The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity

[Paul Hazelwood]

True molly, you can find abuses everywhere you turn, thats why Gods love superceeds them all when you remove the fight for supremecy in theology and control.   

Real spirituality at it's core does not need science to verify anything at all.

Science at it's core has proven to develop things that work and are tangible in our physical lives and does not threaten anything religious or spiritual except ridiculous dogma,  that is all it threatens.

[WhiteWings]

http://www.reasons.org  Ignore their "statement of faith."  They're great scientists though they're still trapped by the ET myth of separation.

I've read several books by Hugh Ross and none of them speaks about ET. His books are nice reading.

Evolution is fact. Things evolve, nature evolves...this has been proven.

With so many types of evolution you should specify what type of evolution.

Because--either you are a glorified monkey, evolved from prehistoric slime, by accident, without purpose, here have a banana, grunt!--

or

You were created by God discretely, with a purpose, in his image and likeness, just like the Bible says.

Come on Molly! You surely know there are more options.
Like glorified monkey, evolved from prehistoric slime, from a process that was started by God.
or
Any other type of evolution started by God.

Do you believe we are stardust Molly? Do you believe God literally molded Adam from literal clay? Or is that a very simplified statement for a very complex process. (evolution starts in the soil)

To (partly) repeat myselef from a few posts back....
Darwinism is a hoax.
I believe in other forms of evolution that are actually possible according to science.
That evolution doesn't make the Bible make stupid.
A millenia old book that was written by drunken inbreed nomads (Bible summarized by atheists) is talking about things sciences figured out a few years back. Then either those where really smart nomads. Or the big One does exist....

[Molly]

True molly, you can find abuses everywhere you turn, thats why Gods love superceeds them all when you remove the fight for supremecy in theology and control.   

Real spirituality at it's core does not need science to verify anything at all.

Science at it's core has proven to develop things that work and are tangible in our physical lives and does not threaten anything religious or spiritual except ridiculous dogma,  that is all it threatens.

Let me try a different approach because I'm not successfully communicating what I really want to say. 

There is a reason why the first modern scientists came out of the reformation.  People like Isaac Newton and Kepler spent as much time on what we might call religion as they did on science.  To them, science was another way to discover God by studying his creation.  The reformation gave them the freedom to do this.  They were in pursuit of God and thus in pursuit of truth, because to the believer those are one and the same thing.

Many of them did run smack into an entrenched religious system that was desperately trying to hold onto a power that was quickly eroding away.  And, so, what looked like a war developed between science and religion.  But, there is no intrinsic war between the two--  Because science will always lead to what an atheist might call the unknowable and the believer will call God.

What we call science today is a highly controlled and secretive business.  We scarcely know the progress of the last century which has been mostly conducted behind closed doors for the benefit of a few over the many.  And, real scientists like Newton and Kepler have been replaced by myths like Darwin and Einstein.

[Molly]

Look what I just found lol



There was an ancient monkey
With a long and curly tail
This ape evolved into a man
He's teaching now at Yale

A chimp could pass for upper class
In gloves and a cravat


---Richard Milner, Darwin in song--Nytimes/video [on youtube]

To celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of "On the Origin of the Species"

[Molly]

When scientists found a language center in the brain--that the human brain is hardwired for language--it was hailed as a great discovery.  Now scientists have discovered that the human brain is also hardwired for God, and the evolutionists and atheists are tearing out their hair trying to explain it away. rofl

But, no matter, -- it looks like--we are born believers...






Much of that evidence comes from experiments carried out on children, who are seen as revealing a "default state" of the mind that persists, albeit in modified form, into adulthood. "Children the world over have a strong natural receptivity to believing in gods because of the way their minds work, and this early developing receptivity continues to anchor our intuitive thinking throughout life," says anthropologist Justin Barrett of the University of Oxford.

.....

Based on these and other experiments, Bering considers a belief in some form of life apart from that experienced in the body to be the default setting of the human brain. Education and experience teach us to override it, but it never truly leaves us, he says

......

These cognitive biases are so strong, says Petrovich, that children tend to spontaneously invent the concept of god without adult intervention: "They rely on their everyday experience of the physical world and construct the concept of god on the basis of this experience." Because of this, when children hear the claims of religion they seem to make perfect sense.

......



