Pope Francis: Evolution is real

[Agoraphobic]

This is one area I wish to detach myself from - because politics is involved. The reason why the two bodies have been at loggerheads is because society's rulers have used religion to shelter themselves from the masses by keeping them ignorant and superstitious. Yes, the religious body had access to a vast knowledge of science (eg. climatic, seasonal cycles, astronomy), but for reason known only to the community leaders who held their power based on "mandate by heaven" kept this knowledge within their circles. Well, things are changing today, information no longer can be kept away from the commoners. I think actually the Vatican knows a lot more than what the public thinks, but whatever and how they release that information, they have to thread carefully, otherwise a large number of people will become confused and might breakaway from the traditional church they've found comfort in.

Cheers!

The idea that science and religion has been at loggerheads for centuries is a myth that has been swallowed whole by many people who are ignorant of those who has worked hard to peddle this lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

The first people who opposed Darwin were the scientists, not Rome. Just as it was error for the church to marry itself to the Ptolemaic/Aristotelic science of the day, it is wrong for it to marry itself to the naturalism/evolutionism paradigm of today. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html

 

[Frodo]

It is not an excuse, it is a reason, an explanation of the state of things. I am not saying there is NO god if we use the term God to describe the being(s) that formulated our existence, all I am saying is that we are still investigating, searching. And to accept this god as it was described by the bible is not questioning a lot of things/faults with this "creator" (eg. why are some bloke born defective, albino, etc.) And if this God is compassionate, there sure is a lot of evil on this planet!

Evolutionary morality, the way I see it is that humanity is at least growing in our species. We have culture (or at least some of us do) is because we are more enlightened. We can still be savage and violent in our ways, but at least when times are good, we do share. We are discovering more and more with the passage of time, understanding world we live in. Through this knowledge, we overcome famine, disease, and shelter ourselves from calamities, God doesn't provide these, we have to depend on ourselves.

Our conscience, it's evolving. Naturally, we had less compassion/care during our days as wanderer gatherers, today as city folk, we have lost a lot of that brutishness. If God put it in us, it was this brutishness he put, not morality.

Cheers!

The issue of the existence of God is not to be confused with issues relating to theology or theodicy. Is there a problem of evil? Yes, only within a theistic context and the answer would be supplied from a theistic context. As such the so-called problem of evil only makes sense if there is a God. If evolution is true and there is no God (as you seem to hold at the present) then there is no problem of evil at all. In an evolutionary world there is no such thing as good or evil, right or wrong. Dawkins describe it just like that, only pitiless indifference. People are born deformed because that's the card nature dealt with them. A consistent evolutionist just have to suck it up and accept the way things are, there is no one to complain to, nothing to complain about, there is no injustice done. Yet it seems that many evolutionists want to have their cake and eat it too. On one hand they use evolution to reject God, yet on the other hand they rail against God for the evil they see. But apart from God, there is no objective moral basis to call anything good or evil. Evolution cannot supply such a basis.

What begs the question for the evolutionist is this, he cannot explain the existence of morality, culture, conscience, intelligence, logic and a whole gamut of things. He simply ASSUMES they are there because "evolution did it". I am sure you can see the faith that is required in such a belief.

 

[Agoraphobic]

We live in a world today with laws derived from religious beliefs laid down by our ancestors, thus we see good and bad based on them, we can't help the way we judge today because we grew up under those norms and have accepted them as "the way things are." If there are any changes to them, our mindset need time to adjust. Underlying all that we have discussed, belief (and acceptance) of religion is based on faith. Someone once told me, God cannot be explained, he (accepted as male) has to be felt. This is because we are unable to logically present a good God.

Cheers!

..............
What begs the question for the evolutionist is this, he cannot explain the existence of morality, culture, conscience, intelligence, logic and a whole gamut of things. He simply ASSUMES they are there because "evolution did it". I am sure you can see the faith that is required in such a belief.

 

[drifter]

Only the fools believes in intelligent design whahhah

 

[Frodo]

We live in a world today with laws derived from religious beliefs laid down by our ancestors, thus we see good and bad based on them, we can't help the way we judge today because we grew up under those norms and have accepted them as "the way things are." If there are any changes to them, our mindset need time to adjust. Underlying all that we have discussed, belief (and acceptance) of religion is based on faith. Someone once told me, God cannot be explained, he (accepted as male) has to be felt. This is because we are unable to logically present a good God.

Cheers!

