the death sentance is huge. Someone who gets the death sentence is someone who did something wrong. God gave the government the right to give out the death sentence. Abortion is when you kill a baby. Plain and simple. The baby hasn't done anything agaisnt the laws of that country or the law of God. Also all your examples of how the bible is contradictory are poor and most are taking out of context and a couple are just wrong.

Abortion is when you kill a baby. Plain and simple.

No, it is not that simple at all especially when regarding incest, rape, disorders, socioeconomic factors, etc. With such cases, I think people (especially women) have a right to make that choice. In general, people have the right to abort a foetus at a time where it could not survive outside the uterus.

I hate to bring this up as well (and probably get called a monster) but we are approaching the carrying capacity of Earth. Life is precious but we should try to bring life into a balanced world rather than a crowded chaotic one.

Abortion is when you kill a baby. Plain and simple.

No, it is not that simple at all especially when regarding incest, rape, disorders, socioeconomic factors, etc. With such cases, I think people (especially women) have a right to make that choice. In general, people have the right to abort a foetus at a time where it could not survive outside the uterus.

I hate to bring this up as well (and probably get called a monster) but we are approaching the carrying capacity of Earth. Life is precious but we should try to bring life into a balanced world rather than a crowded chaotic one.

I'm sorry vraelen but two wrongs don't make a right. You can put the baby up for adoption but killing it is murder. Once there is heartbeat there is life. I think i heard there was heartbeat lik 2 weeks after conception. I think that it is murder to kill a baby six months before it is born in the same degree as it is to kill a baby 1 second after it is born. If it is in the case of rape i do feel sorry for you(meaning that person obviously) but you should put the baby up for adoption if you don't want to keep it. Im sorry there is no excuse for murder.

Abortion is when you kill a baby. Plain and simple.

No, it is not that simple at all especially when regarding incest, rape, disorders, socioeconomic factors, etc. With such cases, I think people (especially women) have a right to make that choice. In general, people have the right to abort a foetus at a time where it could not survive outside the uterus.

I hate to bring this up as well (and probably get called a monster) but we are approaching the carrying capacity of Earth. Life is precious but we should try to bring life into a balanced world rather than a crowded chaotic one.

I'm sorry vraelen but two wrongs don't make a right. You can put the baby up for adoption but killing it is murder. Once there is heartbeat there is life. I think i heard there was heartbeat lik 2 weeks after conception. I think that it is murder to kill a baby six months before it is born in the same degree as it is to kill a baby 1 second after it is born. If it is in the case of rape i do feel sorry for you(meaning that person obviously) but you should put the baby up for adoption if you don't want to keep it. Im sorry there is no excuse for murder.

That sounds horrible in my opinion... Birth the baby of a rapist just to put it up for adoption. I define life as a self sustaining system, hence, if it is reasonable that a foetus could survive outside the uterus, that would be life. And that is pretty much what laws agree to in the US and UK (not sure about others).

Here is a couple definitions for life(out of a dictionary app).


the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

Im sorry there is no excuse for murder not even rape. I sympathize with people who have been raped but if they get pregnant then i believe that they should have the child. The baby is a baby in the womb. It may be called a fetus but it is alive. There is no excuse for murder. Just because someone punches you for no reason doesn't mean you have the right to punch someone innocent. It's not the babies fault you were raped; and yet you say that it is reasonable to kill it just because you were harmed