Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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

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 ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: catholic; crevolist; religion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840841 next last
To: pby
The Feduccia team's new study, and associated results, were based on a study of the fossils themselves...not just the photographs. They concluded that what can be seen in the photographs of the fossil is not actually feathers.

Everyone knows what Feduccia is going to conclude before he concludes it. You have about five people against the world and against the evidence. You are not dealing with what I am telling you. If you aren't going to answer my points and not just my posts, get the hell out of my face.

All you can say is..."they look like feathers...they look like feathers"...despite the scientific study and evidence that proves that they are not.

I have given you multiple lines of evidence. You have given me your five favorite crackpots against the world. Get something new. If you can't get a brain, get a life.

Are you actually the National Geographic editor that went to print with the Archaeoraptor story when you had been warned against doing so?

Are you the lying asshole you appear to be?

Are you ascerting that the Feduccia team's findings are based on incomplete and inaccurate scientific research...

What have I been explaining to you? Read my posts!

Ping me when you have some actual evidence of feathered dinosaurs (and Archy is not it).

You have taken willful blindness to a new level. Dismissed!

801 posted on 11/11/2005 10:43:08 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 800 | View Replies]

new level placemarker


802 posted on 11/11/2005 10:45:08 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Dimensio
You and Dimensio...You guys often resort to the great scientific rebuttal of..."Liar, liar pants on fire" and "crackpot", and so forth.

Olson is the one who publicly claims that he met with National Geographic prior to their publication and tried to disuade them from going to print.

You posted that Olson was late to the game. By this, are you claiming that Olson did not meet with National Geographic prior to publication of the article and that he is a liar?

If so, do you have direct evidence that allows you to make this allegation (or like the claim of the existence of feathered dinosaurs...is this wishful thinking on your part too)?

If it wasn't for out-of-control zealotry on National Geographic's part, what was the reason they went to print with the Archaeoraptor article? And if Olson went to National Geographic prior to the article going to print (which he did), then what you said is not true and National Geographic did not heed the warnings given.

You get more angry and post much uglier statements in response to much less than the issue Olson was dealing with related to theNational Geographic article. It seems that you would be able to empathize with, and relate to, his righteous anger/indignation at National Geographic for conducting themselves in the manner in which they did (at least for providing the fodder that they provided to creationists).

803 posted on 11/11/2005 10:51:02 AM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Take an hour off. Drink something cool. Then resume your activities, but with another thread.


804 posted on 11/11/2005 10:51:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I suspect virtual ignore is going to be my friend here, yes. We have the Southack thing going.
805 posted on 11/11/2005 10:54:24 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 804 | View Replies]

To: pby
I posted an actual chronology in fine detail which justifies exactly what I said about it. It wouldn't matter to the origin of birds what Olson did.

More to the point here, you are refusing to deal with the important points of the preponderance of evidence on said question, the theropod origins of birds. I have given you enough chances. If I up to now have repeated myself, it isn't because you have answered my points but because you have ignored them. Any further posts from you that don't answer the mail on what has been posted already will be ignored.

806 posted on 11/11/2005 10:58:23 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; PatrickHenry
You better heed PatrickHenry's (the man behind the curtain) advice. (The admin moderator might get you!)

His (PatrickHenry's) advice to you is sound...as opposed to his postings earlier relative to an issue related to a Bible passage and a flat earth.

Apparently he can ping well, plug the list-o-links well and placemarker well though.

When PatrickHenry came and got you to go get a drink and cool-off, Vade...I thought I could hear you singing on the way out..."They're coming to take me away aha, they're coming to take me awaaaaay!"

I hope you get to feeling better.

807 posted on 11/11/2005 11:13:34 AM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Answer the question...Are you claiming that Olson is a liar and that he did not meet with, and warn, National Geographic prior to them going to print with the article?

Because that is what you inferred in an earlier post (and your inference is baseless and without merit).

Who is lying here?

808 posted on 11/11/2005 11:19:53 AM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
As always, you have the answers. I just hope I didn't set the bar too high for the end of virtual ignore!
809 posted on 11/11/2005 11:21:32 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 804 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Think about my tagline. It's the cumulative result of over six years' experience around here. It's kept me out of trouble on this website, and out of the psycho ward too. But even though it works for me, I guess it doesn't appeal to everyone.
810 posted on 11/11/2005 11:34:20 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Seriously, though, I required said troll to go over my posts and answer multiple lines of evidence, material that can barely get by his Morton's Demon, stuff he thinks he might go to Hell for reading and understanding, rather than just repeating today's talking points over and over and over. Is that realistic? I may never be responding to the guy again!
811 posted on 11/11/2005 11:38:55 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I may never be responding to the guy again!

Why do you ever respond to these people? Do you converse with squeegee men at intersections? Winos staggering down the street? Dumpster divers? Napoleons in mental wards?

812 posted on 11/11/2005 11:50:44 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you for reminding me, yes. It's because normal people don't talk to me.
813 posted on 11/11/2005 11:53:18 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Well then ... carry on.


814 posted on 11/11/2005 12:32:40 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro
"Expect no response, if you are a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus" [as defined by me (PatrickHenry) or any other member of Darwin Central...when we don't have a good response, don't like the actual evidence, don't know what we are talking about, and/or calling a person a "lying, dumpster-diving windshield-washing squeegee-using, mental ward patient did not work...EXPECT NO RESPONSE!!!!]

(PatrickHenry's self-imposed posting rules and etiquette continued: Then, once we have ignored said poster, we can post back and forth between each other, and name-call, while slapping each other on the back, in an assuring gesture, that communicates to one another that we are the best and brightest Darwin Central has to offer...We don't care what evidence the new study brought to light! We like our feathered dinosaur artist renderings and our museum quality feathered dinosaur models!! Those guys are all just predictable crackpots anyways!!! How they got their doctorates, their positions in academia and at museums and any respect in the scientific community is beyond answereable!!!!)

(Then, once we have made each other feel better about ourselves...we can take our ball and go home...because we still want to pretend that protofeathers exist and are related to modern day feathers...while clicking our heels together, we repeat..."There's no place like home! There's no place like home! There's no place like home!!!")

815 posted on 11/11/2005 1:33:38 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: pby
Then, once we have ignored said poster, we can post back and forth between each other, and name-call, while slapping each other on the back, in an assuring gesture, that communicates to one another that we are the best and brightest Darwin Central has to offer...We don't care what evidence the new study brought to light! We like our feathered dinosaur artist renderings and our museum quality feathered dinosaur models!!

These threads used to go for well over 1000 posts before these evo warriors ran everybody out of here. Now - anybody who shows-up with an argument is ridiculed to no end by the same 4 or 5 people to the point of never wanting to come back again. The sad thing is, these guys aren't even scientists! They are *not* the best DarwinCentral has to offer. I think one is a court reporter, or something, and the other is a retired science fiction writer. If you want a serious discussion, you might ping one of the actual scientists who occasionally post here.

FRegards!

816 posted on 11/11/2005 1:59:10 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory. Lots of links on my homepage...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 815 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

FRegards!


817 posted on 11/11/2005 2:34:20 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr

Thanks for the ping wallcrawlr!


818 posted on 11/11/2005 3:11:29 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Are you the lying asshole you appear to be?

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winnah!

819 posted on 11/11/2005 6:47:03 PM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

Those wonderful "Golden Age" arguments existed only in your own mind. Scientists have been laughing at crackpots since before Mithra was resurrected.

820 posted on 11/11/2005 6:56:17 PM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840841 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson