Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper
Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | 01/19/06 | Tom Heneghan

Posted on 01/19/2006 1:33:32 PM PST by peyton randolph

PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion...

A court in the state of Pennsylvania last month barred a school from teaching intelligent design (ID), a blow to Christian conservatives who want it to be taught in biology classes along with the Darwinism they oppose.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: catholic; creationisminadress; dover; fsm; id; idiocy; idisjunkscience; ignoranceisstrength; science; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 601-606 next last
To: PatrickHenry

Galileo was very good at tearing down other theories, but was poor at proving his own. So the Church was stuck in a do-or-die instigated by Galileo of defending an old model whose evidence was debunked, or supporting a new system whose evidence was scant. That would somewhat be akin to asking you to embrace Intelligent Design if all the evidence for the theory of evolution was adequately debunked(I'm not saying anything pro or contra about these two, it's just an example). It's something I don't think you would do. The logical thing to do would be to hold one's opinion until there were enough facts to make a prudent judgement. Galileo demanded nothing of the sort, and demanded the scripture be reinterpreted immediately. Hence his problems.


301 posted on 01/20/2006 6:37:44 AM PST by DarkSavant ("Life is hilariously cruel" - Bender)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

What I find hilarious are idiots who can't admit they goofed.


302 posted on 01/20/2006 6:39:37 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

Well, the problem is that common descent from Adam and Eve is directly contradicted by the genetic evidence, and Humani generis is, despite the Church's protestations, in conflict with the scientific evidence.


303 posted on 01/20/2006 6:42:42 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

"Intelligent design" not science
Neither is "evolution".


Neither is global warming.


304 posted on 01/20/2006 6:43:11 AM PST by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
What I find hilarious are idiots who can't admit they goofed.

Do you make your children call you "Perfessor" too?

305 posted on 01/20/2006 6:43:42 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: conservativebabe

By the same token, it's also amusing to see and read the creationists refer to the evolutionists as atheists, communists, nihilists, liberals, and such. Neither side of this issue on FR is free from mud-slinging.


306 posted on 01/20/2006 6:51:13 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN

Yeah, let's use the AP as a credible source, rather than Catholic resources:

"Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him."
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

"While not exactly canonizing Darwin, Pius XII did imply that the theory of evolution isn't necessarily inimical to Christianity. Certainly he didn't reject evolution altogether. How then do we explain the big headlines when John Paul II says basically the same thing in 1996?"
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html

"The Catholic Church has never had a problem with "evolution" (as opposed to philosophical Darwinism, which sees man solely as the product of materialist forces). Unlike Luther and Calvin and modem fundamentalists, the Church has never taught that the first chapter of Genesis is meant to teach science...Pius XII correctly pointed out in the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) that the theory of evolution had not been completely proved, but he did not forbid
that the theory of evolution concerning the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter-for Catholic faith obliges us to hold that human souls are immediately created by God-be investigated and discussed by experts as far as the present state of human science and sacred theology allows (no. 36). "
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html


The Media will latch onto ANYTHING to diminish the influence of the Church, or religion in general.


307 posted on 01/20/2006 6:56:05 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: dmz

True


308 posted on 01/20/2006 7:02:10 AM PST by conservativebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I answered your question, but I'll reiterate it. Heresy. Teaching as fact something contrary to the current interpretation of scripture that he couldn't prove. Like I stated already, he was allowed to treat it as a workable hypothesis(which it was at this time) but that wasn't good enough for him. He tried to strongarm the Church to accept Copernicus(a very bad move).
309 posted on 01/20/2006 7:06:37 AM PST by DarkSavant ("Life is hilariously cruel" - Bender)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
I know you are eager for me to get your message, but 4 posts? :-)

Upon re-read, you will find that my post is saying the separation between micro and macro-evolution is simply one of degree not essence. The separation seen by creationists between the two is an artificial construct based on misunderstanding and agenda. There is nothing in the genome that says otherwise. Simply accepting micro-evolution also accepts macro-evolution so the Vatican is being clear.

310 posted on 01/20/2006 7:21:36 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Well, the problem is that common descent from Adam and Eve is directly contradicted by the genetic evidence

Which is?

