pope approves of evolution
bpuharic
http://zenit.org/article-20238?l=english
The Pontiff said that today in Germany, and also in the United States,
there is a "fervent debate between so-called creationism and
evolutionism, presented as if one of these alternatives excluded the
other: Whoever believes in the Creator cannot think about evolution
and whoever affirms evolution must exclude God."
However, Benedict XVI called this apparent conflict an absurdity.
"Because on one hand," he explained, "there is a great deal of
scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality
that we must see and that enriches our knowledge of life and of being
as such. But the doctrine of evolution does not answer everything and
does not answer the great philosophical question: Where does
everything come from? And how does everything take a path that
ultimately leads to the person?
--------------------
notice he is not as simplistic as our resident creationists.
one one hand he says EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE. there is 'scientific proof'
(sic) for evoluiton.
OTOH, he says, quite accurately, that science is not a philosophy on
which to base life (like creationists say it is).
NOR DOES EVOLUTION EXCLUDE BELIEF IN GOD
HE knows the difference between SCIENCE and religion.
would that creationists did!!
All-Seeing-I
The Church's position: "the possibility that man�s body developed from
previous biological forms"
what part of "ALLOWS THE POSIBILITY" is so hard to understand? THAT is
not FULL SUPPORT or saying God Did Not create man. That is saying it
is possible in the light of current evidence that is subject to
change.
<quote>
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching.
It allows for the possibility that man�s body developed from previous
biological forms, under God�s guidance, but it insists on the special
creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching
authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the
present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and
discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution,
in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming
from pre-existent and living matter�[but] the Catholic faith obliges
us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII,
Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or
developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that
the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not
inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
Burkhard
That is all the support science needs or wants. it is saying that this
is an issue for science to decide, and whatever science comes up with is
compatible with religious teaching. Nobody expects, or even, wants, a
religious group to endorse a particular scientific theory - only a
recognition that their religion has nothing to say about this issue
Nashton
Science doesn't need support from the Vatican, unless the "science" is
the ToE.
In fact, the ToE needs all the support it can get, from the judiciary to
the Vatican.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Dec 13, 10:13�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> from
>>
>> one one hand he says EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE. there is 'scientific proof'
>> (sic) for evoluiton.
>>
>> OTOH, he says, quite accurately, that science is not a philosophy on
>> which to base life (like creationists say it is).
>>
>> NOR DOES EVOLUTION EXCLUDE BELIEF IN GOD
>>
>> HE knows the difference between SCIENCE and religion.
>>
>> would that creationists did!!
>
>
>The Church's position: "the possibility that man�s body developed from
>previous biological forms"
>
>what part of "ALLOWS THE POSIBILITY" is so hard to understand? THAT is
>not FULL SUPPORT or saying God Did Not create man. That is saying it
>is possible in the light of current evidence that is subject to
>change.
fine. you finally get it.
accepting evolution is entirely consistent with being a christian.
that's my point. you said it's impossible to do so. that's the whole
point of your presence here.
but you finally admit yoiu're wrong.
no one here says god 'didn't create man' because that goes beyond the
scope of science. BUT, if he DID create man, he used evolution to do
it.
what part of that don't you understand?
.. So whether the human body was specially created or
>developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that
>the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not
>inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
>
>http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
absolutely agreed. glad to see you accept the fact that christians can
accept evolution
and still be christians.
All-Seeing-I
Yeah. That may be true.
But as an example, look at the thread title for a moment.
Observe how what the Pope has said is being misused to influence a
paradigm shift in religious thinking. Examples such as this can be
found everywhere.
Science may not need or even want the churches approval, but it is
obvious someone want's to make it appear that way.
Kleuskes & Moos
<snip>
As I would expect from a pontiff, the pope finds an elegant way to
reconcile his faith with scientific findings. The body of man has
evolved, but the soul of man was an act of special creation.
This does notcontradict science (which does not concern itself with
any concept of "soul", not even a musical one), nor does it contradict
the bible. Man was created by creating his/her soul.
Elegant...
Kleuskes & Moos
All ToE needs is evidence to support it. Thank God, there's plenty of
it. The Pope and the Judiciary obviously agree... It was the
IDologists who got their (proverbial) asskicked in the courtroom. ToE
wasn't on trial.
Nice try, though.
Nashton
I don't think science should be taught in religious classes.They ought
not teach the controversy.
But seriously, did you expect anything better by the bulk of these
idiots? Most of them can't tell the difference between abiogenesis and
the ToE and formulate most of their arguments based on the fact that
abiogenesis has been somehow shown to be true.
The evolutionist, especially the deprived one, will use any untruth,
outright lie or falsehood to prove his point.
