Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

News.com ^ | 11/7/05 | Mikey_1962

[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.

[WildHorseCrash]

Adults, when they see two different expressions (corners and circle) about the same thing will not go storming off with their nose in the air like you do.

I didn't go storming anywhere with my nose in any place by the front of my face. In fact, that there are two different expressions about the shape of the Earth, as you pointed out, neither of which is reflective of the real thing, strengthens my argument that people who point to the word "circle" as somehow indicating that the Bible correctly described the shape of the planet are misguided...

[Elsie]

Whether they interbread with our ancestors is not, though there is good reason to believe it was possible.

We can do this now, with about any animal that will hold still for it.

..still don't make it right.

[Elsie]

Well, with a name like that I supppose one could understand the attraction on the part of the females of the species.

Look closely: that's homo erectus!

[The Red Zone]

No, you have it higher than your forehead.

[Elsie]

Yup...

[Elsie]

So it's your OWN authority you recognize; eh?

[Elsie]

Isn't it science that tells us that humanity is at the top of the food chain?

Then someone better tell the mosquitos and fleas!

[Elsie]

Bottom line is that we see no immortal lifeforms around today, so by evolution there have never been any around.

Along these lines, it would have been a LOT easier (Evolutionarilywise) if critters continued to STAY alive and NOT die, than to EVOLVE a way to reproduce to KEEP from dying!!!

Just how many times did 'Life' emerge from the muck, just to find out that there was a brick wall coming:Death.

Damn! Now what do I do?

I guess the next time I spring from the ooze, I'd better have a PLAN to git me some little 'uns!

[Elsie]

According to ToE, it could've been a woman.

[jcb8199]

I suppose in terms of intelligence, sure. But in nature, usually, its kill or be killed, and me vs a lion would not end well for me (without weapons--the intelligence part).

But don't forget that God gave us domain over all the animals, too.

[WildHorseCrash]

Whatever. Who asked you. Leave me alone.

[curiosity]

Where is the evidence?

From talk origins:

"Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other."

The article has a link to pictures of archaic homo sapiens fossils.

How do you know that they weren't simply humans?

Well, the line between human and subhuman was blurry in those early days, so it's hard to say. Impossible with any degree of certainty. Nevertheless, as you can see from the article, the "archaic" homo sapiens lacked a lot of important features of modern humans, but at the same time had lots of features we normally associate with apes. They had smaller brains, brawny, robust skeletons, large brow ridges, etc. There is also some evidence that they did not possess the full capcity for language that we moderns do. All of this would seem, IMHO, to make them subhuman.

On the other hand, they had a lot of physical similarities with us that would make interbreeding highly likely. And, of course, it is certain that they overlapped with modern humans before going extinct.

If they were not fully huamn, then they were not descendents of Adam and Eve. On the other hand, I see no theological reason to rule out the possibility that the children of the first couple interbread with them. Do you?

[curiosity]

We can do this now, with about any animal that will hold still for it.

Uh...no. There are no living species closely enough related to us to allow for interbreeding. Beastiality is not the same thing as interbreeding.

..still don't make it right.

I didn't say it was right, only that it was likely possible.

I find the idea of interbreeding with an arachic homo sapiens (or Neandertal or Erectus) utterly repulsive.

Maybe that's what Gensis 6:2-4 is referring to?

[curiosity]

I also think there may be evidence in the Bible of interbreeding with subhumans. What do you make of Genesis 6:2-4?

[MonroeDNA]

I, for one, believe that God created the processes that created the universe, including little 'ol earth, and evolution. Starting sevearl billion years ago, or more.

MAN created the bible, ID, and all religeons.

Men 3000 years ago (or whenever it was), writing the Old Testament, had no access to what we do: Higher math, enormous telescopes, formal logic, relativity, etc. If they did, Genesis would have been a completely different story.

They did the best that a man could do at the time. I give them credit for that, but all theories are subject to review as newer science evolves.

That includes the new testament, also written by men. And the Koran, and the Torah.

Men once believed not long ago that tomatoes are poisonous (less than 200 years ago).

Today, some religeons shun pork (for good reason, 1000 or more years ago--trichinosous). Today, non-literal-old-book folks eat pork.

I think that if God has a sense of humor, he is mighty amused at folks taking literal views of books written by folks thousands of years ago.

IMHO only. Not to desparage good religeous folks. Their morals are to be admired. I share most of them.

Religeons were founded on (usually) good intentions, which would enlighten the current generation to strive to a higher, kinder, more moral level. But to today literally interpret the books they wrote at the time, in light of our advancements in science and thought, is like hearing that the earth is flat.

We've long moved on. Don't be afraid to catch up.

IMHO only.

[MonroeDNA]

Excuse my spelling. Ponder the rest.

[bondserv]

We are at the Point of Know Return.

Carry On, My Wayward Son.

[Dick Vomer]

Viruses mutate, bacteria mutate, even some animals mutate.... If you want to not believe in mutations, that's all right, if you want to believe in mutation, that's alright also.

Either way, it will still take faith in God and not a disagreement whether mutations occur or don't to honor the creator of all things.