311 posted on 01/20/2006 7:21:45 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

Frankly, anyone who fails to see the distinction between macro and micro evolution is intellectually not up to discussing the subject. It is taught in textbooks BTW.


312 posted on 01/20/2006 7:23:41 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

There were 4 posts because Free Republic went down last night. Maybe you weren't online at the time.

No, accepting micro evolution does NOT accept macro evolution. One does not necessarily lead to the other. The evo's believe it does. But that's based on faith not science.


313 posted on 01/20/2006 7:29:27 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

They put him under arrest for violating an agreement he signed saying he would teach it as a probability, not a fact. How smart is it to flip nearly 1500 years' worth of accepted religious AND scientific knowledge based on the specious observations of ONE man? Galileo himself couldn't PROVE beyond *doubt* that he was right--by our standard, he was just MORE right than Ptolemy. Not only did Galileo teach it as fact (again, not something he could PROVE and something he said he wouldn't do), he then ventured into the realm of theology. Catholics and Protestants alike read Genesis as meaning the Earth was the center. True, the interpretation was wrong--but WE know that now. THEY didn't.
It was "heresy." I'm sure you realize that "heresy" only means "An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs." Christians taught that the Earth is the center--that was an established belief. He was tried in a Church court for teaching something different from espoused belief.
Check out this site for a good presentation of the myths:
http://www.griffithobs.org/IPS%20Planetarian/mythofgalileo.html

The crux of the issue is that Galileo was not tortured (as is claimed), he was not executed, he was not exiled; he lived comfortably until his death, even (as the above site points out) publishing his best work while under "house arrest."

As for Copernicus, he did exactly what Galileo had the opportunity to do--"Here's an idea, this looks right." If Galileo had come along and said "I've seen it, here, investigate," I doubt there would have been any trouble. This quote sums up the issue nicely:

"In confronting a theory like Darwin's, Catholics should anchor themselves in the proposition that there can be no real conflict between faith and science. The danger occurs when scientists trespass into theology, or vice versa. The Galileo affair is a sobering reminder of what can happen when certain parties in the Church resist a scientific hypothesis on a priori biblical grounds. If the congregation of Cardinals that condemned Galileo had paid more attention to Augustine and Aquinas, who both held that the Holy Spirit, speaking through the sacred writers, was not teaching a system of astronomy, the disastrous split which occurred between religion and science in the seventeenth century might have been avoided."
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html

The point about Copernicus is that the Church is OBVIOUSLY not an enemy to science or opponent of change. It merely wants to proceed judiciously, with as much knowledge as possible. Which is why the Church doesn't *support* or *oppose* evolution--we don't have enough EVIDENCE to destroy it or cement it.


314 posted on 01/20/2006 7:29:54 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
"And today most of the teenage girls I see dress like whores.

The problem with that is?

Does that make them into whores? Does that mean they will become whores? Does that mean they will accept when some guy tries to offer them money for sex?

Or is the problem that it makes it more difficult for 'Johns' to identify the real whores from teenages?

I always thought that what the person does and who they are is more important than how they dress. Is this not true?

315 posted on 01/20/2006 7:33:48 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: phantomworker
Don't understand why you cannot argue rationally?

I thought my post was fairly rational.

What you are saying makes no sense. It must be because you accept the fact that the Catholic church does support evolution and are trying to convince yourself otherwise?

I don't think so. For example, the pope is generally regarded to be a leading Catholic. Papal encyclicals are regarded as authoritative teaching documents of the Church, but they are not regarded with the same degree of infallibility as statements ex cathedra.

In his encyclical, Humanae Generis, Pope Pius XII has stated that Catholics are not permitted to believe in polygenism. This is the most authoritative Church teaching regarding polygenism to date.

Nevertheless, this statement still permits belief in evolution prior to the advent of Adam and Eve. But Catholics must believe that the human race is descended from Adam and Eve.

316 posted on 01/20/2006 7:34:53 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
I always thought that what the person does and who they are is more important than how they dress. Is this not true?

Is choosing one's wardrobe an action?

Why would someone choose to dress as a whore?

Why do whores dress as they do?

