Reply With Quote
i always thought they just said god was/is/willbe eternal
of course in discussing timelessness they almost always get into theories of physics, which is funny
You must because that theory has not been proven either.
i always thought they just said god was/is/willbe eternal
of course in discussing timelessness they almost always get into theories of physics, which is funny
The difference is I don't consider it infallible. As more evidence comes to light, I'm open to the theory changing, as is the science community. The theory is an interpriation given the evidence currently available, and that is all.
Is biblical creation open to revision?
There is no evidence for much of what the bible claims, which is the reason it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
If you want to fall back on faith, then there's no problem with that. Not one. But you can't turn around and hold the theory of evolution to standards you do not hold your own beliefs to. That is the point.
i still want to know if Adam F'ed his daughter or Adam Jr. F'ed his mom and then Adam F'ed his granddaughter or Eve could have F'ed Adam Jr.
And that's only the first time human kind has started from only 2 right?
You know Humans are related to Fish if you go way back..........
Also, I got a question. Was Adam and Eve austrolapithicus, Erectus, Cro Magnon, Sapien, Neandrathal etc........Which one were they.........
Life apparently requires a solar system having a planet with "suitable" conditions such as liquid water, nutrients, and sources of energy. Most of life's history involved the biochemical evolution of single-celled microorganisms, The oldest microbial communities often constructed layered mound-shaped deposits called stromatolites, whose structures suggest that those organisms sought light and were therefore photosynthetic. These early stromatolites grew along ancient seacoasts and endured harsh sunlight as well as episodic wetting and drying by tides. Thus it appears that, even as early as 3.5 billion years ago, microorganisms had become remarkably durable and sophisticated.In evoltion we would have had to have come from nothing, because there is no explanation that explains how everything started.
Samething could be said about the Universe. How was the whole Universe created? Science explains that with the Big Bang theory and how after some Chemical reactions with some Hydrogen particles an explosion occured and the Universe started and it slowly expanded and became the vast region it is today and is still expanding. But, where did the Hydrogen particles come from etc......
\\
def. were not neanderthal, because neanderthal were basically a different species.
All of those were different species.
The whole of modern biology is based on life as a physical process, in particular the genetic theory of life. There are no souls, no spirits, no supernatural. Evolution is not a theory by itself, but a key part of the genetic theory of life for explaining how physical processes resulted in different kinds of life (genetic change). Byproducts of this theory are DNA testing and genetic engineering. Once a field reaches solid engineering, you can bet the theory is pretty solid, too.
Intelligent design isn't much of a scientific theory, being based on unexplained, untestable supernatural causes. Attributing unexplained data to supernatural causes is bad science. Now if you want to debate philosophy or theology (i.e., are there non-scientific ways to understand life), that's fine with me. Just don't call it science.
I’m open to changes in the theory that tells us how we physically evolve into what we are. All I’m saying is that there is a hand behind that “evolution”. Science can’t prove that there isn’t a hand and I can’t prove that there is.
I don’t adhere to Biblical Creation in the strict sense. I believe much of what’s written in Genesis is metaphorical to make it easy for the men of the time to understand it.
You sound confused, Smeagol. You want to take a stand against evolution based on someting that evolution doesn't address nor has anything to do with?
Manny, do you actually want to take a stand on something you personally believe in, or just rip on everyone else's personal beliefs?
(That was a joke, compadre.)
Confused? You might be right. This is not a topic I feel comfortable at all because I have not read many the theories on evolution (if there is more than one). To be honest with you, I don't even know what the official stance of the Catholic Church is non this topic. So what I have said is just what I feel.
I don't believe we are the result of a series of coincidences. What’s my evidence? I look around and see the beauty and complexity of this World, but most important of all, I look at man and I find it impossible to reconcile you and me to a unicellular aquatic organism. So I conclude that there is an Intelligent being behind evolution. I don’t discard evolution, but I believe in the “guiding hand” effect.
Am I confused? Again, it could definitely be the case.
Then again, explain to me what is it you believe in when it comes to explaining where we come from and how we got here.
Manny, do you actually want to take a stand on something you personally believe in, or just rip on everyone else's personal beliefs?
(That was a joke, compadre.)