The evo-ACTIVIST is foremost a fanatical atheist, using the tentative
ToE as a justification for his beliefs and actions. He/she equates the
narrative history of nature from a materialistic standpoint as hard
science, such as the ToR and QM.
The evo-ACTIVIST is a failure and is as useless as his beloved ToE.
Nashton
The pontiff is not, in any way, shape or form, representative of
Christian faith, I'm sorry to say.
There are the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant denominations, none of
which give a flip about what the Pope or any other representative of the
RCC believes.
So your childish "See, even the Pope believes in the ToE and he's on
your team" is both wrong and highly irrelevant.
I-R-R-E-L-E-V-E-N-T.
But then again, the lying, conniving and slick evolutionist_ACTIVIST,
will say anything to further his/her ideological agenda, as real
scientists don't argue scientific theories on forums, they rely on
scientific validity and repeatable empirical data.
Burkhard
Vatican analyses scientific developments pretty constantly, across all
disciplines. A colleague of mine, a prominent neuroscientist, just got
himself appointed to one of the advisory committees . Nothing do with
the ToE, but the philosophical/religious implications could be much
more profound.
Nashton
Any scientific theory need evidence to support it, so why invoke the
beliefs and the declarations of the RCC?
Thank God, there's plenty of
> it.
The Pope and the Judiciary obviously agree... It was the
> IDologists who got their (proverbial) asskicked in the courtroom. ToE
> wasn't on trial.
If the evidence to support the ToE was there, there would be no need for
ACTIVISM from your part.
>
> Nice try, though.
Any other religious leader you would care to quote in order to support
your beloved theory? Perhaps some lower court ruling or the opinion of a
talk show host, perhaps?
>
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
we agree.
Burkhard
Well, nobody is. So by your logic, we should stop discussing the
position of religious people vis a vis the ToE. Suits me. Bye!!
All-Seeing-I
Science actrivitsts demand that religion not be taught in science
class. But they want the cake and eat it too. They want to theorize
about man's origins which has always been the terrotory of religion
while not allowing the other side, or all of the other theories for
that matter, of man's origins equal time.
That could be considered censorship in it's own right.
> But seriously, did you expect anything better by the bulk of these
> idiots? Most of them can't tell the difference between abiogenesis and
> the ToE and formulate most of their arguments based on the fact that
> abiogenesis has been somehow shown to be true.
Presuppositions, assumptions, inferences and, preponderance of
evidence is what suports the ToE's divergence notion. But no
observations. I have learned right here on TO.
When those do not convince the audience there is always the gool`ole
"you are too stupid to understand the ToE".
> The evolutionist, especially the deprived one, will use any untruth,
> outright lie or falsehood to prove his point.
> The evo-ACTIVIST is foremost a fanatical atheist, using the tentative
> ToE as a justification for his beliefs and actions. He/she equates the
> narrative history of nature from a materialistic standpoint as hard
> science, such as the ToR and QM.
>
> The evo-ACTIVIST is a failure and is as useless as his beloved ToE
I wonder if it is a Big Toe or a little Toe. A funky ToE for sure. <G>
richardal...@googlemail.com
So do many non-activists, and most Christians. Why should religion be
taught in science class?
> But they want the cake and eat it too.
They do? Are "science activists" demanding that science should be part
of religious education?
> They want to theorize
> about man's origins which has always been the terrotory of religion
...as has the nature of the universe in general. There are religious
teachings about how the earth was formed, about the origin of thunder,
about all sorts of phenomena for which we now have a scientific
explanation. Why should human origins be any different?
> while not allowing the other side, or all of the other theories for
> that matter, of man's origins equal time.
If there were any other scientific theories of man's origin, we could
teach them as science in science classes. As there aren't, why on
earth should we teach one particular interpretation on one particular
religious book on which there is no agreement even between it's
proponents, and which runs contrary to the teaching of most Christian
churches?
>
> That could be considered censorship in it's own right.
In what way is it censorship to teach only science in science classes?
>
> > But seriously, did you expect anything better by the bulk of these
> > idiots? Most of them can't tell the difference between abiogenesis and
> > the ToE and formulate most of their arguments based on the fact that
> > abiogenesis has been somehow shown to be true.
>
> Presuppositions, assumptions, inferences and, preponderance of
> evidence is what suports the ToE's divergence notion. But no
> observations. I have learned right here on TO.
If you think that, it's clear that you are incapable of reading for
comprehension.
>
> When those do not convince the audience there is always the gool`ole
> "you are too stupid to understand the ToE".
Evidently applicable in your case.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
Excuse me? It's only creationists who are determined to confuse
evolutionary theory with theories of abiogenesis.
>
> The evolutionist, especially the deprived one, will use any untruth,
> outright lie or falsehood to prove his point.
