No deduction needed.
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 ...
There's nothing slippery about it. And I've no need to obfuscate. I'm not the one on the defensive here. lol
No deduction needed.
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.
You don't need to say anything. Your misconception falls on you and only you. And I still say you most certainly did.
A big Mac and fries.
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?
As far as I can see, this is the only way to reconcile mongenism with the genetic evidence.
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.
See post #688. I'm curious about your take on it.
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?
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?
Then you would be wrong. But then again, of late you usually are.
A Web Page on Feathered Dinosaurs. Note how many species have so far been identified.
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.
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.
You did say(superflously) that the onus was on you for your misconceptions.
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?
And I did say I wasn't talking for the Almighty (which you accused me of). Nice twisting and turning there, counselor.
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.