Even so, religion is an inescapable artefact of the wiring in our brain, says Bloom. "All humans possess the brain circuitry and that never goes away." Petrovich adds that even adults who describe themselves as atheists and agnostics are prone to supernatural thinking. Bering has seen this too. When one of his students carried out interviews with atheists, it became clear that they often tacitly attribute purpose to significant or traumatic moments in their lives, as if some agency were intervening to make it happen. "They don't completely exorcise the ghost of god - they just muzzle it," Bering says.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html

[Paul Hazelwood]

What we call science today is a highly controlled and secretive business.  We scarcely know the progress of the last century which has been mostly conducted behind closed doors for the benefit of a few over the many.  And, real scientists like Newton and Kepler have been replaced by myths like Darwin and Einstein.

Well, Molly, there is actually nothing preventing Christian scientists from giving the world their discoveries,  so exactly what are they discovering that will change the world as we know it? 

I mean they have websites,  no one has closed them down,  so what is there that will make our lives better?   Have they proven God and are just keeping it from the world?   Where is their science for God?


The fact that they fail to replace mainstream science in the schools is miniscule to the actual freedom they have from sharing this vast knowledge they have with the world.

What exactly is that?   

[Paul Hazelwood]

When scientists found a language center in the brain--that the human brain is hardwired for language--it was hailed as a great discovery.  Now scientists have discovered that the human brain is also hardwired for God, and the evolutionists and atheists are tearing out their hair trying to explain it away. rofl

But, no matter, -- it looks like--we are born believers...

What you really find is if you have enough conversations on a casual basis and not just debate, argument, mocking and sarcasm is that atheists do not inherantly reject the basic idea of God.  They reject the mainstream christian outlook that they are going to go to hell because they do not measure up to the christian interpretation of the bible.   

You can poke fun at dawkins, which pokes fun at Christianity, but if a person actually listens, it is the idea that in their realm Dawkins is going to spend an eternity in hell because he believes what he does.   Christians cannot prove God exists only gather evidence to point to the assertion rather than the evidence predicting an invisible intelligent entity exists.  Christians cannot prove there is an eternal hell, they can only point at an intepretation and assert it's truth regardless of the evidence.   

But all those out there, the Christian scientists, the christian professors, the christian seminars it all has the undertow that there is this battle for the soul and it all is surrounded by the battle between an eternal hell and heaven.   

So the Christians have invented a battle that does not really exist in the first place.  That battle, that imaginary plain is all that is being challenged and I am glad that it is challenged.

The problem is though, then the battle become real in a society to protect reason and sensibility  and keep dogmatic ridiculousness from taking over.   

The only thing thats really at stake here from a religious perspective is eternal torment when it comes down to it.

[sparrow]

Evolution is fact. Things evolve, nature evolves...this has been proven.

With so many types of evolution you should specify what type of evolution.

Evolution: Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

I grabbed the following off of wikipedia.. I guess this is basically what I was thinking of when I said "Evolution is fact, things evolve, nature evolves"

Adaptations are structures or behaviors that enhance a specific function, causing organisms to become better at surviving and reproducing.[7] They are produced by a combination of the continuous production of small, random changes in traits, followed by natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment.[101] This process can cause either the gain of a new feature, or the loss of an ancestral feature. An example that shows both types of change is bacterial adaptation to antibiotic selection, with genetic changes causing antibiotic resistance by both modifying the target of the drug, or increasing the activity of transporters that pump the drug out of the cell.[102] Other striking examples are the bacteria Escherichia coli evolving the ability to use citric acid as a nutrient in a long-term laboratory experiment,[103] Flavobacterium evolving a novel enzyme that allows these bacteria to grow on the by-products of nylon manufacturing,[104][105] and the soil bacterium Sphingobium evolving an entirely new metabolic pathway that degrades the synthetic pesticide pentachlorophenol.[106][107]

However, many traits that appear to be simple adaptations are in fact exaptations: structures originally adapted for one function, but which coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process.[108] One example is the African lizard Holaspis guentheri, which developed an extremely flat head for hiding in crevices, as can be seen by looking at its near relatives. However, in this species, the head has become so flattened that it assists in gliding from tree to tree—an exaptation.[108] Another is the recruitment of enzymes from glycolysis and xenobiotic metabolism to serve as structural proteins called crystallins within the lenses of organisms' eyes.[109

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

EDITED TO ADD: WhiteWings, hey brother (or sister??) I'm not talking about you at all in my next paragraphs! I went back and read what I posted and I thought to myself  "Wow, that totally sounds like I'm passive aggresively directing this to WW!!! NOT AT ALL, BRO! (or sis.)  :icon_flower: I was just sitting here for about 10 minutes thinking about this whole debate, and those that believe in eternal torment, and just basically thinking of a few people in my own life..