Your answer only tries to explain how we accept beliefs, but does not explain what I have mentioned earlier. You still have not accounted for morals, culture, intelligence etc.

 

[drifter]

Only Idiots think that all religious ppl are saint !! Lolzzzz .

 

[drifter]

creationists like frodo do not understand evolutionary theory. To be fair, most people don’t really understand evolutionary theory, but creationists have a particularly poor understanding. Their problem goes beyond generic scientific illiteracy. They primarily learn about evolution from secondary hostile sources , other creationists. What they learn is creationist made-up nonsense about evolution, which they confuse for the science of evolution. This condemns them to mostly attack pathetic straw men rather than what scientists actually claim about evolution.Creationists resort to such cheap and demonstrably false arguments because scientifically and intellectually creationism is completely bankrupt.

 

[Frodo]

creationists like frodo do not understand evolutionary theory. To be fair, most people don’t really understand evolutionary theory, but creationists have a particularly poor understanding. Their problem goes beyond generic scientific illiteracy. They primarily learn about evolution from secondary hostile sources , other creationists. What they learn is creationist made-up nonsense about evolution, which they confuse for the science of evolution. This condemns them to mostly attack pathetic straw men rather than what scientists actually claim about evolution.Creationists resort to such cheap and demonstrably false arguments because scientifically and intellectually creationism is completely bankrupt.

DIVA is deaf, I said I will troll you in the other threads. Please keep this thread clean from your DIVA nonsense.

 

[Agoraphobic]

They developed with the passage of time. In other words, they evolved.

Cheers!

............................ You still have not accounted for morals, culture, intelligence etc.

 

[Frodo]

They developed with the passage of time. In other words, they evolved.

Cheers!

But your answer is begging the question, because it is assuming the very thing that needs to be proved, that evolution is true.

 

[Agoraphobic]

This is still being investigated, which is why I said earlier that Evolution (which is only a theory) is still unable to explain the missing link and fossils of "transitory" species have yet to be found. This theory only came about from observing variants of related species in nature. We say that humans came from apes, but more recently, science tells us that modern apes and humans share a common ancestor. If this is true, it has to be earlier than australopethicus, which was already bipedal and walking upright, which definitely is more ancient than 6000 years of the earth's (universe's) history as depicted in blbilcal literature. I have accepted that in our lifetime, we will not be able to find the answers to all the questions we have, but this does not mean that during this lifetime, we conclude that we have these answers based on what we have, that is shortchanging the truth.

Cheers!

But your answer is begging the question, because it is assuming the very thing that needs to be proved, that evolution is true.

 

[Frodo]

This is still being investigated, which is why I said earlier that Evolution (which is only a theory) is still unable to explain the missing link and fossils of "transitory" species have yet to be found. This theory only came about from observing variants of related species in nature. We say that humans came from apes, but more recently, science tells us that modern apes and humans share a common ancestor. If this is true, it has to be earlier than australopethicus, which was already bipedal and walking upright, which definitely is more ancient than 6000 years of the earth's (universe's) history as depicted in blbilcal literature. I have accepted that in our lifetime, we will not be able to find the answers to all the questions we have, but this does not mean that during this lifetime, we conclude that we have these answers based on what we have, that is shortchanging the truth.

Cheers!

Are you saying that the details about evolution are still being investigated, but that evolution is true as opposed to creation? It seems to me that your answers are seemingly taking the view that evolution is true.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Yes. Science is still looking for pieces of evidence to piece together what is believed to be a continuum. They have not yet arrived at a complete picture and are working on it. Whether it will provide the answer(s) is left to be seen. For now, we do not know what exactly happened, and can only theorize (eg. extinction of dinosaurs, rise of the human species). We're still at an early stage since the Age of Englightenment.

Cheers!

Are you saying that the details about evolution are still being investigated, but that evolution is true as opposed to creation? It seems to me that your answers are seemingly taking the view that evolution is true.

 

[Frodo]

Yes. Science is still looking for pieces of evidence to piece together what is believed to be a continuum. They have not yet arrived at a complete picture and are working on it. Whether it will provide the answer(s) is left to be seen. For now, we do not know what exactly happened, and can only theorize (eg. extinction of dinosaurs, rise of the human species). We're still at an early stage since the Age of Englightenment.

Cheers!

Thus to you it is not a debate between creation and evolution, any debate is just within evolution. Am I right?