I'm not trying to rip anyones beliefs. And I take a stand on almost everything. There's really nothing ambiguous about what I believe in and what I say on the board.
Everyone is welcome to rip my views, though.
I thought I already explained it above with:
I simply don't know. I admit to the possibility in a scenario involving intelligent design, but I do not see any evidence of the sort.If you want to argue on that, we can, but the fact is I'm not sure how life came about and I don't think many scienctists say they are. It is an unknown. There is speculation and there are theories, but there is no widley accepted theory on the scale of evolution.
I find it not only very plausible, but downright sensible to believe we developed from unicelluar organisms because the timeline is laid out and there is evidence to that effect. It didn't happen overnight.
What you see as coincidence I see as inevitablity. It was inevitable that unicellular organisms eventually work together and it was inevitable that they develop into multicelluar organisms.
I have a constant thirst for more explanations, and the knowledge on how the the universe works. But, that thirst isn't quenched unless the answers have something to back them up other than the warm fuzzies I get when I watch a nice sunset.
"just what I feel."
Fine, but pitting your feelings against somebody's else feelings isn't going to get us very far or deepen our understanding or get us to the One True Absolute Reality.
smeagol, the Church is officially neutral on the issue. So long as a Creator is in there somewhere, the Church doesn't dictate the mechanism. Specifically, the Church has said that evolution is a valid explanation for the presence of life so long as you don't throw away God at the beginning.
An excellent site with all kinds of information and explanations is at www.talkorigins.org
I do not believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design. Evolution, while not a proven law, seems the best theory to explain the natural world around us. We may never know exactly how everything began, but we will always be searching to better understand it.
I'm still baffled at how discussions of Evolution and Creationism always end up turning into Evolution VS. Creationism. One is a scientific theory, the other is a religious/philosophical theory.
It's like debating which is better: The Spurs, or maple syrup pancakes?
It seems to me that this thread could have been a nice discussion over evidence and flaws of Evolutionary Theory, instead of Evolution vs. God, Part CMCXVIII.
You and me both...
As Travis said, Evolution and God can be reconciled and that, in a nuts , is my belief.
DAMN!!! The Spurs are OBVIOUSLY better than pancakes.
It becomes that when religous pundits try to ins ute a public school education ciriculum of creationism/intelligent design over evolution and in the process try to throw mud on the theory.
"smeagol, the Church is officially neutral on the issue"
not true. The RC Church requires believing in God's direct intervention, in evolution, to "insert" a "soul" into the human animal at some point. ie, RC's believe the soul did not spontaneously appear on its own, but needed God's jumper cables, pixie dust, whatever. Of course, that requires belief in a "soul", which along with R & B, I much prefer to rap and hip-hop.
======================
New York TImes
July 9, 2005
Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith.
The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."
In a telephone interview from a monastery in Austria, where he was on retreat, the cardinal said that his essay had not been approved by the Vatican, but that two or three weeks before Pope Benedict XVI's election in April, he spoke with the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, about the church's position on evolution. "I said I would like to have a more explicit statement about that, and he encouraged me to go on," said Cardinal Schönborn.
He said that he had been "angry" for years about writers and theologians, many Catholics, who he said had "misrepresented" the church's position as endorsing the idea of evolution as a random process.
Opponents of Darwinian evolution said they were gratified by Cardinal Schönborn's essay. But scientists and science teachers reacted with confusion, dismay and even anger. Some said they feared the cardinal's sentiments would cause religious scientists to question their faiths.
Cardinal Schönborn, who is on the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, said the office had no plans to issue new guidance to teachers in Catholic schools on evolution. But he said he believed students in Catholic schools, and all schools, should be taught that evolution is just one of many theories. Many Catholic schools teach Darwinian evolution, in which accidental mutation and natural selection of the fittest organisms drive the history of life, as part of their science curriculum.
Darwinian evolution is the foundation of modern biology. While researchers may debate details of how the mechanism of evolution plays out, there is no credible scientific challenge to the underlying theory.
American Catholics and conservative evangelical Christians have been a potent united front in opposing abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia, but had parted company on the death penalty and the teaching of evolution. Cardinal Schönborn's essay and comments are an indication that the church may now enter the debate over evolution more forcefully on the side of those who oppose the teaching of evolution alone.
