Posted on 07/25/2007 12:57:22 PM PDT by mngran
Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
Benedict also said the human race must listen to “the voice of the Earth” or risk destroying its very existence.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
“But even a “micro” amount of information added is still information added, so your argument is baseless.”
I disagree. I refuse to bet my future on the astronomical odds that the infinitely complex human body is a result of random mutatations from non life. That idea breaks the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, breaks the law of common sense and is for the mathematically challenged.
“And why are about the only folks who oppose macro-evolution creationists? The vast majority of scientists seem to have no problem with it at all.”
The “vast majority of scientists” are wrong. History is filled with sketicism with revolutionary thinking.
“Information does not need to be “added.” It only needs to be changed. That is the definition of evolution — change in the genome through time.”
That’s BS.
“You state, “No energy, no life.” Well, there is plenty of energy! Look up on a sunny day and you will see a major source of energy. But don’t stare too long!”
I’m now convinced you are clueless.
That's Dr. Clueless to you.
“That’s Dr. Clueless to you.”
Sorry Doctor. Speakingf of the sun, I need get out and jog in it. Have a splendid remainder of the weekend.
So you believe that evolution and the existence of God are mutually exclusive? You believe that God isn't powerful enough to have created evolution, or control "ramdom" mutations? What an impotent God you believe in.
That idea breaks the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
No. As long as the fusion within the sun adds energy to the system, the 2nd law is not a problem.
breaks the law of common sense
Well, I suppose it is "common sense" to believe in some miraculous creation story, as there are hundreds of different creation stories in cultures across the planet. But none of them are based on science. Scientific "common sense" is called "evolution".
is for the mathematically challenged.
You talking about the arguments against ideas of the beginning of life? Those are not related to evolution, but nevertheless you have to have a good concept of the processes involved before any math can operate. The Global Warming nuts have perfectly good math too, and they're also wrong. It's called Garbage In, Garbage Out.
hi narby,
“You believe that God isn’t powerful enough to have created evolution, or control “random” mutations?”
No, God can do whatever He wants. Evolution is a weak theory. Science comes up short when it comes to solving the question of life. Life does not accidentally spring from inanimate matter and that’s where evolution comes up completely empty. Life does not increase in complexity over time. It’s strong faith to say that the DNA of man is a chance result of the rearranging and increasing complexity of inanimate matter.
“Dude, that was like centuries before Hitler”
Cut that out!!
People are trying to be series here.
________________________________________________
U’r rite! My apologetics.
I was raised Catholic, so perhaps that explains my viewpoint. However, there are Catholics who believe in the literal translation of the creation story.
Then, if you was being sarcastic, I apologize.
_____________________________________________
Yah, having fun. Thought that my reading of “philanthropy and histrionics” would have made that clear!
That places you in a very interesting paradox. You must either accept or establish that you hold supreme knowledge and understanding of the word of God, as it was originally written and spoken, to a greater extent than the collective knowledge and understanding of the thousands of theologians, linguists, and archaeologists who have studied, pondered and debated these issues for the past 2,000 years, or accept verbatim, the words as written and approved another such conference, the Council of the Bishops of Nicene. Which is it?
_________________________________________________________
I’ve never really bought this “paradox” as a paradox. Why is it less paradoxical to claim authority in scripture rather than a heirarchy? The Catholic position creates a paradox as well, and one that split the Church in the time of Luther; what happens when the heirarchy creates doctrine or practices, such as indulgences, that run contrary to scripture?
No doubt that any institution comprised of corruptible men can be corrupted, but the Catholic Church has prevailed in continuing the mission given to Peter in spite of these problems. That is in itself is miraculous since no other institution of man, including the various spin-offs, has endured so successfully.
Thank you for using Luther as an example. Luther was an educated member of the Catholic Clergy who used his intellect and education to identify practices by the Church hierarchy that were wrong. Although painful because of the corruption of persons in the Church, not in the Church itself, Luther has prevailed. I would challenge you to identify any of Luther's 95 Thesis that have not been adopted by the Catholic Church today. I can assure you that were Martin Luther alive today he would remain a Catholic and continue to seek the insight and advice of those more educated or intelligent than he.
And thank you for not twisting yourself in knots trying to defend the practice of indulgences! I’m a former Catholic and remain “Catholic friendly.” We are told in scripture to not rely on their own understanding, and to not be prideful in our own understanding, but to fear the Lord and shun evil. Theology is easy; living as Christ would have you live is hard.
Proverbs 3:
1 My son, do not forget my teaching,
but keep my commands in your heart,
2 for they will prolong your life many years
and bring you prosperity.
3 Let love and faithfulness never leave you;
bind them around your neck,
write them on the tablet of your heart.
4 Then you will win favor and a good name
in the sight of God and man.
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight.
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD and shun evil.
8 This will bring health to your body
and nourishment to your bones.
9 Honor the LORD with your wealth,
with the firstfruits of all your crops;
10 then your barns will be filled to overflowing,
and your vats will brim over with new wine.
11 My son, do not despise the LORD’s discipline
and do not resent his rebuke,
12 because the LORD disciplines those he loves,
as a father the son he delights in.
13 Blessed is the man who finds wisdom,
the man who gains understanding,
14 for she is more profitable than silver
and yields better returns than gold.
15 She is more precious than rubies;
nothing you desire can compare with her.
16 Long life is in her right hand;
in her left hand are riches and honor.
