Skip to comments.
Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
News.com ^
| 11/7/05
| Mikey_1962
Posted on 11/07/2005 12:05:04 PM PST by Mikey_1962
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680, 681-700, 701-720 ... 841 next last
To: VadeRetro
There's nothing slippery about it. And I've no need to obfuscate. I'm not the one on the defensive here. lol
681
posted on
11/08/2005 5:36:56 PM PST
by
Havoc
(President George and King George.. coincidence?)
To: js1138
But one can reasonable deduce that a lot of crap has been written by men and attributed to God.No deduction needed.
682
posted on
11/08/2005 5:40:29 PM PST
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: Palisades
Clearly. But we weren't discussing the conditions required for life, we were discussing whether or not the Earth is a closed system. No you brought up the fact that the earth was not a closed system. The discussion started with Our self-importance makes us want to believe that science is the ultimate authority, yet I haven't been able to figure out how it demonstrates superior intelligence to acknowledge that matter goes from order to disorder over time, but if you give it enough time it goes from disorder to incredibly complex order.
It is generally accepted that the original statement(order to disorder) is true when the word spontaneously is used. And yes I inadvertantly omitted the "not" just before the closed. My aim should be apparent from my use of "although", my general argument, and my acknowledgement of the introduction of energy to the systems I named.
683
posted on
11/08/2005 5:51:20 PM PST
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: Junior
By my saying "I get the impression" the onus of any misconceptions falls to me.You don't need to say anything. Your misconception falls on you and only you. And I still say you most certainly did.
684
posted on
11/08/2005 5:58:13 PM PST
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: b_sharp
Define 'order'. A big Mac and fries.
685
posted on
11/08/2005 5:59:27 PM PST
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: The_Reader_David
The Holy Scriptures were not composed by and for modern rationalists. I agree, but in the case of Noah's flood, the theology of the story does not make much sense to me if the flood did not wipe out most of humanity.
Perhaps I'm missing the broader point.
What's your take on the story? How, for instance, do you interpret the post-flood covenant?
686
posted on
11/08/2005 6:01:28 PM PST
by
curiosity
(Cronyism is not conservative)
To: Aquinasfan
I don't see how the doctrine of mongenism would be compromised if Adam and Eve's descendants interbread with subhuman homonids, who we know co-existed with our species for tens of thousands of years.
As far as I can see, this is the only way to reconcile mongenism with the genetic evidence.
687
posted on
11/08/2005 6:04:19 PM PST
by
curiosity
(Cronyism is not conservative)
To: Blzbba
But the entire human race wasn't wiped out by this localized event, else all of humanity would be inbred, mildly-brown-skinned descendants of Noah and his incestual children. If this event happened 70,000 years ago, AND some of Noah's descendents interbred with sub-human homonids afterwards, then I don't think we would be experiencing the problems to which you are referring. Plenty of time for distinct races to evolve, and plenty of opportunity to introduce new genetic material into the human population.
Another possibility is that Noah and his sons represent clans or tribes, and the Ark perhaps symbolizes various means of escaping the delluge that God gave to the clans who would listen to him. Many individuals early Genesis can be interpreted as standing for groups of people, IMHO. Thus the delluge wiped all but the 2,000 or so people in those clans.
688
posted on
11/08/2005 6:10:54 PM PST
by
curiosity
(Cronyism is not conservative)
To: Junior
genetic "bottleneck" event did occur for the human race ~70k years ago. However, approximately 2000 individuals made it through that event, rather than just eight. No other such drastic events have been recorded in the genome. See post #688. I'm curious about your take on it.
689
posted on
11/08/2005 6:15:19 PM PST
by
curiosity
(Cronyism is not conservative)
To: Havoc
There's nothing slippery about it. And I've no need to obfuscate. I'm not the one on the defensive here. lol So you're going to deal with how Behe's two statements, one denying the religious nature of ID and one proudly flourishing it, appear to contradict each other?
690
posted on
11/08/2005 6:31:30 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: Dimensio
"...nothing in science is "conclusively proven"." I see...so you're admitting that you exercise some amount of faith when it comes to the issue of the evolution of feathers?
Is not the theory of gravity "conclusively proven"?
Aside from your disdain for my "conclusively proven" statement, can you provide the evidence that demonstrates that feathers evolved on dinosaurs and how?
691
posted on
11/08/2005 6:38:16 PM PST
by
pby
To: AndrewC
And I still say you most certainly did. Then you would be wrong. But then again, of late you usually are.
692
posted on
11/08/2005 6:44:13 PM PST
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
To: pby
Aside from your disdain for my "conclusively proven" statement, can you provide the evidence that demonstrates that feathers evolved on dinosaurs and how?A Web Page on Feathered Dinosaurs. Note how many species have so far been identified.
693
posted on
11/08/2005 6:46:09 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: Havoc
If their observations and experiments can be reproduced, they will be published.
Like I said, you live in a paranoid fantasy. If that's because your own doctoral thesis would've been rejected by anyone but the diploma mill you matriculated with, then that's your problem.
694
posted on
11/08/2005 6:46:55 PM PST
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
To: curiosity
My take is that the Flood story was lifted wholesale from the Mesopotamians. The moral of the story, however, became "trust in God and everything will be alright." In other words, it's a morality tale.
695
posted on
11/08/2005 6:54:07 PM PST
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
To: pby
I see...so you're admitting that you exercise some amount of faith when it comes to the issue of the evolution of feathers?
Correct. For example, I have 'faith' that fossil finds are actually as they appear to be, and weren't manufactured by some divine agent Last Thursday and planted in various labs along with the memories of them for the amusement of said agent.
Is not the theory of gravity "conclusively proven"?
Nope. Theories in science are
never proven.
Aside from your disdain for my "conclusively proven" statement, can you provide the evidence that demonstrates that feathers evolved on dinosaurs and how?
You could start
for information about the evolution of feathers.
696
posted on
11/08/2005 6:57:35 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Junior
I meant, what's your reaction to my take on it? Is the admittedly speculative scenario I sketch out scientifically plausible in your view?
697
posted on
11/08/2005 6:58:44 PM PST
by
curiosity
(Cronyism is not conservative)
To: Junior
Then you would be wrong.You did say(superflously) that the onus was on you for your misconceptions.
698
posted on
11/08/2005 7:00:53 PM PST
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: pby
Is not the theory of gravity "conclusively proven"? Which theory of gravity? The fact that objects attract each other is demonstrable. The reason they do it (theory) is on more shaky ground. Is it because they exchange gravitons? Or is it because they warp space?
699
posted on
11/08/2005 7:04:28 PM PST
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
To: AndrewC
And I did say I wasn't talking for the Almighty (which you accused me of). Nice twisting and turning there, counselor.
700
posted on
11/08/2005 7:06:56 PM PST
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680, 681-700, 701-720 ... 841 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson