Posted on 12/14/2004 7:14:55 AM PST by wkdaysoff
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The state American Civil Liberties Union (search) plans to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution (search).
The ACLU said its lawsuit will be the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I apologize. I was confusing you with someone else.
My understanding of the Pope's comment is that evolution as a theory is a worthy study. That's not total acceptance of the theory but not outright rejection of it. Like I've said many times before, I believe in microevolution, it is necessary for species to adapt to new environments and surroundings. I would have to research further if the Pope was referring to micro-evolution or evolution in its entirety.
Wow! like total non sequitur dude!
Thanks for providing me the creo site that you got your link in #692 from ...
The problem creationists never face is that something had to dump it and something had to carve it. And when you look at the something that had to dump those sediments, it looks like more than one thing. The buried layers have too many one-time surface features (some of them quite delicate) at various levels.
The back-again-dumb-as-a-stump people make a point of never anticipating this objection to their jaw-droppingly bad models of Grand Canyon and/or geologic column formation.
Just in general, sediments everywhere show too much surface and too many dead animals and plants for any flood model. The surfaces can't be contemporary, they have to be sequential. The fossils in different layers have to be from different times or they would have been piled high all over the place while they were alive. It's no use saying the One Great Flood carried them there from somewhere else; you dig somewhere else and it's the same thing.
LOL. The last refuge...
You agreed that a totally imaginary God would serve the same purpose. So it doesn't matter whether he exists or not. That's Atheism.
The Catholic Church accepts the fact that the earth is millions of years old.
The Catholic Church accepts the fact that evolution is accepted by most of the world's scientists and is more than mere hypothesis.
The Catholic Church accepts the fact that evolution is not contrary to God and the Catholic Religion.
And has done for many years. In Catholic school in the early 1970s, it was emphasized that there is no conflict between the Theory of Evolution and Catholic doctrine.
Sorry - that wasn't where I found it. I told you I used Metacrawler. Don't you have anything better to do?
Where are you getting that from?
You gave me a link. I read your link and found the link to your other reference (the one I asked you which creo site you found that link). You think it a waste of my time to read your link? That seems odd ...
It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.Think about what's being said in that first paragraph. He's saying, as I understand it: Don't let your reading of scripture get out of sync with science. Scripture must be re-interpreted, if needed, to stay in line with the real world. We've made fools of ourselves in the past, and we don't want that to happen again.Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
If you understand the Church's history in such matters, and the delicate, highly abstract way such statements are worded, especially when virtually "over-ruling" earlier methods of handling such issues, that's a powerful endorsement of evolution.
Obviously, not everyone is going to follow the Pope's lead. But his position is an indication that science and scripture can be reconciled.
5730 years ago Adam reached the age of 277 years. That was noteworthy because no-one had ever lived that long before.
So far, I've seen some small discussion of guesstimated dating of endocytosed mitochondria about 1.7-2.0 bya, so there seems little reason to suspect any later infusions of mDNA.
Yes, but, First approximation: Way, Way older than 4351 years.
150 years ago, Hugh Miller (Geologist, lay preacher - and yes technically Creationst) observed that there was "a cycle of nonsense". That most absurd ideas weren't new, just older discredited ideas returning.
Relevence?: at the time self identified Scriptural Geologists claimed that the canyon downstream of Niagra Falls would have been cut in only a few thousand years (Yeah foolish argument, but it was 150 years ago, people were dumb then). And as Miller pointed out, you have to look at how long the rock formations the canyon was being cut through would have taken to form to get anything like an estimate of mininum earth age.
Most of the stuff I've seen on horizontal gene transfer (and it is all pretty conjectural) puts it in the 1 BYa time frame. That's apart from retroviral transmission.
I agree with your interpretation, and the reasoning behind it. I am Roman Catholic and have some issues that I need to resolve for myself. I believe that it is more generic than your interpretation. I believe the pope endorses any theory as long it is not atheistic in nature and does not void Adam and Eve. That said, the pope also accepts that the world was created in 6 - 24 hour periods, with a Big Bang, with no Big Bang, if you catch my drift. The Catholic Church is afraid or unwilling to take a certain position. Is that necessarily harmful to the Church? That remains to be seen. Would I ever consider leaving the Church because of its confusing position, I would have to respond with a profound No. So, yes it is a quandry that I find myself in.
Of course no one lived that long since Adam was the first person to ever live!
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.