It seems like there are people in this world who are afraid of science for fear that it may disprove God. To me, science is more the study of God, moreso than any religion in this world. If I believe in a Creator... how can science NOT be the study of the Creator? Science studies the creation. Now, people who don't believe in God may not see it that way, and that's perfectly fine. Because of what I believe about God, I can secretly in my heart delight in the thought that there is a wonderful surprise waiting for them. God. God is behind the things that they are studying. I find a lot of joy in that.
And to think, there are those that condemn the scientist who doesn't believe in God, tell him he is going to suffer hellfire for all eternity... sheesh. If people would see that God is love, they would just let the scientist alone, let him walk his own path.

[WhiteWings]

Evolution is fact. Things evolve, nature evolves...this has been proven.

With so many types of evolution you should specify what type of evolution.

Evolution: Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

That type of evolution I don't believe in. It's quite well debunked too. Meaning by science. Not by YECs.
I believe in another type of evolution. The links Martin posted lean towards the type of evolution I believe in.
Modern science instead of old 'science' of Darwin.

It seems like there are people in this world who are afraid of science for fear that it may disprove God.

I'm very sure of that.
For me science does more to prove God than to disprove Him.
In fact that's a big part of the reason I'm hear. So I don't fear science. Neither does God because He's the first scientist of all.

[sparrow]

That type of evolution I don't believe in. It's quite well debunked too. Meaning by science. Not by YECs.
I believe in another type of evolution. The links Martin posted lean towards the type of evolution I believe in.
Modern science instead of old 'science' of Darwin.

hmm. I'll have to go check out those links. Now I'm wondering if maybe I'm confused as to what the heck I'm talking about here when I say "evolution" :dontknow: Ignorance sucks.  :laughing7: Let me go do some reading..

For me science does more to prove God than to disprove Him.
In fact that's a big part of the reason I'm hear. So I don't fear science. Neither does God because He's the first scientist of all.

I'm right there with ya.

[sparrow]

I believe in another type of evolution. The links Martin posted lean towards the type of evolution I believe in.
Modern science instead of old 'science' of Darwin.

Hey, can you expand on this?

[WhiteWings]

The Miller experiment shows that life can begin out of nothing. That's the start or Darwin evolution.
But it's proved that the conditions of that experiment where..... a hoax.
But let ignore that for now. Darwinian evolution is about a huge amout tiny steps leading to something new.
Problem is fossilised micro organisms are found from just after the earth cooled down. (3.3 billion years ago) To soon for Darwinism.
Then there was no evolution for a very long time. Then, suddenly, the Cambrian explosion. Suddenly (few million years) many species appear in the fossile layers. Much much to fast for Darwinsm.
Lets ignore that too and give Darwin the benefit of doubt. He really believed the missing links between mankind and apes. Or even further back can be found. And how many links have been found? Zero.
Insects show up after birds, rodents and sea mammals

If life created itself by random processes more randomness in cell can be expected. Yet every species is is 'build' from the same 20 amino acid.
The chance that a single protein developed is is 1:10^110. That would require 10^90 grams of carbon. The universe only contains 6x10^27 grams

If things evolve one would expect more and more complex cells.
Complexity: Corn 20, mouse 40, human 46, potato 48 chromosomes.
Several forms of single-celled algae have more than 100x more DNA per cell as mammals.

So I don't believe in Darwian evolution.
I don't really know what type of evolution I do believe in. Or even of that type has a name. The things I mentioned above almost point to no evolution at all.
Some say the layout of later life was already locked inside early life.
Darwinism is macro evolotution fish -> dog for example.
Ofcourse there is micro evolution. Like animals adapting to climate/food change. But that are minor adaptions for which the blue-print are already dormant in the genes.
Another thing is how can transition form survive?
Many animals are highly specialized. When mutating to something else it looses that edge and goes extinct.
Finally if so many species evolved from slime into millions of species why don't we never see something new appear?

A nice book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evolution-Science-Teach-About/dp/0895262002/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234455480&sr=8-1
Light reading but informative. (doesn't speak at religion at all)

[sparrow]

Ok, thanks Tony. I think I'm pretty much on the same page as you, or at least a similar page, anyway.