And what untruths, outright lies or falsehoods are those?
Here is my analysis of several creationist web sites:
http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/
I identify many falsehoods on those sites, and some of them are
promoted in a context which makes it unlikely that they are anything
other than outright lies.
I suggest that unless you can provide evidence for such dishonesty
promoted by "evolutionists", all you are doing is making empty
accusations which do nothing other than to demonstrate your own
dishonesty.
> The evo-ACTIVIST is foremost a fanatical atheist, using the tentative
> ToE as a justification for his beliefs and actions.
I've never met anyone who matches this description, and I'm an
evolutionary biologist.
> He/she equates the
> narrative history of nature from a materialistic standpoint as hard
> science, such as the ToR and QM.
Are you suggesting that theories of relativity and quantum mechanics
invoke supernatural involvement?
>
> The evo-ACTIVIST is a failure and is as useless as his beloved ToE.
What do you think it tells us that all you can produce is empty
rhetoric?
Pathetic, dishonest little man.
What a credit you are to your cause.
RF
All-Seeing-I
Are you saying Top Positions in Vatican are being infiltrated by ToE-
Activists?
heh...
THAT's good to know.
Stuart
Evolution does not say God did not create man.
What it says is that if God did create man, he created man through
biological
evolution.
Stuart
Ron O
You are right about one thing, science needs no such support. The
only reason to put up the Vatican's pronouncements is to tweek
incompetents like yourself that can't come to grips with reality.
Science doesn't care what the Vatican thinks about science. The
Vatican didn't appologize for Galileo until 1992. Do you think that
Cosmologists and Astronomers thought that heliocentrism was still
valid until then? Heck, you can look it up. A Pope gave the nod to
evolution even before they applogized for Galileo. Where it really
matters in science, no one cares about your religious beliefs. That
is just a fact. Learn to deal with it. You aren't possibly correct
just because your church hasn't gotten the message that you are wrong,
yet. You are wrong because you are flat out wrong, and it is just a
fact that other religious people and organizations have come to accept
that fact.
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2000/03/The-Vaticans-Turn-To-Recant.aspx
Ron Okimoto
Stuart
Certainly your not.
douche bag.
Stuart
alextangent
>
> � The Pope and the Judiciary obviously agree... It was the
>
> > IDologists who got �their (proverbial) asskicked in the courtroom. ToE
> > wasn't on trial.
>
> If the evidence to support the ToE was there, there would be no need for
> ACTIVISM from your part.
>
>
>
> > Nice try, though.
>
> Any other religious leader you would care to quote in order to support
> your beloved theory? Perhaps some lower court ruling or the opinion of a
> talk show host, perhaps?
>
>
>
>
I think you're being pointed to the fact that one set of religious
nutters disagrees with another set of religious nutters, both trying
to square the circle and arrive at their brand of the truth.
The ToE doesn't need the support of the catholic church, because
science doesn't give regard to the pope and his dogma. Nor to the law
courts; the facts and the theories that scientists develop from them
would have carried on, regardless.
Nor does it pay any regard to you and what you think; I fear you are
farting against thunder. The Theory of Goddidit is truly dead.
Burkhard
No, I'm saying that Vatican invites top scientists from _all_
disciplines into its science advisory bodies. They have that weird
notion that in order to form a belief about current scientific
theories, you should find out what they actually say, ideally from the
best experts in the field. I can see how this notion is alien to you.
in this case a neuroscientist. His work has nothing to do with the
ToE, but as a scientific theory, it is a challenge to the notion of
free will.
Boikat
<snip>
>
> Science actrivitsts demand that religion not be taught in science
> class.
Music activists demand that pottery not be taught in music class.
> But they want the cake and eat it too. They want to theorize
> about man's origins which has always been the terrotory of religion
Nothing is off limits to scientific investigation, as long as there's
a phenomena to investigate.
> while not allowing the other side, or all of the other theories for
> that matter, of man's origins equal time.
What other *scientific* theories are there? Please list them.
>
> That could be considered censorship in it's own right.
No more so than not teaching pottery in a music class.
>
> > But seriously, did you expect anything better by the bulk of these
> > idiots? Most of them can't tell the difference between abiogenesis and
> > the ToE and formulate most of their arguments based on the fact that
> > abiogenesis has been somehow shown to be true.
>
> Presuppositions, assumptions, inferences and, preponderance of
> evidence is what suports the ToE's divergence notion. But no
> observations. I have learned right here on TO.
Again, you display your stupidity, since it's been pointed out to you
on severloccasions that DNA comparisons, detailed morpholoies and the
fossil record are *observations*. But you're to dull witted to
understand that. It must be due to you "created" genes, engineered to
make you a slack-jawed imbicile.
