Posted on 11/07/2005 12:05:04 PM PST by Mikey_1962
THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly. His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.
"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".
This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Christ commented on the matter and gave it creedence. So you have a bit of a problem in your attempt to diminish the value of the Work. You're a liar or ignorant.
Anything since the Laramide Orogeny is young. Staying in perspective, here. I like the K/T boundary myself. Now that was a flood. Scratched the entire surface of the earth clean as a whistle. With a thin layer of irridium over the wound. Everywhere. Mighty Powerful, God is.
People back then were not so simple as you'd have us believe.
CCC 159 simply states that faith and reason cannot contradict. It provides no guidance as to whether the apparent contradictions of the book of Genesis with reason are due to insufficiency of reason or due to insufficiency of interpretation, literal or otherwise.
CCC 390 says that the language is figurative but affirms what I said, that Adam and Eve are our first parents.
If you mean by "literal" reading incomprehension of figurative speech, I agree that it is not what the Church teaches. For example, one would be wrong to take out of the Book of Genesis the notion that snakes are smarter than, for example, horses, or that Jesus looked like a gate. But I said, I believe "traditional literal", and what I meant by that is a reading that understands metaphore, yet reads days as days, trees as trees, snakes as snakes, etc., like a child would read the Bible today.
Halite crystals and pillow lava have been found on Mt. Ararat at altitudes greater than 14K ft. Both require water to form.
Anything since the Laramide Orogeny is young. Staying in perspective, here. I like the K/T boundary myself. Now that was a flood. Scratched the entire surface of the earth clean as a whistle. With a thin layer of irridium over the wound. Everywhere. Mighty Powerful, God is.I shudder to think what depths of perversity the dinosaurs had engaged in to deserve that! :-)
Have they been dated? That could provide some good information on what they associate with.
But how old are they? Keep in mind, when you say that they both require water to form, you're relying on the writings of mainstream geologists. So what do these mainstream geologists say about their age?
GMTA high-five. :-)
genesis 1:11 then immediately describes life beginning.
Hard not to notice the conjunction of those two events and yet until late in the 20th Century that notion was scoffed at by scientists at large.
But that has all changed. It seems the science points to life beginning almost immediately, in relative terms, once water appeared.
So Genesis predicted a creation event and then went on to describe the appearance of water immediately followed by life. Not bad for flat earthers.
The sun was created after the earth. In that case, you have no such handwringing to aid you. Explain in light of that (no pun intended). Furthermore, the sun offering energy is quite apart from any capacity to make use of it. Simply adding energy to something doesn't make it an open system. Nor does it make that energy useful. And adding energy is destructive if there is nothing that can harness and use it. You're essentially mistating the case in a dishonest manner.
Less than 4 minutes. LOL!
From a fellow FReeper, please see for yourself with an open mind:
"I have a case in point. Look into Mt Saint Helen's and you will see examples of rapid erosion when large streams of water quickly move. (grand canyon???) You will also see an entire forest buried by silt, at the bottom of spirit lake. (petrified forest in Yellow stone?? Scientist think that it took millions of years to cover this forest HA!) it took minutes. Please if you are interested check out some of the web sites. Mt St. Helen's debunked a lot of theories about the evolution."
Ever hear about the petrified ham? Ever wonder why advanced civilzations pooped up all over the globe at around the same time period? Again an open mind is needed to process all the data.
Gotta put insufficiency of grasp of facts in that mix.
Desolate part of the globe? Are you serious? Do you know of the great forest of Lebanon? The cut all the trees down and burned them for fuel or built things with them. Originally this was a beautiful area.
You need a spelling checker or editor!
Thanks for the laugh though. Now I'll go back and read the rest.
Led them to extinction, a saurian excommunication of sorts. The meteor in the Yucatan. Back-flushed the(now)Gulf.
Does an animal have to be senescient to be perverse?
I always thought a good name for a dog would be Filthy Pervert.
Standing on the back porch hollerin' "FILTHY...FILTHY PERVERT!"
Concerning your previous posts, I might add the following.
"The aim of the Catholic movement was to consolidate the old beliefs against foreign influences; but this could only be done by yielding in large measure to those influnces."
Chapter, "The rise of the Catholic Church," from the book "The Gospel and Its Tributaries," Ernest F. Scott.
In attempting to codify ancient beliefs in such a way that they would somewhat please the pagan population, the Catholic movement fell prey to the very paganism that it professed to repudiate.
The Catholic movement, although it maintains it is the prime conservator of true Biblical teaching, has shown itself to do the opposite. They accomodated the great mass of people which had come into the church from paganism, and had brought with them their pagan habits of thought. Introducing such innovative things as baptismal sprinkling, mariolatry, rosary beads, purgatory, etc.
The same book goes on to say:
"Practices and beliefs which had their origins in paganism were crystallised in the permanent faith of the Catholic church."
The writer goes on to say that the Catholic movement "changed Christianity into a different religion." Christian teaching underwent a "serious modification."
My point: so the Catholic church now accomodates evolution. Nothing new there, they have been compromisers all along. First, with paganism, now with evolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.