317 posted on 01/20/2006 7:38:11 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
That the last common ancestor of our mitochondria (our common matrilineal ancestor, or Mitochondrial Eve) is not the last common ancestor of our entire genome; and that therefore while we are all descended on the maternal line from one person, she was most certainly not our only female ancestor living at the time. Better yet, our common patrilineal ancestor (Y-chromosome Adam) is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve; and so the talking snake story can be ruled out on genetic grounds (not that it was ever particularly plausible anyway).
318 posted on 01/20/2006 7:38:27 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Found this. It seems that the scientific jury is out.
319 posted on 01/20/2006 7:39:55 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
It seems that the scientific jury is out.

On the details, not on the basic facts.

320 posted on 01/20/2006 7:42:02 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
"It is taught in textbooks BTW."

How is it taught in textbooks? Is it taught as a matter of degree, a matter of essence, or is macro-evolution simply used as shorthand for the extreme cumulative changes undergone since their last common ancestor by two divergent species?

321 posted on 01/20/2006 7:43:54 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; b_sharp

WTF! This is idiot fanatic talk! Totally irrational.


322 posted on 01/20/2006 7:48:40 AM PST by phantomworker ("S/he has achieved success who has lived well, laughed often and loved much.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

The following is from my son's College Biology Textbook, Biology, Sixth Edition, Campbell & Reece, 2002, page 476:

"Speciation is at the boundary between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is a change over the genetics in a population's allele frequencies, mainly by genetic drift and natural selection. ...Yet the cumulative change during millions of speciation episodes over vast tracts of time must account for macroevolution, the level of change that is evident over the time scale of the fossil record."

"Must" account for macroevolution? They sure don't sound too confident about that do they? This is an interesting admission.


323 posted on 01/20/2006 7:52:42 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
"There were 4 posts because Free Republic went down last night. Maybe you weren't online at the time.

I thankfully missed that fun/frustration.

"No, accepting micro evolution does NOT accept macro evolution. One does not necessarily lead to the other. The evo's believe it does. But that's based on faith not science.

Actually your rejection of the affects of millions of years worth of cumulative changes is based on faith not science. Do you reject the idea of macro-deposition, the accumulation of detritus that can create a mountain out of a mole hill (or even a flat plain)?

324 posted on 01/20/2006 7:54:00 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

You have no evidence that millions of years of any "cumulative" changes resulted in macro evolution. You have your faith. I have mine. Will yours save you in the end?


325 posted on 01/20/2006 7:57:16 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
Were there no God and no Creation, there would be no evil.

Supposition, assumption, speculation and opinion not supported by a logical deduction of proof for argument. First you would need to argue for logical deducted proof that each of these things exist but could not exist. Further you would have to prove that each of these things are dependent upon the other two and that those two are also dependent. Then you would have to prove that there is a dependency between things even if they do not exist. Then it would have to be explained why the concept and belief of evil exists in societies and others who have no concept or belief that creation is depend on God. The implication is that one such as a atheist is devoid of moral or ethical positions and for them evil does not exist. However Atheists do argue logical deducted proof for moral and ethical positions without the belief either in God or Creation and further that the opposite or those beliefs is evil.
326 posted on 01/20/2006 8:01:08 AM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

LOL!


327 posted on 01/20/2006 8:06:22 AM PST by phantomworker ("S/he has achieved success who has lived well, laughed often and loved much.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
"Is choosing one's wardrobe an action?

Yes, but not one that is highly important.

"Why would someone choose to dress as a whore?

Teenage girls are not dressing like whores, they are dressing like their peers. The teenage dress code changes.

"Why do whores dress as they do?

To expose as much skin as possible and communicate their occupation.

___________________________________

As a kid in the '60s I started to grow long hair, simply because I hated hair cuts and it was becoming the fashion for guys to have longer hair. I got into an argument with my Grandfather who was of the opinion that men could only have short hair. After a lengthy 'discussion' I explained to him that historically hair length changed for both men and women and was not inherently a male of female trait. After a couple of minutes, he finally came out with the real reason he didn't like it. It made it difficult for him to tell the difference between males and females, especially at a distance. I asked him why it mattered. He didn't answer me.

I assume he didn't answer because he couldn't think of 'why' it mattered, what changes to him or his life it really made.

The way teenagers dress as teenagers does not matter. What matters is what kind of adult they become, how they treat their family, friends and others, and what contribution to their society they make.