>
> When those do not convince the audience there is always the gool`ole
> "you are too stupid to understand the ToE".
In your case, that appears to be the case.
>
> > The evolutionist, especially the deprived one, will use any untruth,
> > outright lie or falsehood to prove his point.
> > The evo-ACTIVIST is foremost a fanatical atheist, using the tentative
> > ToE as a justification for his beliefs and actions. He/she equates the
> > narrative history of nature from a materialistic standpoint as hard
> > science, such as the ToR and QM.
>
> > The evo-ACTIVIST is a failure and is as useless as his beloved ToE
>
> I wonder if it is a Big Toe or a little Toe. A funky ToE for sure. <G>-
Two idiots with under developed brains, added together still equals
two idiots with under developed brains. So, when you two get together
to change a light bulb, which one of you opens the bottle, and which
one checks the mail?
Boikat
Ye Old One
>>> The Church's position: "the possibility that man�s body developed from
>>> previous biological forms"
>>>
>>> what part of "ALLOWS THE POSIBILITY" is so hard to understand? THAT is
>>> not FULL SUPPORT or saying God Did Not create man. That is saying it
>>> is possible in the light of current evidence that is subject to
>>> change.
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching.
>>> It allows for the possibility that man�s body developed from previous
>>> biological forms, under God�s guidance, but it insists on the special
>>> creation of his soul.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> As I would expect from a pontiff, the pope finds an elegant way to
>> reconcile his faith with scientific findings. The body of man has
>> evolved, but the soul of man was an act of special creation.
>>
>> This does notcontradict science (which does not concern itself with
>> any concept of "soul", not even a musical one), nor does it contradict
>> the bible. Man was created by creating his/her soul.
>>
>> Elegant...
>>
>
>The pontiff is not, in any way, shape or form, representative of
>Christian faith, I'm sorry to say.
A VERY large proportion of christians disagree with you.
>
>There are the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant denominations, none of
>which give a flip about what the Pope or any other representative of the
>RCC believes.
>
>So your childish "See, even the Pope believes in the ToE and he's on
>your team" is both wrong and highly irrelevant.
>
>I-R-R-E-L-E-V-E-N-T.
Only to a moron like you.
>
>But then again, the lying, conniving and slick evolutionist_ACTIVIST,
>will say anything to further his/her ideological agenda, as real
>scientists don't argue scientific theories on forums, they rely on
>scientific validity and repeatable empirical data.
>
--
Bob.
NashtOff - the moron who claimed "All drugs are derived from the ToE."
Will in New Haven
Attack evolution and then defame rational people for defending it. If
morons like you were attacking the concept of gravity people would
defend it.
You greatly resemble a rapist who cries foul because his victim
happened to be carrying a gun. As he dies.
--
Will in New Haven
Kleuskes & Moos
<snip>
> >> In fact, the ToE needs all the support it can get, from the judiciary to
> >> the Vatican.
>
> > All ToE needs is evidence to support it.
>
> Any scientific theory need evidence to support it, so why invoke the
> beliefs and the declarations of the RCC?
I don't. I'm merely rebutting your claims. Which is easy.
> Thank God, there's plenty of> it.
>
> The Pope and the Judiciary obviously agree... It was the
>
> > IDologists who got their (proverbial) asskicked in the courtroom. ToE
> > wasn't on trial.
>
> If the evidence to support the ToE was there, there would be no need for
> ACTIVISM from your part.
This is not ACTIVISM, this is entertainment. Banging your head with a
cluebat (tm) is fun!
> > Nice try, though.
>
> Any other religious leader you would care to quote in order to support
> your beloved theory? Perhaps some lower court ruling or the opinion of a
> talk show host, perhaps?
I can quote quoite a lot of religious leaders who aren't doing
desperate battle with obvious facts, however, i would not claim any
ofit as "support" for the ToE.
All the ToE needs is evidence and, as i said before, there's plenty of
it.
Tjuus...
>
>
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Dec 13, 11:00 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
Bravo!
Kleuskes & Moos
The pope is recognized as a successor of Simon Petrus by more people
that you will meet in your life. That is an ample majority of
christians. Your sayso does, however, not carry much weight,
> There are the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant denominations, none of
> which give a flip about what the Pope or any other representative of the
> RCC believes.
So?
Protestants aren't even really a church, according to the Pope. And
the "Eastern Orthodox" (which do you mean? Russian, Serbian, Greek?)
are still
a minority.
> So your childish "See, even the Pope believes in the ToE and he's on
> your team" is both wrong and highly irrelevant.
>
> I-R-R-E-L-E-V-E-N-T.
