Catholic Church says Evolutionism is Compatible with Bible.

[NoMoreDead]

 

First off, to the guy above you, whatever...

 

 

 

And I can disprove Evolution right here:

 

The Bible.

 

 

 

And #2 is [cabbage] lol, what God means, (and you know this, you just feel like riding the short bus all through your life) is that we were created to look like him, not as in color, but as in two arms, two legs, symmetry in general (besides certain organs)

 

 

 

And also, how can YOU prove Evolution? After all, if you're only going on Darwin, which is one man, then it's usually opinionated.

 

 

 

 

 

Why do I debate over the internet. :wall:

 

 

 

Well that's certainly a laughable argument.

 

 

 

The bible has no say on evolution. The bible is a 2000+ year old text which was written by a bunch of people who needed to keep others in line. A big scary man who punishes you and sends you to a lake of fire if you disobey their (his, sorry) rules seemed to do the trick.

 

 

 

Evolution is the most widely accepted explanation for the diversity of life. It is accepted by the most intelligent beings on this planet, and nothing has come along so far to shake or shatter this confidence in evolution. Sorry, nothing SCIENTIFIC. The bible provides us with untestible examples. It basically comes down to whether or not you believe what you see, or what you cannot.

 

 

 

By the way, if God created us in his image, why did he start us off as microscopic bacteria?

 

 

 

 

In response to your first comment: When my point of reference is being called ridiculous which such callousness from people who really don't know what they are talking about other than reading what is in a textbook is disconcerting. To your point about you can't disprove evolution, As I said before our world is hoping upon hope that we can have a world with no God. They will dismiss any evidence found against it. Such as figures like this

 

 

 

He concluded that the chances of just this one tiny DNA molecule coming into existence

 

over four billion years, with conditions just right, on just one of these extremely

 

large number of hospitable planets, including the earth, as one chance in 10415.36 But

 

this figure is also exceedingly beyond Borels law, which says that beyond a certain

 

point, improbable events never happen, regardless of the time span involved. (Indeed,

 

1050 planets would pack the known universe with planets [so that no space exists between

 

them] and yet the chances that life could evolve from dead matter on any one of

 

them are still beyond possibility.)

 

 

 

Please do NOT relate evolution with the big bang theory. They are NOT one in the same.

 

 

 

Besides, we did not evolve from "dead matter". Organic matter was around long before living organic matter ever was.

 

 

 

The odds of the big bang happening were indeed quite slim. However, the odds of all the particles in your current location being in the specific location they're currently in is absolutely microscopic, yet you do not question it. The odds of the sand on a beach being in it's current state is unbelieveable tiny, yet we still walk the beach without giving it a second thought.

[Saru Inc]

Excuse me, guys. The point of this is to learn and to teach, and to understand.

 

 

 

We don't need to go around calling each other names.

 

 

 

Now, if there were no objections to my post, we can at least agree that the two are possibly compatible. I can also add a little more to that, just for kicks.

 

 

 

[hide=]First, we will deal with the issue of animal death prior to sin. This mistaken doctrine stems from two verses in the Bible. The first is Genesis 1:29-30, which states,

 

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, where-in there is life, I have given every green herb for meat; and it was so."

 

Yes, the Bible says that God gave the green plants to all animals to eat. This is a completely true statement. Adam and the animals could eat the plants for food. However, nowhere does the Bible say that animals "cannot" eat meat. There was no general prohibition against meat. However, it's not that simple a matter. One must also consider the location where God spoke these words.

 

God was addressing Adam within the Garden of Eden, which was a unique, special place. Eden was paradise, where there was no death, and where animals got along with each other. It is clear from Scripture that God created this Garden to be different from the rest of the world.

 

Some young earth creationists have argued that the entire world was originally created perfect and free from death. However, if this was true, then why did God plant a Garden, and place man in it? The Scriptures are clear that the Garden was separate and distinct from the rest of the world. We have no reason to suspect that there was no death outside of the Garden.

