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 ...
Plausible.
You did say(superflously) that the onus was on you for your misconceptions.
Thanks. Its late, I will send a reply in the AM.
Coyote
That's a real interesting concept. One I never heard of before.
God greatly increased the rate of reproduction for humans, at least, after the Fall. At that rate, I can see where the Earth could be overrun.
Do we know this? With what degree of probability?
If interbreeding was possible, then the species would be human, wouldn't it? Where would these humans have come from if not from the original pair? If they didn't come from the original pair, would they have suffered the effects of original sin?
As far as I can see, this is the only way to reconcile mongenism with the genetic evidence.
I would question the evidence for subhuman hominids and/or their breeding with humans.
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Actually... it didn't take very long.
2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man."
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
It appears that people today are created in ADAM's image and not GOD's!
I'm not sure they 'adapted'. They were ALREADY in the population germs that we were trying to kill, except they were not susepible(sp?) to the killing agent.
THIS is the underlying teaching of Evolution.
Hold this thought....
5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.
Ah... 'correct translations'....
The last holdout of many cults and sects.
It in't the broad view that's right - but the narrow interpretation of a few.
Well, the line between species is blurry, much like the line between colors in a rainbow. Very often in nature you can observe species A and species B which clearly cannot interbreed, and then creatures that appear to be something between A and B and can interbreed with both. They're called ring species. California salamanders are an often-cited example.
It's very likely that such a situation existed with our species early in our history. You had homo erectus and us coexisting, and creatures that looked like something intermediate between the two. It's possible our ancestors could have interbread with the intermediates. Some biologists even maintain that our ancestors interbread with homo erectus, though I find that hard to believe.
Would you consider an erectus or an intermediate fully human and ensouled? I wouldn't.
Where would these humans have come from if not from the original pair? If they didn't come from the original pair, would they have suffered the effects of original sin?
These "proto-humnas" would not, no. And no, they would not have suffered the effects of either original or actual sin because they would not have been ensouled.
I would question the evidence for subhuman hominids and/or their breeding with humans
That they coexisted with fully modern humans early in our history is certain. Whether they interbread with our ancestors is not, though there is good reason to believe it was possible.
Well, with a name like that I supppose one could understand the attraction on the part of the females of the species.
Where is the evidence? How do you know that they weren't simply humans?
The last holdout of many cults and sects.
So we really should hate our father and mother as Jesus literally demanded in Luke 14:26?
Of course you do. From what I can gather from your posts, you have an a priori assumption that the Bible is literally true in all respects. That assumption, however, is wrong.
* * *
A sphere is circular, so the verbiage, whatever one might believe people thought, is accurate.
No it isn't. A sphere is spherical. A circle is circular. A sphere is three dimensional, a circle is two dimensional. So the verbiage is wholly and fully inaccurate.
* * *
The paintings and drawings I have seen show the earth as a flat plane where a ship will fall off of the edge.
I've seen cartoons where rabbits and ducks talk. So what? Take issue with the people who made those paintings and drawings. The particular drawing you've seen is irrelevant.
* * *
Flat Earther's thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth, which was always depicted with a straight edge as if the earth was a table top. I have never seen the earth described or depicted as a pancake.
Again, you appear to be assuming that what has been presented in a comic version of history bears any resemblance to the real thing. (No one but illiterate peasants [few of whom would have known of Colubus's voyage] thought the Earth was flat in the 1490s.)
More to the point, the Bible provides greater support, literally, to the notion that the Earth is a flat plate (whether circular or square), firmly affixed, than an irregular oblong spheroid orbiting the sun. See, e.g., references to the Earth being set on pillars, that it is immovable, references to the "four corners" of the Earth and to the "ends of the Earth", Jesus being shown all the kingdoms of the Earth from an exceptionally high mountain.
Compare that to the number of clear statements of the true shape of the Earth: zero, none, nada. There is none. The best you can do is to spin "circle." Well, even that is more descriptive of a circular plate than an oblong spheroid.
* * *
A person examining the curvature of the earth would reason that it is a sphere.
Yet nowhere in the Bible is this "reasoning" set out. Clearly, then, at least in terms of the bible, the people who wrote it did not reason it to be so. * * *
The shadow cast on the moon would also help a person reason that it is a sphere,
Actually, it reinforces the idea that it is a circular plate, as that would cast a circular shadow on the Moon. (Providing that the society understood that eclipses were, in fact, the shadow of the Earth on the Moon, which most did not.)
Your evidence for the evolution of feathers consists of:
"In past times, feathers were probably first used as insulation [which is highly debated in the scientific community] and were probably hair-shaped...At some point, some of the proto-birds developed branching projections from the early feathers...The next step was probably selection for barbules...Fast forward a couple of hundred million years of the same variation, mutation and selection and you end up with modern bird feathers.
"Probably, probably, probably"....
What would [not probably] happen, if one dropped a bust of Darwin off of the ivory tower at Darwin Central? It would [not probably] fall to the ground at a rate that is predictable and provable.
The theory of gravity is a good scientific theory.
However, the "theory" of the evolution of feathers consists of conjecture and assumed conclusions and has nowhere near the weight nor scientific support.
Your mentioned divine agent theory [which I am not a proponent of] seems almost as weighty as your evolution of feathers theory...probably.
Would you like to supersize that for just .80?
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.