My side, your side... I am on no side. However, brushing aside the
pope as irrelevant, seems highly dubious.
> But then again, the lying, conniving and slick evolutionist_ACTIVIST,
> will say anything to further his/her ideological agenda, as real
> scientists don't argue scientific theories on forums, they rely on
> scientific validity and repeatable empirical data.
I'm no scientist, and i've never claimed to be one. I'm just an
interested layperson, reading this newsgroup for intellectual
entertainment. Seeing you getting your arse whipped is FUN!
Kleuskes & Moos
<snip>
> > Science may not need or even want the churches approval, but it is
> > obvious someone want's to make it appear that way.
>
> I don't think science should be taught in religious classes.They ought
> not teach the controversy.
For once we agree. But mutatis mutandis, religion has nothing to do in
science-class.
> But seriously, did you expect anything better by the bulk of these
> idiots?
Mwoh... These idiots have more knowledge in their little toe, than you
have shown us in this-here newsgroup.
> Most of them can't tell the difference between abiogenesis and
> the ToE and formulate most of their arguments based on the fact that
> abiogenesis has been somehow shown to be true.
Would you care to back up another of your insane claims with some
actual evidence?
> The evolutionist, especially the deprived one, will use any untruth,
> outright lie or falsehood to prove his point.
I hope you feel happy, ranting along like that. Propbably no one
except your buddy ASI will believe you.
> The evo-ACTIVIST is foremost a fanatical atheist, using the tentative
> ToE as a justification for his beliefs and actions.
What's an evo-ACTIVIST? An ardent supporter of Evo Morales?
> He/she equates the
> narrative history of nature from a materialistic standpoint as hard
> science, such as the ToR and QM.
ToE is hard science. Backed up by all the evidence it needs (and
more), and acknowledged as such by the bulk of biologists.
> The evo-ACTIVIST is a failure and is as useless as his beloved ToE.
What has an Evo Morales supporter got to do with ToE?
Reddfrogg
> On Dec 14, 5:37�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
snip
> > I don't think science should be taught in religious classes.They ought
> > not teach the controversy.
>
> Science actrivitsts demand that religion not be taught in science
> class. But they want the cake and eat it too.
Actually, what scientists want is to be allowed to do their work
without having to worry about a mob with pitchforks and torches. To
that end, making nice with the religious leaders is a benefit.
> They want to theorize
> about man's origins which has always been the terrotory of religion
> while not allowing the other side, or all of the other theories for
> that matter, of man's origins equal time.
You seem to be afraid that there are smaller and smaller gaps to push
God into. There's nothing about human origins that science isn't
able to probe into, even if it gets your knickers into a twist.
Also, if you have any other "theories" which meet the demands of
scientific rigor, please present them for peer review. Otherwise,
they can stand over there with all the other non scientific
beliefs.
>
> That could be considered censorship in it's own right.
No censorship involved. You have every right to present your
beliefs for scientific scrutiny, following the rules of science.
That means, you have to support your belief with physical evidence,
and accept that if you can't, your idea gets discarded.
Are you willing to do that?
>
> > But seriously, did you expect anything better by the bulk of these
> > idiots? Most of them can't tell the difference between abiogenesis and
> > the ToE and formulate most of their arguments based on the fact that
> > abiogenesis has been somehow shown to be true.
>
> Presuppositions, assumptions, inferences and, preponderance of
> evidence is what suports the ToE's divergence notion.
Actually, what supports the theory of evolution, including the concept
of "divergence" is observation, and inference from the evidence. The
only "assumption" is that the scientific method is useful. So far,
it's worked out rather well.
> But no
> observations. I have learned right here on TO.
Then you've failed to learn. The theory of evolution is widely
supported by observation. Not only is there direct observation of
populations becoming new species, there is observation of the evidence
left behind by ancient speciation.
>
> When those do not convince the audience there is always the gool`ole
> "you are too stupid to understand the ToE".
Perhaps you should take note then, and make some effort to learn.
If everyone is telling you that, perhaps they have a point. No one
else seems to be told that, just those who refuse to learn.
snip banter
DJt
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
heh... did you have your cheer leader dress on?
Kleuskes & Moos
Nashton
> Attack evolution and then defame rational people for defending it.
You colossal ignoramus, you. There is no need to defend a scientific
theory unless its detractors CLASH with the ACTIVIST'S world view.
If
> morons like you were attacking the concept of gravity people would
> defend it.
Gravity, you ignorant schmuck, is one of the most unknown notions in
physics. Do you have any idea how many scientists have been trying to
figure out what makes it happen? Stop using gravity as an example.
> You greatly resemble a rapist who cries foul because his victim
> happened to be carrying a gun. As he dies.
You're a useless dork.