 

Also, nowhere does the Bible claim that there was no animal death before sinit is inferred from the Genesis text and this verse, Romans 5:12, which states,

 

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

 

When Adam sinned, he did indeed introduce physical death (through his expulsion from paradise) for humanity. However, this verse has nothing to do with animal death prior to sin. There are several other good reasons for the existence of animal death prior to man's sin.

 

 

 

SOURCE: http://www.answersincreation.org/death.htm[/hide]

 

 

 

Now, it would honsetly be foolish for any one of us to try to prove or disprove one another's theory right here. None of us know enough. It's far better to read up on sources that have written about this.

 

 

 

I will also tell you right now that no one CAN disprove or prove the other's theory completely. Ergo it becomes a matter of probability, and so it's most logical to go with the one that seems most probable. I'll let you guys do your own research. If you want to become educated, it'll take you weeks to learn all you need to know. Don't expect to just read an article for one hour and make an informed decision.

 

 

 

But I repeat, it is entirely true that the bible is indeed compatible with evolution.

 

 

 

But where does it say that? It doesn't, I mean of course there has been technological and social evolution, but the Bible says nothing of Evolution, But besides that I completely agree no one can disprove a theory right here right now.

 

 

 

 

 

NoMoreDead, the whole world thought the Earth was flat...

 

 

 

And it was written by one person, and one person only.

[NoMoreDead]

But where does it say that? It doesn't, I mean of course there has been technological and social evolution, but the Bible says nothing of Evolution, But besides that I completely agree no one can disprove a theory right here right now.

 

 

 

 

 

NoMoreDead, the whole world thought the Earth was flat...

 

 

 

And it was written by one person, and one person only.

 

 

 

Yes, the whole world did, but that was before space travel, thermo-chemistry, and even the most basic of knowledge in the field of medicine. We have credible, testible, and technically sound methods of testing what we currently believe. There is nothing testible about God.

 

 

 

And sure, you can believe that the bible was written by one person and then it was given to someone on Earth, much like nothing before or after it.

[Lenticular_J]

A good portion of the Church's doctrine isn't verbatim from the Bible.

 

 

 

And if you're saying the Bible was written by God, you're a nummy. It doesn't even hint at that. Only that a number of its writers were touched by Him.

[Saru Inc]

A good portion of the Church's doctrine isn't verbatim from the Bible.

 

 

 

And if you're saying the Bible was written by God, you're a nummy. It doesn't even hint at that. Only that a number of its writers were touched by Him.

 

 

 

 

 

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

 

 

 

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

 

 

 

Sure... I'm a bad nummy.

[Will H]

Good to hear, that's been my view on the whole thing as well. We were made as we were then, but we also evolved to what we are now. Sounds like two sides of the same coin to me.

[BlueTear]

Wow, this thread took an impressive spin. We've got "just a theory", some nonsensical probability example that was probably taken horribly out of context (which is apparently another one of those I-don't-actually-have-a-clue-but-I-can-regurgitate-well examples constantly flourishing on the internet), "but it's in the bible" AND personal attacks on Darwin - neatly ignoring the centuries of additional research by thousands of scientist on the subject.

 

 

 

So basically, we're just missing "not enough dust on the moon for it to be millions of years old" and "irreducible complexity" and we've got ourselves a full house. Does anyone else wish to regurgitate some useful, exciting and undoubtly factual piece of evidence for their case that will definitely manage to be both new and irrefutable?

 

 

 

 

 

More on the main topic; Didn't the Catholic church - and yes, I know someone said it, but it was blown past - say this months ago anyway?

[Saru Inc]

Wow, this thread took an impressive spin. We've got "just a theory", some nonsensical probability example that was probably taken horribly out of context (which is apparently another one of those I-don't-actually-have-a-clue-but-I-can-regurgitate-well examples constantly flourishing on the internet), "but it's in the bible" AND personal attacks on Darwin - neatly ignoring the centuries of additional research by thousands of scientist on the subject.