[RightWingNilla]

placemarker

[Dimensio]

The Bible says don't cast your pearls before swine .... Or putting it another way, argue with fools but I'll give this one more shot.

While I've not often seen that cop-out used by creationists to duck out of arguments when they are losing, you wouldn't be the first to use that technique.

Answer ------ This is a joke right? You can't be serious! How?

Yes. Every "explanation" I've seen before falls back on a faulty understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Entropy, as it was originally written, states that all of nature seeks simplicity / disorder where simplicity means less complex.

"Seek" is a loaded term, and "simplicity" is not the same as "entropy".

Another way to look at that would be to give an example. If we had a cube of water, divvied in half. One half of the water was yellow, the other half blue. Both are the same temperature. No outside influence a perfect environment. If you then very carefully pull up the divider so that the halves of water are now allowed to intermingle, the law states that over time, the water will become of one color, in this case green (because blue and yellow make green)

That's diffusion, not the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics states, basically, that in a closed system entropy never decreases. That's it. Nothing about "everything becomes less complex.

Evolution violates this law because organisms, came from nothing, simple to more complex.

Organisms did not come from "nothing".

We evolved from simple one cell organisms to complex organisms. A violation of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

In addition to failing to show where the entropy loss occurs, you also fail to understand that the second law only applies in closed systems. Biological life forms are not closed systems. Populations of biological life forms are not closed systems. Earth itself is not a closed system. There is no scientific law that states that entropy cannot decrease in an open system, so a local order decrease of entropy in an open system violates nothing.

Your "logic" would make life itself impossible. How could a zygote, a small cluster of cells, ever become an adult human being? That's a massive increase in "complexity". Based upon your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, humans cannot possibly exist, which means that either humans do not exist or your reasoning is faulty. My money is on the latter.

Answer ---- If it's irrational to use science then my answer would be no. I

But you're not using science. You're using a clear-cut misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics coupled with "but come ON!". That's not science, that's bad reasoning and conjecture.

Take one example: say a Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund. These dogs were bread to be this from the original Standard Dachshund. Years and years of breeding got the dog to the to become a Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund. The reverse, breeding 2 Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund's has not produced, nor can it produce a Standard Dachshund.

Reference of this being attempted with failure every time? Or are you just making this up because you think that it is what would happen?

The genes for that size dog are no longer present in the Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund's. The complex genes, which are present in every Standard Dachshund are not present in the Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund.

References for your claims regarding genetics, please.

Answer ------ I never said it happened all at once. I said for it to happen just once the odds would be beyond a mathematical possibility (Statistical math says that if the odds of an event occurring are greater than 1 in 100,000,000,000 it becomes a mathematical impossibility)

Which, as I pointed out, is irrelevant because no one claims that is what happened. You set up a strawman argument for the development of the eye and knocked it down. You attacked a position that no one takes, and then declared victory. You used a logical fallacy to score a nonexistent point.

What people are suggesting is even more remote, ie the odds can't even be computed.

How would you know? Your argument was founded upon a faulty premise.

There is no way to put together the entirety of the problem.

IOW, you're just making your information up as you go along.

It's simply beyond comprehension. They are suggesting that over time, little by little, the eye evolved from nothing to become a bacteria. That bacteria stayed that way for a time then decided by itself that it needed to get bigger.

This is an extreme oversimplification combined with a strawman implying any sort of conscious choice.

Getting bigger, it decided it needed to see but since it didn't even know what sight was it tinkered until it found out the right combination of molecules to allow a sensation of the nerve endings (which by some miracle were created by itself earlier) that allowed it to sense light. Etc... Etc.... etc....

Except that a photoreceptive cell by itself doesn't need nerve endings to become photoreceptive.

Your problem is that you see what you think is a massive problem and then claim that it's a massive problem for everyone without considering that there are actually biologists out there who have done the research and realised that the "massive" problem can actually be broken down into steps that aren't really so massive and problematic after all. You've decided that you know it to be impossible, so you cut off all inquiry and then arrogantly declare that you've "proven" that it's all impossible. It's a common tactic for creationists to use their ignorance as some kind of barrier that they assert no science can pass.

I understand the so called Evolutionary argument far better than those who stake their very reputations on it,

You tried to claim that the second law of thermodynamics -- which you also demonstrated that you don't understand -- somehow disproves evolution. You also made up a bogus statistic with no foundation in reality and claims that it disproves the evolution of the eye.

No, you don't understand evolution. You're wrong about quite a bit, but you're far too arrogant to admit it, so you declare that 150 years of research and observations in reality should be tossed aside simply because of your own ignorance.

and far better than your feeble grasp of the so called science which is quite evident by your 'dazzling' questions and retorts

Yes, I bow to your superior knowledge of science, through which you have proven that life itself cannot possibly exist because developing from a zygote stage to adulthood violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Fact: not fiction, not rhetoric, and not a personal attack, Every "So called" piece of evidence which proves evolution has been proven a fake or a mistake. Every Single One!

Citations of fakes? Oh, wait, you cited Lucy and Java Man, niether of which are fakes. And I know that you're too arrogant and likely too dishonest to actually support your claims regarding those as "fakes".