Dave Fritzinger
In the "Do you think the Pope approves of this?" category.
You colossal ignoramus
you ignorant schmuck
bpuharic
>
>Science doesn't need support from the Vatican, unless the "science" is
>the ToE.
>
>In fact, the ToE needs all the support it can get, from the judiciary to
>the Vatican.
so the vatican is in on the anti-christian conspiracy of evolution?
you creationists are nuts
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Science may not need or even want the churches approval, but it is
>obvious someone want's to make it appear that way.
>
says the guy who got caught in a lie saying the church condemns
evolution
bpuharic
>
> Thank God, there's plenty of
>> it.
> The Pope and the Judiciary obviously agree... It was the
>> IDologists who got their (proverbial) asskicked in the courtroom. ToE
>> wasn't on trial.
>
>If the evidence to support the ToE was there, there would be no need for
>ACTIVISM from your part.
ROFLMAO!!! nashtie and his group of theological thugs, including
islamists, attack science
THEN claim if it was science it wouldnt need defending.
it never occurs to them that the only folks attacking science are
religious fanatics
bpuharic
>>
>
>I don't think science should be taught in religious classes.They ought
>not teach the controversy.
>
>But seriously, did you expect anything better by the bulk of these
>idiots? Most of them can't tell the difference between abiogenesis and
>the ToE and formulate most of their arguments based on the fact that
>abiogenesis has been somehow shown to be true.
>
guess the moron is unaware that the creationist 'george' routinely
says evolution is false because it can't explain abiogenesis.
oh well, creationists dont know their own positions...
>The evolutionist, especially the deprived one, will use any untruth,
>outright lie or falsehood to prove his point.
says the guy who said the pope condemns evolution...and can't back
that up
>The evo-ACTIVIST is foremost a fanatical atheist, using the tentative
>ToE as a justification for his beliefs and actions. He/she equates the
>narrative history of nature from a materialistic standpoint as hard
>science, such as the ToR and QM.
so tell us...where is the success of creationism?
oh. there aren't any
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>> Attack evolution and then defame rational people for defending it.
>
>You colossal ignoramus, you. There is no need to defend a scientific
>theory unless its detractors CLASH with the ACTIVIST'S world view.
>
> If
>> morons like you were attacking the concept of gravity people would
>> defend it.
>
>Gravity, you ignorant schmuck, is one of the most unknown notions in
>physics.
Is it?
Ok, unlike evolution, where there is only one theory, gravity has a
number. Again, unlike evolution, where one theory explains it all,
none of the current theories of gravity work in all possible
situations. As a result, unlike evolution, we need to do a lot more
work to unify the various theories of gravity.
> Do you have any idea how many scientists have been trying to
>figure out what makes it happen? Stop using gravity as an example.
Why? Gravity, like evolution, is one of the aspects of reality that
science looks at.
>
>> You greatly resemble a rapist who cries foul because his victim
>> happened to be carrying a gun. As he dies.
>
>You're a useless dork.
Few are as useless, or are stupid, as you are NashtOff.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Science actrivitsts demand that religion not be taught in science
>class
uh...no. check the 1st amendment. you theocrats want a taliban style
govt here in the US
.. But they want the cake and eat it too. They want to theorize
>about man's origins which has always been the terrotory of religion
>while not allowing the other side, or all of the other theories for
>that matter, of man's origins equal time.
tough. live with it. you want religion? go to saudi arabia. science is
science. you guys don't get a veto over science
tough shit.
>
>That could be considered censorship in it's own right.
bullshit. check with thomas jefferson.
remember the founding fathers?
>
>> But seriously, did you expect anything better by the bulk of these
>> idiots? Most of them can't tell the difference between abiogenesis and
>> the ToE and formulate most of their arguments based on the fact that
>> abiogenesis has been somehow shown to be true.
>
>Presuppositions, assumptions, inferences and, preponderance of
>evidence is what suports the ToE's divergence notion. But no
>observations. I have learned right here on TO.
you're a taliban christian who's never spent a day in a lab
what the hell do you know about science?
>
>When those do not convince the audience there is always the gool`ole
>"you are too stupid to understand the ToE".
well, you ARE
bpuharic
>>
>
>The pontiff is not, in any way, shape or form, representative of
>Christian faith, I'm sorry to say.
one of his titles is 'the vicar of christ on earth'
so you're wrong AND anti-catholic
>
>There are the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant denominations, none of
>which give a flip about what the Pope or any other representative of the
>RCC believes.
which has what to do with the pope?
>
>So your childish "See, even the Pope believes in the ToE and he's on
>your team" is both wrong and highly irrelevant.
>
>I-R-R-E-L-E-V-E-N-T.