 

 

 

So basically, we're just missing "not enough dust on the moon for it to be millions of years old" and "irreducible complexity" and we've got ourselves a full house. Does anyone else wish to regurgitate some useful, exciting and undoubtly factual piece of evidence for their case that will definitely manage to be both new and irrefutable?

 

 

 

 

 

More on the main topic; Didn't the Catholic church - and yes, I know someone said it, but it was blown past - say this months ago anyway?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Omg but itz so tru!!! ders only leik 2 inches of teh dust on teh moooon .

[ThurinEthir]

Hm, I remember posting something like "God could've caused evolution to happen, and thus evolution and Christianity/religion could co-exist", and getting flamed for it... :?

 

At least I think I did. Whatever. I know I've said "Science and faith can co-exist, they can both be true. There is nothing in the Bible that says 'SCIENCE IS RUBBISH@@@@@@' and there is no scientific theory that states 'Religion/the Bible is wrong.'" You just have to use your imagination, and perhaps not take EVERYTHING so literally.

 

...Yeah.

[Giordano]

Micro-level evolution takes place day by day and the changes are very visible to the human eye; taking a matter of hours or days. It's already been proved as fact that these small bactiria can undergo evolution so why not larger organisims?

[Saru Inc]

Hm, I remember posting something like "God could've caused evolution to happen, and thus evolution and Christianity/religion could co-exist", and getting flamed for it... :?

 

At least I think I did. Whatever. I know I've said "Science and faith can co-exist, they can both be true. There is nothing in the Bible that says 'SCIENCE IS RUBBISH@@@@@@' and there is no scientific theory that states 'Religion/the Bible is wrong.'" You just have to use your imagination, and perhaps not take EVERYTHING so literally.

 

...Yeah.

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly, God says science proves him, just not evolution.

[hellbellz]

Wow, the majority of the posts about how evolution is almost fact are so naive. If you actually did research you would realize that evolution is a mathematical Impossibility.

 

You don't have to research [cabbage] to realize there is no God.

 

You just have to graduate high school and be on the internets, right?

 

I wish I could feed on the ignorance nearly every post in this thread. Including my own.

 

IGNORANCE? I've gone to church for years, and I realized it's a load of [cabbage].

 

 

 

I know there's little to no logic in the Bible.

[Saru Inc]

Wow, the majority of the posts about how evolution is almost fact are so naive. If you actually did research you would realize that evolution is a mathematical Impossibility.

 

You don't have to research [cabbage] to realize there is no God.

 

You just have to graduate high school and be on the internets, right?

 

I wish I could feed on the ignorance nearly every post in this thread. Including my own.

 

IGNORANCE? I've gone to church for years, and I realized it's a load of [cabbage].

 

 

 

I know there's little to no logic in the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

How do you know? Have you really tried looking? Or just looking to say you looked.

[warri0r45]

 

Two things:

 

 

 

1. Why do you insist on coming off as the most arrogant, idiotic, and frustratingly moronic person you can be? Evolution is NOT a "Mathmatical impossibility." Tell you what. If you can manage to disprove evolution right here on this message board, you can expect a Nobel Prize for over turning the most comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life in the world.

 

 

 

2. If you honestly believe that God set the world up to evolve, consider this: According to the church, God created man in his own image. If we evolved, what is God? Is God a form of micro-bacteria, or some form of trasitive species? Is he human, or is he an ape? What is God? If he created us in his image, which one of our images is he?

 

In response to your first comment: When my point of reference is being called ridiculous which such callousness from people who really don't know what they are talking about other than reading what is in a textbook is disconcerting. To your point about you can't disprove evolution, As I said before our world is hoping upon hope that we can have a world with no God. They will dismiss any evidence found against it. Such as figures like this

 

 

 

He concluded that the chances of just this one tiny DNA molecule coming into existence

 

over four billion years, with conditions just right, on just one of these extremely

 

large number of hospitable planets, including the earth, as one chance in 10415.36 But

 

this figure is also exceedingly beyond Borels law, which says that beyond a certain

 

point, improbable events never happen, regardless of the time span involved. (Indeed,

 

1050 planets would pack the known universe with planets [so that no space exists between

 

them] and yet the chances that life could evolve from dead matter on any one of

 

them are still beyond possibility.)