17 Her ways are pleasant ways,
and all her paths are peace.
18 She is a tree of life to those who embrace her;
those who lay hold of her will be blessed.
19 By wisdom the LORD laid the earth’s foundations,
by understanding he set the heavens in place;
20 by his knowledge the deeps were divided,
and the clouds let drop the dew.
21 My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment,
do not let them out of your sight;
22 they will be life for you,
an ornament to grace your neck.
23 Then you will go on your way in safety,
and your foot will not stumble;
24 when you lie down, you will not be afraid;
when you lie down, your sleep will be sweet.
25 Have no fear of sudden disaster
or of the ruin that overtakes the wicked,
26 for the LORD will be your confidence
and will keep your foot from being snared.
27 Do not withhold good from those who deserve it,
when it is in your power to act.
28 Do not say to your neighbor,
“Come back later; I’ll give it tomorrow”—
when you now have it with you.
29 Do not plot harm against your neighbor,
who lives trustfully near you.
30 Do not accuse a man for no reason—
when he has done you no harm.
31 Do not envy a violent man
or choose any of his ways,
32 for the LORD detests a perverse man
but takes the upright into his confidence.
33 The LORD’s curse is on the house of the wicked,
but he blesses the home of the righteous.
34 He mocks proud mockers
but gives grace to the humble.
35 The wise inherit honor,
but fools he holds up to shame.
I distanced myself and the modern Catholic Church from corrupt practices, I did not dismiss out of hand all "Indulgences: as you put it. To avoid a long "tastes great - less filling" debate we should define indulgences. In his apostolic constitution on indulgences, Pope Paul VI said: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints" (Indulgentiarum Doctrina 1).
The practice of the clergy accepting money for the expiation of the sins of the dead appears in the deuterocanonical book 2 Maccabees (ca. 100 BC). This practice is seen nowhere else in the Roman Catholic Bible. The author praises the practice of donating money to the temple as a way of improving the standing of dead sinners on Judgment Day. These "indulgences" are associated with the Pharisees. The Sadducees did not believe in Judgment Day and the Essenes were not part of the Temple power structure.
There are many other biblical references to indulgences and the concept of indulgences. A good source for these, with explanations, is found at:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1.asp
In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The aggressive marketing practices of Johann Tetzel in promoting this cause provoked Martin Luther to write his 95 theses, protesting what he saw as the purchase and sale of salvation. In thesis 28 Luther objected to a saying attributed to Tetzel: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs". The 95 Theses not only denounced such transactions as worldly but denied the pope's right to grant pardons on God's behalf in the first place: the only thing indulgences guaranteed, Luther said, was an increase in profit and greed, because the pardon of the Church was in God's power alone.
While Luther did not deny the pope’s right to grant pardons for penance imposed by the Church, he made it clear that preachers who claimed indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error. This is in line with the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church today.
You just couldn’t resist, could you? : )
"But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
John 3:21
Well, yeah. Without reproduction there can be no evolution. Since the first life didn't happen that way, evolution doesn't explain it. Science has some guesses about where the first life came from, but nothing solid, and they probably never will know for sure. God did it maybe.
Life does not increase in complexity over time.
Sure it does. How'd you think that bacteria evolved new genes to eat nylon that didn't exist in the 19th century.
It’s strong faith to say that the DNA of man is a chance result ...
We're back to "God did not do it this way" again. I thought God could do whatever He wants?
Is a hurricane started by "random chance", or does God have something to do with it? If you believe that God has a hand in everything, then what's your problem with believing God doesn't operate through evolution, just like He operates via heat from the sun to form a hurricane?
hi narby,
“How’d you think that bacteria evolved new genes to eat nylon that didn’t exist in the 19th century.”
So the bacteria “evolved new genes” to become what, better bacteria? Is that evidence of a new specie or better bacteria? Perhaps previously dormant but existing information on its string of DNA activated? That happens a lot. Extrapolating the possibility that bacteria became better bacteria to the unproven theory that man evolved from nothing is not logical.
You mention that reproduction spurs evolution. How is it proven that asexual reproduction in very early life forms evolved into sexual reproduction? The odds of that happening are crazy long and I wouldn’t put money on it. Well, maybe a buck since the odds are HUGE. Did life forms simultaneously evolve different sex organs? How did they survive while this process was in action? In layman’s terms, the penis and vagina evolved together?
“I thought God could do whatever He wants?”
He can but evolution was not on the agenda. If there were facts to support the theory of evolution then it’d be easy to say God invented it. It’d be like an evolutionist saying “Time did it.”
Before time there was no matter and no universe. Where did they come from? Do you believe that our universe has an infinite past? Physical evidence proves otherwise. Al Einstein believed in a god.
Based on your responses I assume you believe, like Einstein, in a god but not a personal God.
It's evidence that evolution can "add complexity" to a genome, demonstrating that you were incorrect in #348.
Perhaps previously dormant but existing information on its string of DNA activated?
You mean dormant DNA from when the cave men manufactured nylon? Actually I believe it was a small mutation from a previously existing gene, but that's exactly how evolution works, tiny changes multiplied over millions of years that "add information" because of the filtering effects of survival.
He can but evolution was not on the agenda.
How do you know? Because it was left out of Genesis? Since there are only a few hundred words relating to the creation in genesis, quite obviously it left out a lot. A whole lot.
Before time there was no matter and no universe. Where did they come from?
An interesting question, but irrelevant regarding evolution.
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.