>
>But then again, the lying, conniving and slick evolutionist_ACTIVIST,
>will say anything to further his/her ideological agenda, as real
>scientists don't argue scientific theories on forums, they rely on
>scientific validity and repeatable empirical data.
so you just got your ass handed to you when it's proved the leader of
the largest christian church says evolution is fine
so you say he's just another guy...
uh huh
>
Steven L.
news:957ci558oafgnup9l...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:00:17 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 13, 10:13�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> from
> >>
> >> one one hand he says EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE. there is 'scientific proof'
> >> (sic) for evoluiton.
> >>
> >> OTOH, he says, quite accurately, that science is not a philosophy on
> >> which to base life (like creationists say it is).
> >>
> >> NOR DOES EVOLUTION EXCLUDE BELIEF IN GOD
> >>
> >> HE knows the difference between SCIENCE and religion.
> >>
> >> would that creationists did!!
> >
> >
> >The Church's position: "the possibility that man�s body developed from
> >previous biological forms"
> >
> >what part of "ALLOWS THE POSIBILITY" is so hard to understand? THAT is
> >not FULL SUPPORT or saying God Did Not create man. That is saying it
> >is possible in the light of current evidence that is subject to
> >change.
>
> fine. you finally get it.
>
> accepting evolution is entirely consistent with being a christian.
> that's my point. you said it's impossible to do so. that's the whole
> point of your presence here.
It's likely to be easier for a Catholic to accept evolution than for a
Southern Baptist, owing to the differences in how they interpret the
significance of Genesis.
I'll wager that All-Seeing-I is not a Catholic.
Indeed, I don't know of any Catholic creationists in America. That's
not a coincidence.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Nashton
What makes you think i care what the Pope approves, lab tech?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Dave Fritzinger
<dfri...@hotmail.com>:
Hey, that's one of Nashie's more restrained posts; no
scatological or obscene comments at all...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Dave Fritzinger
Nicky, I have demonstrated my qualifications, so the only thing you
are doing is lying. Do I have to do it again, just to rub it in?
You ain't much of a Christian, are you?
Christopher Denney
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:34:36 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Dave Fritzinger
>
> >On Dec 14, 12:27�pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
>
> >In the "Do you think the Pope approves of this?" category.
>
> >You colossal ignoramus
> >you ignorant schmuck
> >You're a useless dork.
>
> Hey, that's one of Nashie's more restrained posts; no
> scatological or obscene comments at all...
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � - McNameless
Although, technically, dork is a reference to a body part. Usually a
whale's body part, I think. So could be construed as obscene.
bpuharic
>Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>> Attack evolution and then defame rational people for defending it.
>
>You colossal ignoramus, you. There is no need to defend a scientific
>theory unless its detractors CLASH with the ACTIVIST'S world view.
the detractors are religious fanatics. it's like saying there's no
reason to defend civil rights because the racists are right
>
> If
>> morons like you were attacking the concept of gravity people would
>> defend it.
>
>Gravity, you ignorant schmuck, is one of the most unknown notions in
>physics. Do you have any idea how many scientists have been trying to
>figure out what makes it happen? Stop using gravity as an example.
and if only creationists were able to make a contribution. but for
2000 years they thought gravity was due to ghosts...
VoiceOfReason
>
> > The Pontiff said that today in Germany, and also in the United States,
> > there is a "fervent debate between so-called creationism and
> > evolutionism, presented as if one of these alternatives excluded the
> > other: Whoever believes in the Creator cannot think about evolution
> > and whoever affirms evolution must exclude God."
>
> > However, Benedict XVI called this apparent conflict an absurdity.
>
> > "Because on one hand," he explained, "there is a great deal of
> > scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality
> > that we must see and that enriches our knowledge of life and of being
> > as such. But the doctrine of evolution does not answer everything and
> > does not answer the great philosophical question: Where does
> > everything come from? And how does everything take a path that
> > ultimately leads to the person?
> > --------------------
>
> > notice he is not as simplistic as our resident creationists.
>
> > (sic) for evoluiton.
>
> > OTOH, he says, quite accurately, that science is not a philosophy on
> > which to base life (like creationists say it is).
>
> > NOR DOES EVOLUTION EXCLUDE BELIEF IN GOD
>
> > HE knows the difference between SCIENCE and religion.
>
> > would that creationists did!!
>
> previous biological forms"
>
> what part of "ALLOWS THE POSIBILITY" is so hard to understand? THAT is
> not FULL SUPPORT or saying God Did Not create man. That is saying it
> is possible in the light of current evidence that is subject to
> change.
>
> Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching.