Many adults who are responsible for teenagers, no matter the context, do not respond to what the teenagers wear because of the consequences to the teenager but because of the fear that it reflects poorly on them.

Of course some don't like it because they are simply control freaks that hate anything that runs counter to their belief system.

328 posted on 01/20/2006 8:16:44 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: phantomworker
"WTF! This is idiot fanatic talk! Totally irrational.

Why, thank you! That was very kind.

329 posted on 01/20/2006 8:22:00 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

1) He did attack--he made enemies in doing so. That is a historical fact. He had enemies, largely due to his ticking off scientists and theologians alike by telling them all, definitively, without doubt, they were wrong (though he could NOT *prove* it definitively, without doubt). It makes sense to us because we are 400 years removed from the issue. He was flouting nearly 1500 years of accepted scientific and religious dogma, in a very condescending way (his "defense" of geocentrism is a joke--Simplicius, the "defender" is made a fool in the work).

2) There are Protestants today who insis the world is 6,000 years old. You really think that 500 years ago they would have appreciated what was said by a Catholic who was trying to destroy their biblical understanding of the Universe? Martin Luther denounced the ideas personally.

3) It was no secret what Copernicus thought. He never taught it as fact. His reputation is important as it shows that the Church wasn't an enemy of progress as is often argued--he was welcomed as an astronomer. His hesitation in publication can also be attributed to the fact that it was a MAJOR theory with NO concrete proof...

This guy provides a pretty balanced view of the matter:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/105/21.0.html


330 posted on 01/20/2006 8:22:34 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
"Is choosing one's wardrobe an action?

Yes,...

And like you said, we can judge people by their actions.

...but not one that is highly important.

You might feel differently when your daughter leaves the house dressed like a slut.

Teenage girls are not dressing like whores, they are dressing like their peers.

Who are dressing like whores.

The teenage dress code changes.

Yes it does. And the whore look is in.

"Why do whores dress as they do? To expose as much skin as possible and communicate their occupation.

And the effect on males of women exposing their skin to them is what?

As a kid in the '60s I started to grow long hair, simply because I hated hair cuts...

I recognize a categorical difference between varying hair-lengths and varying cleavage/butt/belly exposure.

331 posted on 01/20/2006 8:23:37 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: jec41

Or maybe I should have said that cauliflower is yucky--that is as irrelevant as any of it. God IS who IS. He is not in the past nor the future, thus time, it would seem, is of no consequence to God. It IS of consequence to Men.


332 posted on 01/20/2006 8:24:08 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver

So what are the theistic evolutionists (like the Pope) trying to force on us?


333 posted on 01/20/2006 8:26:02 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
the talking snake story can be ruled out

Personally, I always preferred the various tales found in Astrology, Channeling, Hinduism, Gnostic traditions, Neo-paganism, Spiritualism, Theosophy, Wicca, etc.

334 posted on 01/20/2006 8:30:17 AM PST by lemura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
"Must" account for macroevolution? They sure don't sound too confident about that do they? This is an interesting admission."

As I'm sure you have been informed of many times before, all scientific findings are considered tentative and based on level of certainty not 'proof'. Because of this, science literature is couched in tentative terminology, which unfortunately does not well express the confidence level of the findings.

Using the existence of this language as evidence against science can be easily construed as disingenuous. It is also ineffective.

335 posted on 01/20/2006 8:31:49 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
"They put him under arrest for violating an agreement he signed saying he would teach it as a probability, not a fact. How smart is it to flip nearly 1500 years' worth of accepted religious AND scientific knowledge based on the specious observations of ONE man?"

It IS a fact. His observations were NOT specious. The Church was a bully, and deserves all the scorn that can be heaped on it for it's attack on free inquiry. Was it alone in stopping free inquiry? Of course not. Has it changed? Absolutely. Does that make what the Church did to Galileo right? Not in the least. There is NOTHING that can make what it did to him *correct*.

"Not only did Galileo teach it as fact (again, not something he could PROVE and something he said he wouldn't do), he then ventured into the realm of theology."

The only reason he *ventured into the realm of theology*, was because the Church was forcing it's theology into places it didn't belong, and forcing people to accept it's position on pain of death.

"True, the interpretation was wrong--but WE know that now. THEY didn't."

So it is correct for a religious institution to use force to make sure people obey it?

