Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Pope John Paul II “In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.”
also...
“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as 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 favor of this theory.”
Science cannot be done when the scientist signs a pledge that the results will be consistent with the doctrine of a church.
Give a specific example of science becoming mired in illusion as a result of ignoring Christ. Are you suggesting that scientific results posted by Hindus or whatever are invalid? Can you provide an example where this has happened?
“In case you haven't noticed, I have intentionally not appealed to authority.” [excerpt]I agree, your self righteous know-it-all attitude stinks.
“All I have asked is that you go outside and actually look at the Sun, take some measurements and think for yourself. I know that as a creationist that is is anathema to your thought process.” [excerpt]Oh?
“You have to have someone tell you what to think and see.” [excerpt]Then why am I not believing what your telling me to think and see?
“I specifically used the Earth as the center of my coordinate system in our discussion because the Earth is the center of your creationists universe. Everything in the Bible is based on what appears to be, from the view point of someone on the Earth. Joshua didn't stop the Earth from spinning, he stopped the Sun and the Moon from orbiting the Earth. In Revelations the Apostle talks about holding stars in our hand, because they appear to be tiny lights.” [excerpt]Whoa, TIME OUT!
“The real interesting thing is that using the Earth as the Center of the coordinate system is valid. The center of the coordinate system could be anywhere. This is the fight that Galileo and Bruno were engaged in and it meant that everyone had to give up their belief that the Earth was the center of the Universe.” [excerpt]We are discussing a non-centric system.
“The benefit to giving up the Earth as the center was that it then became possible (or at least much easier) to accurately determine where things are rather than where they appear to be. The problem for the old Popes and you creationists is that it means that the Authorities in the Bible were wrong. If the Authorities in the Bible were wrong on this important point, it meant that they could be wrong on other points as well.” [excerpt]We are discussing SCIENCE!
What evidence of human life do you have older than say, about 6000 years old?
What evidence of the existence of anything in the universe do you have which is directly observable, not dependent upon a functional or exponential presupposed upon a continuity of being throughout that period?
If you do not have one, then the entire basis of evolution is merely based upon the illusion of the continuity of being.
That pagan construct fails to discern the inherent distinction between Creator and Creation. It begs the question of origin, by assuming man in his judgment is on the same level as God in discerning existence.
There is a difference in evolution and stable transition in state.
How much are yu willing to read? the American continent has been inhabited for at least twice that long.
People not on heavy drugs do tend to believe in a continuity of being through that period.
Sorry, its our game and we get to decide on the terms. Do you also take umbrage that Football players have their own definition of “down”?
>>>>>>You keep missing the point...scientists THEMSELVES disagree on the definitions and terms!
And most Scientists in the USA are people of faith.
>>>>>>I realize they are...AND as I keep pointing out, many of these scientists are also beginning to take issue with the cult of darwinism.
Both Scientists of faith and others define Theory and Hypothesis identically, so your “godless scientists” construction does nothing more than show your prejudice, bias and blindness to the truth.
>>>>>>> Nope, it’s not about ME: I merely point out that the programmed cultists like you don’t OWN anything. That’s all in your mind. When someone points out YOUR bias, it’s not THEM that are the ones that are necessarily biased.
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
AGAIN these are scientists who DISAGREE WITH YOU! It’s got not a thing in the world to do wioth me or my bias, but about the scientists that don’t buy into the programming, which as we have seen on this thread alone, has so very little to do with science in the first place!
You can continue to project and ignore but this is the reality of our world!
And for a rational person looking at this they ALSO realize godless liberals are doing the very same things to science as they are doing to history, journalism, law, and too many other things.
But the jig is up!
The tipping point has been tipped!
Good points...it’s ridiculous to claim all this objectivity, as if scientists and they alone are somehow above this...for the sake of science, no less!
But then again these are the same people that say anyone who disagrees with them just aren’t smart enough.
Kind of like liberal politicians who claim us hillbillys clinging to our God and guns aren’t nuanced enough or something.
Pseudo-intellectual liberals are a laughing stock to Americans.
In journalism, polititcs, education, hollywood and so on...well every walk of life when you think about it!!!
I am glad you are not one of those YEC guys that thinks the earth is only 6000 years old. There is hope for you yet. However, I still don’t get it that you think children are less important than your coming here to rant with a few total strangers.
Do you agree with Arthur that man evolved over millions of years from simple organisms (common descent)?
Ann Coulter and Behe both believe that and most of the creationists here have agreed with that. You are apparently one of the lonely.
Behe is the creationists' worst enemy. Behe believes god is dead.
Fichori (sp?) posted it yesterday.
What is that difference?
I am not a “programmed cultist” I am in the majority of Christian thought on the subject of Science and evolution. My thinking on the subject is aligned with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. I suppose to you that makes them “godless liberals”?
Pope John Paul II “In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.”
also...
“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as 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 favor of this theory.”
Just mostly dead. Inactive for the past couple hundred million years. Hasn't done anything creative since the invention of dysentery.
But Behe's worst offence is testifying under oath in favor of evolution. He's done it twice now. Once at Dover and again in California. The judges noted he was paid by creationists and supported evolution with is testimony. Unwittingly perhaps.
Scientists are in agreement over the terms “hypothesis” and “theory”...
>>>>>>>>>> Which is hardly the issue!
I’ll be more specific, science has been hijacked by people with an agenda and it’s not a theocratic one but an
A-theocratic one, not necessarily by scientists (but scientists are not excluded just BECAUSE they are scientists...) and the evidence is junk science global warming, NEA run schools, failed science education, socializing students instead of teaching sciencce, etc. etc. etc.
Which theory is treated as fact though, evolution, (mind you more so by school administrators and NEA types than scientists) to the exclusion of ID theory IS what is at issue; and as I’ve said too many times before it’s often not the scientists that are rushing off to file their lawsuits.
But once again, it’s NOT these godless liberals with their agenda that get to define acceptable scientific theory for all of society!
Being a Christian I don’t understand why that is so difficult for you to grasp! Science shouldn’t “belong” to any religious belief OR DIS-belief or anyone with an agenda outside of science!
The stickers in Georgia exposed the lie that ALL scientists are objective when all rational people know it’s not at all about the science, it’s not about the scientists or their objectivity, but it’s CLEARLY about the NEA liberals that CONTROL science education!
My thinking on the subject is aligned with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. I suppose to you that makes them “godless liberals”?
>>>>>>> The Pope believes science isn’t greater than God. All along I’ve had zero problem with evo as theory, but you and your pals continue to ignore this...I also imagine he’d agree with these scientists ... as well !!!! ...
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
Posted by Robert Crowther on September 2, 2008 3:16 PM | Permalink
August 11, 2008
Posted by Robert Crowther on August 11, 2008 7:29 AM | Permalink
“Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. …
Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work.”
Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University
IBT *but they’re not “real” scientists.
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.