 

[Agoraphobic]

Well, actually I started this thread just to highlight this particular comment by the pope. For myself, I remain open to new discoveries and have not fully accepted any school of thought; if there are debates within the scientific community, I just listen, observe, and leave it to the "experts" in their fields to lead the path. I put "experts" in commas because they still have to prove their discoveries/theories and to stand the test of time, some could be hoaxes for fame and other rewards, so we'll have to wait and see. I am not a staunch supporter of any path or "ism," just a mere bystander. While on this topic, I must add too that I am not anti-Creationist or religious people, they have their right to freedom of worship and acknowledge that religion has contributed to humanity and civilization as well, just that it has been misused too by people who found ways to benefit from them.

Cheers!

Thus to you it is not a debate between creation and evolution, any debate is just within evolution. Am I right?

 

[TeeKi]

Well, actually I started this thread just to highlight this particular comment by the pope. For myself, I remain open to new discoveries and have not fully accepted any school of thought; if there are debates within the scientific community, I just listen, observe, and leave it to the "experts" in their fields to lead the path. I put "experts" in commas because they still have to prove their discoveries/theories and to stand the test of time, some could be hoaxes for fame and other rewards, so we'll have to wait and see. I am not a staunch supporter of any path or "ism," just a mere bystander. While on this topic, I must add too that I am not anti-Creationist or religious people, they have their right to freedom of worship and acknowledge that religion has contributed to humanity and civilization as well, just that it has been misused too by people who found ways to benefit from them.

Cheers!

I can feel you are trembling and probably scared and confused. Just another remember, evilution is not science but malicious rubbishes created by evil scientists. Nothing but nothing. God's Word is simply awesome and inerrant!

 

[TeeKi]

Agoraphobic: "I am not a staunch supporter of any path or "ism," just a mere bystander."

Agoraphobic is so ashamed and afraid to admit his agnostism or correctly speaking atheism. This going to show all the 'ism' are wrong. The only right path is Jesus. Nothing else. He is deeply confused by evilution which is pseudo science designed by evil scientists to distort the truths revealed by the bible, the only holy book in this world.

 

[Agoraphobic]

It is not me that is confused, nobody is, we just base our "knowledge" on discoveries made and announced by people in their fields. Example, we used to think that T Rex was covered by reptilian scales, but now, new discoveries are saying it was likely to be feathers, why should this cause me to tremble? We don't really know what T Rex looks like, but know it based on fossils and theories put forth by palaeontologists and dinosaur researchers, knowledge of this does not change the way we live. God's word (the Bible) doesn't talk about dinosaurs, so did they ever exist? Or did the great flood wipe them out because Noah only saved the good animals?

Cheers!

I can feel you are trembling and probably scared and confused. Just another remember, evilution is not science but malicious rubbishes created by evil scientists. Nothing but nothing. God's Word is simply awesome and inerrant!

 

[TeeKi]

The bible is not a biological book, nothing to be surprise if it does not talk about dinosaur or DNA. A pair of each animal is careful selected by Noah.

Agoraphobic:I am not a staunch supporter of any path or "ism," just a mere bystander.

Why is Agoraphobic is so ashamed or afraid to openly admit his agnost-ism, correctly speaking athe-ism. It shows clearly something is wrong with the isms. The one and only correct path is through Jesus, the son of God.

​

 

[Agoraphobic]

I see you have acknowledged that the bible is not a biological book, wish to remind you that it is also not a history book or a book that contains anything factual. To some, it is a religious book, to others, it is a story book. I wouldn't read anything in it as interpret it as truthful.

You seem bent on finding out my actual inclination or beliefs, even though I myself am not concerned which side I lean to just that I go by whatever is logical, and for the time being, evolution seems to point in that direction although it does not seem able to answer all the questions we have, but if you say I am atheist because I do not believe in God (at least the Biblical version), then I suppose you can call me an atheist.

And the path via Jesus, it's been discussed a few times already in this forum that the story is fictitious, that the Biblical Jesus did not exist, and only those with faith will believe in his messianic powers, but if you choose to have this faith, it is your prerogative and I will not challenge it, it is your right. However, it will be considered kind of you not to impose your beliefs on others, because to them, it is stupidity.

Cheers!

The bible is not a biological book, nothing to be surprise if it does not talk about dinosaur or DNA. A pair of each animal is careful selected by Noah.

Agoraphobic:I am not a staunch supporter of any path or "ism," just a mere bystander.

Why is Agoraphobic is so ashamed or afraid to openly admit his agnost-ism, correctly speaking athe-ism. It shows clearly something is wrong with the isms. The one and only correct path is through Jesus, the son of God.

​