One of the strongest advocates of teaching alternatives to evolution is the Discovery Ins ute in Seattle, which promotes the idea, termed intelligent design, that the variety and complexity of life on earth cannot be explained except through the intervention of a designer of some sort.
Mark Ryland, a vice president of the ins ute, said in an interview that he had urged the cardinal to write the essay. Both Mr. Ryland and Cardinal Schönborn said that an essay in May in The Times about the compatibility of religion and evolutionary theory by Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, suggested to them that it was time to clarify the church's position on evolution.
The cardinal's essay, a direct response to Dr. Krauss's article, was submitted to The Times by a Virginia public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts, which also represents the Discovery Ins ute.
Mr. Ryland, who said he knew the cardinal through the International Theological Ins ute in Gaming, Austria, where he is chancellor and Mr. Ryland is on the board, said supporters of intelligent design were "very excited" that a church leader had taken a position opposing Darwinian evolution. "It clarified that in some sense the Catholics aren't fine with it," he said.
Bruce Chapman, the ins ute's president, said the cardinal's essay "helps blunt the claims" that the church "has spoken on Darwinian evolution in a way that's supportive."
But some biologists and others said they read the essay as abandoning longstanding church support for evolutionary biology.
"How did the Discovery Ins ute talking points wind up in Vienna?" wondered Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, which advocates the teaching of evolution. "It really did look quite a bit as if Cardinal Schönborn had been reading their Web pages."
Mr. Ryland said the cardinal was well versed on these issues and had written the essay on his own.
Dr. Francis Collins, who headed the official American effort to decipher the human genome, and who describes himself as a Christian, though not a Catholic, said Cardinal Schönborn's essay looked like "a step in the wrong direction" and said he feared that it "may represent some backpedaling from what scientifically is a very compelling conclusion, especially now that we have the ability to study DNA."
"There is a deep and growing chasm between the scientific and the spiritual world views," he went on. "To the extent that the cardinal's essay makes believing scientists less and less comfortable inhabiting the middle ground, it is unfortunate. It makes me uneasy."
"Unguided," "unplanned," "random" and "natural" are all adjectives that biologists might apply to the process of evolution, said Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown and a Catholic. But even so, he said, evolution "can fall within God's providential plan." He added: "Science cannot rule it out. Science cannot speak on this."
Dr. Miller, whose book "Finding Darwin's God" describes his reconciliation of evolutionary theory with Christian faith, said the essay seems to equate belief in evolution with disbelief in God. That is alarming, he said. "It may have the effect of convincing Catholics that evolution is something they should reject."
Dr. Collins and other scientists said they could understand why a cleric might want to make the case that, as Dr. Collins put it, "evolution is the mechanism by which human beings came into existence, but God had something to do with that, too." Dr. Collins said that view, theistic evolution, "is shared with a very large number of biologists who also believe in God, including me."
But it does not encompass the idea that the workings of evolution required the direct intervention of a supernatural agent, as intelligent design would have it.
In his essay, Cardinal Schönborn asserted that he was not trying to break new ground but to correct the idea, "often invoked," that the church accepts or at least acquiesces to the theory of evolution.
He referred to widely cited remarks by Pope John Paul II, who, in a 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, noted that the scientific case for evolution was growing stronger and that the theory was "more than a hypothesis."
In December, Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo, chairman of the Committee on Science and Human Values of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cited those remarks in writing to the nation's bishops that "the Church does not need to fear the teaching of evolution as long as it is understood as a scientific account of the physical origins and development of the universe." But in his essay, Cardinal Schönborn dismissed John Paul's statement as "rather vague and unimportant."
Francisco Ayala, a professor of biology at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Dominican priest, called this assessment "an insult" to the late pope. and said the cardinal seemed to be drawing a line between the theory of evolution and religious faith, and "seeing a conflict that does not exist."
Dr. Miller said he was already hearing from people worried about the cardinal's essay. "People are saying, does the church really believe this?" He said he would not speculate. "John Paul II made it very clear that he regarded scientific rationality as a gift from God," Dr. Miller said, adding, "There are more than 100 cardinals and they often have conflicting opinions."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