" I'm sure you realize that "heresy" only means "An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs."

I am sure you also know that heresy was an offense that could get you thrown in jail or even killed. It's one thing if the Church wanted to ban Galileo from participating in its ceremonies; it's a completely different thing when they FORCE you to recant.

"The crux of the issue is that Galileo was not tortured (as is claimed), "

Not by me, though he could have been if he didn't obey.

" he was not executed,"

He would have been if he persisted in stating his beliefs.

"he lived comfortably until his death, even (as the above site points out) publishing his best work while under "house arrest."


So it was perfectly OK to force him to recant? And keep him confined? All because he dared to ask the wrong questions?


"As for Copernicus, he did exactly what Galileo had the opportunity to do--"Here's an idea, this looks right."

Of course, he was DEAD when the book was published. And the book did NOT say *This looks right*; it said that it was NOT physically true (from the intro) and it was useful for better calculations of planetary motions.

"The point about Copernicus is that the Church is OBVIOUSLY not an enemy to science or opponent of change."

It absolutely was in the 1500's and 1600's.

"It merely wants to proceed judiciously, with as much knowledge as possible."

Perhaps now it does, but in Galileo's time it assume to have the proper knowledge and was willing to use force against anybody who dared to disagree.
336 posted on 01/20/2006 8:34:33 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; b_sharp; furball4paws
1. Best Bond Girl - The one in Goldfinger who got painted gold.
2. Best Bond movie - I donno. None of the Roger Moore films.
3. Greatest name. - Pussy Galore. Oh yeah!

Any conversation about James Bond is enough to (temporarily) awaken me from lurk mode!

I agree with the former assertion that On Her Majesty's Secret Service is the best Bond movie. IMO, Roger Moore is at least a little underrated. The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only are two of the finest Bond movies, I think.

Best Bond girl name: Holly Goodhead from Moonraker. (Always a fan of Carey Lowell from Licence to Kill and subsequent Law and Order fame, too.)

337 posted on 01/20/2006 8:36:41 AM PST by Quark2005 (Divination is NOT science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
On the details, not on the basic facts.

Details like multi-regional evolution vs. recent African origin?

Mitochondrial DNA Clarifies Human Evolution

It seems to me that much is unknown.

338 posted on 01/20/2006 8:38:42 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
"You might feel differently when your daughter leaves the house dressed like a slut."

My daghter is 29 years old and has a 9 year old son, and yes we did have that argument when she was younger. She's the one who got me to understand the real impact of teenage dress codes.

"And the effect on males of women exposing their skin to them is what?

Possibly the appreciation of the female form, depending on the female form of course. Definitely an assessment of the intent of the whore and a decision to either pay or ignore the prostitute. Definitely not an overpowering urge to rape and pillage.

339 posted on 01/20/2006 8:41:24 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Mighty Eighth
Beside the point. The RCC was WRONG, and as usual, they had a hard time admitting so. They've been wrong many times in history, and it takes them forever to fix it.

EVERYONE was wrong, not the RCC "as usual." Scientists of his day viewed Galileo as a crackpot, and resented him for his assertions. And though he was right (as we now know, and as we can say speaking from a TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY perspective), he couldn't PROVE he was right, which was the issue at that time. He said he had "evidence" and had none.

One of these centuries down the road they might even admit they helped ex-Nazis escape to South America thu the ODESSA and Der Spinne networks, as well as apologize for Pius' collaboration with both Mussolini and Schicklgruber......Had he stood up to Hitler, he'd have been venerated today as a holy martyr.

Oh please, even a cursory look at evidence would prove YOU are wrong (as is everyone else who asserts this)--I wonder if YOU would admit it... Check out this page: Pius XII and the Nazis.
There is a plethora of info to show what a stupid idea that is. It never even really originated until a Communist wrote a play in the 1960s (a work of FICTION, according to the author himself) that trashed Pius, as obviously the Church is no fan of Communism, and has never been.
340 posted on 01/20/2006 8:45:27 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: jec41

Umm.

If apples did not exist there would be nothing around to make applesauce.

If Creation did not exist the would be nothing around to do evil.

Is that so hard?