 

 

 

To your second point I agree that is why I say evolution and creationism can't co-exist

 

 

 

Please, don't patronize people by telling them they don't know what they're talking about when all youve presented is an excerpt of a book written in 1978 by a creationist found from a creationist website. Hes not even qualified in molecular biology or biochemistry, he has a glaringly obvious agenda against anything that contradicts his worldview and you still rather accept his evidence over actual research that goes on into autocatalytic systems or autopolymerization post 1978? Should I even be surprised? Probably not. The only disconcerting thing here is that you think good research means looking up apologetics and dismissing real science from a textbook.

 

 

 

So, what are the assumptions that underlie this estimation? What is it even addressing, specifically (what DNA molecule are we talking about here)? Does this estimation consider multiple simultaneous trials or one trial at a time? Does it consider autopolymerization on mineral surfaces to create a longer sequence more efficiently? Are you sure that abiogenesis even required this one specific DNA molecule? You should really be asking yourself these things and thinking more critically before jumping to conclusions.

 

 

 

It's also worth mentioning that it's seriously flawed to present one possibility of how abiogenesis happened as if its the only possibility, especially if the benchmark is creating any modern DNA/protein molecule. There are other pathways of creating a self-replicating system from simple precursors. Take RNA molecules as self-replicating systems for example. [1] [2] After an autopolymerisation step, these molecules could have played part in the RNA world hypothesis of how self-replicating systems originated. There are all kinds of similar peculiar properties in DNA and protein based systems.

 

 

 

Feel free to read up on the issue yourself. There are plenty of research articles linked at the bottom. Personally, this kind of stuff is of huge interest to me. It really is some fascinating biochemistry when you think about it.

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Its incredible how quickly a thread like this will revert to the same old flat out untruths and misrepresentations. I can't believe that people still come up with the nonsense that "it's just a theory" as if no hard facts are involved here, or that it's all based on the work of Darwin as if science has just stood still for 150 years. Im surprised no ones brought up the 2nd law of thermodynamics again in a vain attempt to disprove evolution.

 

 

 

Seriously guys, there is so much you could learn if you just googled these things. It's pretty easy to take 1 minute of your life to figure out what a scientific theory is and the status of evolution as a theory and what that means.

[Nadril]

Man, the rest of this thread is [bleep]ing disappointing. Really, I'm disappointed in you OT. Really I agree with Warrior here, you guys could learn so much by just reading about it a little bit.

 

 

 

 

 

What I'm amazed is the Church even accepts Evolution yet so many Christians still are so ignorant.

[BlueLancer]

Its incredible how quickly a thread like this will revert to the same old flat out untruths and misrepresentations. I can't believe that people still come up with the nonsense that "it's just a theory" as if no hard facts are involved here, or that it's all based on the work of Darwin as if science has just stood still for 150 years. Im surprised no ones brought up the 2nd law of thermodynamics again in a vain attempt to disprove evolution.

 

 

 

Seriously guys, there is so much you could learn if you just googled these things. It's pretty easy to take 1 minute of your life to figure out what a scientific theory is and the status of evolution as a theory and what that means.

 

 

 

Which is why I gave up posting on religious topics pretty much years ago... Sure, you might cite sources, and there's some people around here who really know their Bible or Qur'an (like Barihawk and some others)...

 

 

 

Most of the time, when you present facts here, there's no reply, 20 pages down the road somebody says the same old, wrong information again. The cycle goes on forever.

 

 

 

What baffles me: Why people don't want to find objective information? I don't personally care about being right or wrong, about ego, etc... I just want to know the truth. That should be natural for every person seeking intellectual discussion: Ultimate, absolute objectivity. Facts aren't good or bad, they just exist. Even if they put you or me, or the church, or anybody in bad light.