> It allows for the possibility that man�s body developed from previous
> biological forms, under God�s guidance, but it insists on the special
> authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the
> present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and
> discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution,
> in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming
> from pre-existent and living matter�[but] the Catholic faith obliges
> us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII,
> Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or
> developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that
> the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not
> inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
>
> http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
The Catholic Church has been teaching evolution in its schools and
universities for generations, you idiot.
Will in New Haven
I doubt you do, he-whore.
Mitchell Coffey
Boikat
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > Attack evolution and then defame rational people for defending it.
>
> You colossal ignoramus, you. There is no need to defend a scientific
> theory unless its detractors CLASH with the ACTIVIST'S world view.
In reality, the "activists" are the creationists. After all, it's not
scientists who are demanding equal time in th science class room. And
scientists are not demanding equl time in the pulpit. The "activists"
are the assholes making the noise, and that noise is coming from the
creationist side of the fence.
>
> � If
>
> > morons like you were attacking the concept of gravity people would
> > defend it.
>
> Gravity, you ignorant schmuck, is one of the most unknown notions in
> physics.
Yet it exists.
> Do you have any idea how many scientists have been trying to
> figure out what makes it happen? Stop using gravity as an example.
True. We know much more about the processes involved in evolution.
As a matter of fact, very few other scientific theories have been as
well supported or understood through multiple independant lines of
evidence. Physisists studying gravity can only dream of developing a
theory of gravity with as much support from so many diverse areas of
science. Yet creatotards still don't know shit about the subject.
>
> > You greatly resemble a rapist who cries foul because his victim
> > happened to be carrying a gun. As he dies.
>
> You're a useless dork.
That means so little, coming from an ignorant hick.
Boikat
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Christopher Denney
<christoph...@gmail.com>:
>On Dec 14, 4:40�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:34:36 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Dave Fritzinger
>> <dfrit...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Dec 14, 12:27�pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >In the "Do you think the Pope approves of this?" category.
>>
>> >You colossal ignoramus
>> >you ignorant schmuck
>> >You're a useless dork.
>>
>> Hey, that's one of Nashie's more restrained posts; no
>> scatological or obscene comments at all...
>Although, technically, dork is a reference to a body part. Usually a
>whale's body part, I think. So could be construed as obscene.
I actually thought of that before I posted, and it's
remotely possible that you're correct. But since Nashie,
being functionally illiterate regarding anything even
remotely technical or scientific, is probably unaware of any
meaning other than the modern one (an approximate synonym
for "nerd") I went with not obscene, at least not
*intentionally* so.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
Don't worry; we all know that the only approval you require
is your own and your delusions afford you that, Narcissistic
sociopath.
Nashton
>
> Nor does it pay any regard to you and what you think; I fear you are
> farting against thunder. The Theory of Goddidit is truly dead.
>
Because an insignificant EVOACTIVIST says so?
LOL
Kleuskes & Moos
It took you from the 14th to the 20th of december to come up with THAT
answer? Talk about
S l o w....
alextangent
But interesting, because my opinion is, as Nashton observes, doesn't
count.
I started following TO a few year back, when my youngest daughter
entered University to do a degree in animal biology. My interests are
primarily physics and computing science, but the biological sciences I
find equally fascinating. Part of the interest in the ToE has been its
application to certain types of programming models, but that
fascination is as nothing compared to the wonder I get every time I
read a creationist post.
I can safely say I've never seen such a massive collective ignorance
of the evidence, or a propensity to lie. I don't believe the lying is
preventable; there seems to be a whole world view bound up in
believing the impossible, and a real internal struggle to juggle all
the this while remaining sane. The posts are (at least to me) evidence
of this need to rationalise these inconsistencies, to look for the
smallest smidgen of support for these irrational thoughts, and to get
others to agree; "No, your not mad. We believe the same things too."
It's evident that some have passed the point of no return, and have
become insensible to reason because of a lack of support for their
ideas. Some have become, or were already, insane.
Interestingly, there were a few creationists on my daughter's course.
In the UK, professors are far less polite on the subject than their US
counterparts appear to be. Interruptions in one class where evolution
was the main topic, and where the tutor was asked to discuss a
creationist view, were met with the demand to be silent or leave. That
is obviously not a usable ploy here; I wish it was.
I am not qualified to judge much of biology, or physics, or many other
subjects. Some I understand in more depth than others, and I have made
the effort to educate myself in what little time I have on those
subjects that interest me. All that leads me to disagree with Nashton,
All-Seeing-Eye, Ray, Pagano, and all the other creationists I've ever
heard or met.
What counts is the evidence, and a theory that explains it. The core
of the ToE is simplicity itself, and it explains what we see and find
majestically. That's what counts, and the problem for Nashton is that
he can't refute it. He is insensible to reason; the next stop is
probably a full blown psychosis for the poor man.