341 posted on 01/20/2006 8:46:44 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp; Aquinasfan

Sorry about that. I think I need to get more exercise before I start making these early morning posts. LOL! It just gets a little frustrating to hear what sounds to me like a fanatic spewing an analogy to morality like that when the real issue is the acceptance of evolution by the Catholic church. I apologize Aquinasfan. Carry on!


342 posted on 01/20/2006 8:49:26 AM PST by phantomworker ("S/he has achieved success who has lived well, laughed often and loved much.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
It seems to me that much is unknown.

But what is known is that we don't all descend from a 6000 year old pair of common ancestors, or even a single pair of individuals at any time.

343 posted on 01/20/2006 9:30:15 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

1) WE KNOW it is a fact, and can prove it. He believed it was a fact, stated it WAS a fact, but couldn't PROVE it. You need to take off the 21st century filter--he was saying that nearly 1500 years of accepted (and "proven") scientific and religious dogma was WRONG, something NO ONE should take lightly, and certainly not something one should approach without PROOF. Hence his "specious" claim--he said he had proof, but had none.

2) He was never threatened with death, so that is bogus. The Church wasn't the only one "forcing its theology," Protestants did, and scientists rejected Galileo's assertions. So the Church was not alone in it. It didn't persecute him because he didn't accept "their" viewpoint, he went on trial (religious, not secular) for teaching something that was contrary to what was taught by the Church (and by Protestants as well, don't forget). That's all. They said he can talk about it, but not in a way that says it is CERTAIN, because it WASN'T certain at that time. It was intererested in protecting TRUTH as much as it was still smarting from the Protestant Reformation.

3) They didn't use force. You are still assuming that the myths about torture and painful punishment are truth.

4) Sheesh, do some research on the subject before you regurgitate anti-Catholic B.S. His "recantation" was largely a formality. It did not damage his reputation or work in any way. He published his best scientific work AFTER he was put under house arrest.

5) No, no, no, and no. He wasn't tortured, nor was he threatened. He was not threatened with execution. Copernicus published the book and THEN died; and his book took DECADES of work (which, if the Church was as much an enemy as you claim, they would have stopped him; they certainly wouldn't have asked his help in reconfiguring the ecclesiastical calendar...). Even a brief perusal of his Wikipedia entry shows you are totally wrong:
"When Copernicus book was published, it contained an unauthorized preface by the Lutheran theologian Andreas Osiander. This cleric stated that Copernicus wrote his heliocentric account of the earth's movement as a mere mathematical hypothesis, not as an account that contained truth or even probability. This was apparently written to soften any religious backlash against the book, but there is no evidence that Copernicus considered the heliocentric model as merely mathematically convenient, separate from reality. Copernicus' hypothesis contradicted the account of the sun's movement around the earth that appears in the Old Testament (Joshua 10:13)."
Notice that the "preface" you mentioned was put there by a LUTHERAN theologian, not Copernicus.

6) You seem to be motivated more by anti-Catholicism than a pursuit of truth. Read "How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization," for starters. Follow that up with "Christianity of Trial." Enlighten yourself ("Enlightenment," Kant said, "is man's leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another.")

7) "it assume to have the proper knowledge and was willing to use force against anybody who dared to disagree."
It assumed, along with practically every other scientist and theologin of the day...

Again, drop the anti-Catholicism and READ.


344 posted on 01/20/2006 9:35:05 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
Or maybe I should have said that cauliflower is yucky--that is as irrelevant as any of it. God IS who IS. He is not in the past nor the future, thus time, it would seem, is of no consequence to God. It IS of consequence to Men.

God IS who IS or Is not. There are six philosophical logical deducted and argued ontological proofs both for and against the existence of God. All argument either for or against have been refuted. Therefore what what God is or is not resides in the mind and is the thought and concept of the individual. Such thoughts and concepts can all be proved or refuted thought the philosophical method of reasoning and logical deduction. All such thoughts and concepts will remain only a argument until empirical evidence is discovered or presented. However that time is of consequence to Men is incorrect. It may be of consequence to some Men but not all. It would be of consequence to those men who invented it, defined it, and use it as a tool to determine consequences. However there are primitive tribes that exist on islands off of Indonesia that have no thought or concept of time. There is no measurement of time, any use of time and for them time does not exist. Time is of no consequence to those men.
345 posted on 01/20/2006 9:35:28 AM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: jec41

I wasn't aiming to start a "God exists/doesn't exist" conversation. Within the scope of this thread, the point I was making is that mankind invented time keeping. Indonesian tribes are irrelevant. When it comes to evolution, ID, creationism, 6-days, and so on, HUMANITY invented timekeeping, not God. THAT is all I was saying.