 

 

 

What I'm amazed is the Church even accepts Evolution yet so many Christians still are so ignorant.

 

 

 

Next excuse: "They're catholic so their opinion doesn't count" (nevermind the fact catholicism is by far and largely the hugest denomination of christianity in the world)

[Lordtunkuta]

God didn't name all the animals he created in the bible

[ember3579]

It has been a couple years since I came to the conclusion that Evolution and Theism not only can co-exist, but they do. I say this as both a Christian and a very logical thinker. I can even look at things such as magic with a logical mind of it (if it exists, for example, I could probably guess how different tricks would work). The only real thing that keeps me from doing well-thought out and researched posts on these matters is 1) I don't see the need for me to (This shouldn't even be a discussion, imo. -.- ), 2) I got better things to do, and 3) I have the worst luck with researching this sort of thing. :wall:

 

 

 

Oh, and for the record, anybody who wishes to make another post should read warrior's as a mandatory gesture. I think that will weed out all but the people who are posting either to try and /b/tardify this board or just are having their heads too far up their bum (either side) to consider the possibility. Really, it makes the rest of us look bad when we have to suffer your stupidity time and again.

[Saru Inc]

Man, the rest of this thread is [bleep] disappointing. Really, I'm disappointed in you OT. Really I agree with Warrior here, you guys could learn so much by just reading about it a little bit.

 

 

 

 

 

What I'm amazed is the Church even accepts Evolution yet so many Christians still are so ignorant.

 

 

 

 

 

That's an opinion.

 

 

 

And to be honest, I don't google anything when I am debating, becuase I really hate debating online, because face it, everyone including I, say stuff they wouldn't normally say, whether ridiculous or true, they may just throw stuff out there, or completely disregard a statement. Which is why I'm not going to debate this anymore, because I realized I don't really want my mind "changed." per se, call me ignorant, sure, but I'm happy just the way I am. But also, Nadril, ignorance is a two bladed sword, I could say you are ignorant becuase yiou don't realize that yes, while Catholicism is Christianity, 90% of non Catholics don't consider it one, because it would do anything to make the world happy. I'm not saying all Catholics are atheists, but that most Christians think the Pope is unnecessary as a whole, and Catholicism is wrong. Of course, many sects of Christianity think all others are wrong, so it really all depends. And really, anyone who is serious in the science community, as far as I know do not include Evolution as fact. There have been theories based off of theories before. But... :)

[BlueTear]

 

And to be honest, I don't google anything when I am debating, becuase I really hate debating online, because face it, everyone including I, say stuff they wouldn't normally say, whether ridiculous or true, they may just throw stuff out there, or completely disregard a statement. Which is why I'm not going to debate this anymore, because I realized I don't really want my mind "changed." per se, call me ignorant, sure, but I'm happy just the way I am.

It isn't so much about having your mind changed as it is about not subjecting everyone else to total and utter [cabbage]. You don't care whether whatever you say is accurate or makes sense, so why would anyone else care about anything you say? Are you posting because you actually have something to say that might be worth reading, or because you just enjoy pressing submit?

 

 

 

I mean really, this forum isn't - or shouldn't be - a place for self-absorbed adolescents to vent their teenage angst and reaffirm their worldview. If you're not willing to at least show everyone else the courtsey and respect of making sure what you say is in some slight way connected to reality, then what the [bleep]? Why are you even here in the first place?

 

 

 

I'm not saying I expect any of the debates we have here to ever change anyone or anything, but people could at least take the [bleep]ing time to make sure their posts pass a 30 second google check for reliability. If not for your own eduction - God forbid actually learning something on the internet - then for the sake of everyone else who comes here.

 

 

 

(Edit: And to further clarify, it isn't solely directed at any single poster, nor only at the people in this thread. I don't want anyone to feel offended, I want them to think about why they come here.)

[RichieMcD]

The Catholic church say the bible agrees with Evolution :o

 

 

 

Who knows what they'll say next to swing some young intelligent agnostics towards them.

[warren211]

The Catholic church say the bible agrees with Evolution :o

 

 

 

Who knows what they'll say next to swing some young intelligent agnostics towards them.

 

 

 

:wall: The amount of unsourced comments here scares me. You really think the Church gives a damn if a few kids think they're wrong? It's the big picture we're looking at. Catholicism can't blatantly deny science.

[Lenticular_J]

What I'm amazed is the Church even accepts Evolution yet so many Christians still are so ignorant.

 

I'm surprised you'd make a statement like that. Well, actually, no. You're Nadril.

 

 

 

IGNORANCE? I've gone to church for years, and I realized it's a load of [cabbage].

 

 

 

I know there's little to no logic in the Bible.

 

 

 

That fact you're throwing a bit of a hissy fit over that makes me giggle :P

 

 

 

That's like saying I know Oompa Loompas make all our chocolate. I saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

[highlanders]

The church says a lot of things. People say a lot of things too. But life is about what you do and what exists, not what you say.

 

 

 

I can only tell you what I've experienced. People say a lot of bad things about the church. This year, my vacation was in Italy. I've seen Rome, and the vatican. You know, when you're there, walking in the streets of the vatican and visting St. Peter's Basilica, there's nothing evil about that place. In shops, they sell peace crosses, you can only get those in the vatican. You can buy some postcards and send them from the vatican, through their mail system. When you walk in the streets, there's a lot of italian ice cream stands. You know, small things. There's a lot of tourists, but everyone just calmy walks about, not the kind of crazy behaviour you'd think from a crowd that big. I used to imagine myself the vatican like some close-up place where a bunch of monks were plotting how they could enslave the mind of humanity. It's not like that at all when you go there for real.

 

 

 

Italy is a christian country, 90% christian. But you have to understand italians interpret christianity very differently than americans do. For them, it's embedded into their culture itself. They wear crosses, they pray, family is very important to them. The male is very important in the culture, but they see themselves are protectors of women, not dominators or dictators. Christianity is not fair towards women, it's not, but you have to understand they mean it in a different way that what you could imagine. It's not: I'm a man, therefore I'm superior to you, so I get to do what I want. It's not the way they see things. It's in the lines of: As a man, I believe my role is to protect and provide for my family, and the women are the ones I protect. It's very macho. Their male pride rests on the fact that that is their duty. American men tend to believe that to be "macho" they have to become completely desensitized to their feelings. Italians don't do that at all. They're tough on the outside, but soft on the inside, pretty much. And they do give roses, write poems, hold doors, do long walks on the beach, and all these romantic gestures for a woman. Just like in movies, old fashioned romance lives in Italy.

 

 

 

Revolutions came to italy aswell. Women are no longer confined to kitchens, and taking care of kids. They can do whatever they want.

 

 

 

You're not going to meet any modern italian that's going to bring out a bible and tell you that because X or Y verse says this or that, that's the "truth". From what they've told me, most italians understand fully well that what the bible says is outdated, and can't be applied to this modern world. They are attached to their old fashioned values. They're not fanatics ready to believe everything the bible says.

 

 

 

Of course, that's my opinion, but that's what I've honestly understand from my trip to Italy. I thought some of you would be interested to know what christianity is like in its country of origin. Italy is where christianity is born after all, where all of this has started from.

 

 

 

Christinity sounds awful in america. All the crazy things we hear about it. I think that in many ways more than one, america has perversed christianity and twisted into a complete different religion than what it was at the beginning. America takes the bible and takes it all for cash - even if a lot of it makes no sense whatsoever. God didn't write the bible, men did. Italians understand this, why can't americans?

[Rebdragon]

Just let the [bleep]ing morons be [bleep]ing morons. I mean, ya'll mineaswell just go tell a smoker that smoking is bad for him, you'd probably get farther.