346 posted on 01/20/2006 9:41:10 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: lemura
Personally, I always preferred the various tales found in Astrology, Channeling, Hinduism, Gnostic traditions, Neo-paganism, Spiritualism, Theosophy, Wicca, etc.

My favorite is Greek Mythology. Those Gods could fly, screw who they wanted to, intervene in anyones life, and the big guy carried a hammer and beat the heck out of anyone who did not obey.
347 posted on 01/20/2006 9:42:14 AM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

Comment #348 Removed by Moderator

Comment #349 Removed by Moderator

To: jcb8199
"WE KNOW it is a fact, and can prove it. He believed it was a fact, stated it WAS a fact, but couldn't PROVE it."

So what? We can't prove anything today. How does that make what the Church did right?

"You need to take off the 21st century filter--he was saying that nearly 1500 years of accepted (and "proven") scientific and religious dogma was WRONG, something NO ONE should take lightly,"

So, when someone says that your beliefs are wrong, do you then bully them and force them at the threat of confinement/and or death to change their views?

" It didn't persecute him because he didn't accept "their" viewpoint,"

They absolutely did. The only problem he had was his science was showing their religious interpretation to be wrong.

"he went on trial (religious, not secular)"

The distinction was not present then. The Church WAS the law. They had the power to arrest him and possibly put him to death if he resisted, not just excommunicate him.

"for teaching something that was contrary to what was taught by the Church (and by Protestants as well, don't forget). That's all."

And you are defending their use of force.

" They said he can talk about it, but not in a way that says it is CERTAIN, because it WASN'T certain at that time."

They had no right to do so, unless you consider might as right.

"It was intererested in protecting TRUTH as much as it was still smarting from the Protestant Reformation."

Protecting Truth by crushing free inquiry. Nice motto.

"3) They didn't use force. You are still assuming that the myths about torture and painful punishment are truth. "

I never said he was tortured. Force is more than just beating someone up. The Church forced him to recant and placed him under forced house arrest. If he tried to leave, he would have been FORCEABLY stopped. If he further resisted, he would have been executed.

"His "recantation" was largely a formality."

So, he didn;t have to recant? If he didn't recant, what would have happened to him? He would have had more grave repercussions, the end which would have been death if he resisted. The Church forced Galileo to LIE in order to not get killed.

" It did not damage his reputation or work in any way."

It was an infringement on his right to conscience and free speech.

" No, no, no, and no. He wasn't tortured, nor was he threatened."

Are you illiterate? I said he wasn't tortured.

"He was not threatened with execution."

Because he recanted. If he had not, and resisted, he would have been killed.

"Copernicus published the book and THEN died;"

It was published while he was on his death bed; he was not alive to see it received.

"Even a brief perusal of his Wikipedia entry shows you are totally wrong: "

This proves you are illiterate. That's EXACTLY what I said. I said specifically that Copernicus DIDN'T write the intro, and that Osiander did. The fact remains, the book had an intro saying that the conclusions did not mean that the heliocentric model was true physically. That was NOT what Copernicus had in mind, and if the intro had not been there, the book would have been condemned.

"Notice that the "preface" you mentioned was put there by a LUTHERAN theologian, not Copernicus."

Notice I said already that it wasn't Copernicus, but was Osiander. Learn to read.

"You seem to be motivated more by anti-Catholicism than a pursuit of truth."

I was raised Catholic, my entire family is Catholic. I went to Catholic school from K-12. I, unlike you, will NOT defend the indefensible though. The Church has apologized for the Galileo affair. You apparently would have done it all again if you were there.

"It assumed, along with practically every other scientist and theologin of the day... "

It assumed wrong, and was willing to use deadly force if necessary to enforce it's theology. You are defending theocracy.

"Again, drop the anti-Catholicism and READ."

Coming from such a blindingly illiterate person such as yourself, your insults mean nothing to me.
350 posted on 01/20/2006 10:08:54 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 601-606 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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