Of course there is micro evolution. Like animals adapting to climate/food change. But that are minor adaptions for which the blue-print are already dormant in the genes.

ok, that's what I was talking about I guess... "micro evolution".

[jabcat]

Ofcourse there is micro evolution. Like animals adapting to climate/food change. But that are minor adaptions for which the blue-print are already dormant in the genes.

Good point... :gthumbsup:.  This explains a lot in a sensible way...

[Paul Hazelwood]

I don't really know what type of evolution I do believe in. Or even of that type has a name.

Belief is really not a factor in whether something is scientifically valid or not.

[Molly]

I don't really know what type of evolution I do believe in. Or even of that type has a name.

Belief is really not a factor in whether something is scientifically valid or not.

For Darwinists it is because they sure don't have any proof.  That's why I keep calling it a religion.

But everything points to life appearing discretely, just like it does in the Bible.  It's the difference between analogue and digital.  You keep mentioning Christian scientists and how they are welcome to compete, and I keep telling you that no one who denies Darwin, Christian or not,  is allowed to compete.  If you can't get the job in the big university or the funding,  or if you are fired, you cannot compete.  That is one reason why I am objecting to a bailout which is tied to controlling free speech and freedom of religion.  Science can only flourish (by definition) in an atmosphere of total freedom.

wow what if science really did prove the existence of God--as it is doing behind the scenes today--do you really think they would allow that to be known in this atmosphere of religious and expressive oppression?  Darwin and Einstein, their fraud scientism gods, would never be reverred as they are, in an atmosphere of free speech.

Bet you didn't know we are back in the dark ages, did you? -- Even though you transport yourself every day from here to there in 100 year old technology.  You haven't noticed?  :laughing7:

[Doc]

True molly, you can find abuses everywhere you turn, thats why Gods love superceeds them all when you remove the fight for supremecy in theology and control.   

Real spirituality at it's core does not need science to verify anything at all.

Science at it's core has proven to develop things that work and are tangible in our physical lives and does not threaten anything religious or spiritual except ridiculous dogma,  that is all it threatens.

Let me try a different approach because I'm not successfully communicating what I really want to say. 

There is a reason why the first modern scientists came out of the reformation.  People like Isaac Newton and Kepler spent as much time on what we might call religion as they did on science.  To them, science was another way to discover God by studying his creation.  The reformation gave them the freedom to do this.  They were in pursuit of God and thus in pursuit of truth, because to the believer those are one and the same thing.

Many of them did run smack into an entrenched religious system that was desperately trying to hold onto a power that was quickly eroding away.  And, so, what looked like a war developed between science and religion.  But, there is no intrinsic war between the two--  Because science will always lead to what an atheist might call the unknowable and the believer will call God.

What we call science today is a highly controlled and secretive business.  We scarcely know the progress of the last century which has been mostly conducted behind closed doors for the benefit of a few over the many.  And, real scientists like Newton and Kepler have been replaced by myths like Darwin and Einstein.

I do understand what you're getting at Molly, I really do. There are so many things that are abused (used for the wrong reasons) these days. Both science and religion have been manipulated to promote agendas. I'm just trying to provide some balance by saying: don't blame the tool, blame those who misuse it.

[Molly]

What you really find is if you have enough conversations on a casual basis and not just debate, argument, mocking and sarcasm is that atheists do not inherantly reject the basic idea of God.  They reject the mainstream christian outlook that they are going to go to hell because they do not measure up to the christian interpretation of the bible. 

Atheists really do not believe in God.  And, they call anyone who does believe in God stupid.  Believe me, I know, I'm surrounded by them.

If you have doubts, you are no longer atheist, you are agnostic.

[Paul Hazelwood]

For Darwinists it is because they sure don't have any proof.  That's why I keep calling it a religion.

The proof that is demanded is a false assertion.

You keep mentioning Christian scientists and how they are welcome to compete, and I keep telling you that no one who denies Darwin, Christian or not,  is allowed to compete. 

Christians have their scientists and their publications and their research.   What exactly are they kept from doing.   What exactly have they proven that should cause people to not rely on a basic formulation for trying to determine something.

You say einstein is a myth,  please explain in your own understanding why you think this.

If you can't get the job in the big university or the funding

The Christians collect billions of dollars in the offering plates, they have no excuses such as this.  This is a cop out.

wow what if science really did prove the existence of God

Come on,  Christian scientists believe God exists, where is their scientific formula for it?  They do not need public funding to present this  "Scientific fact".

Bet you didn't know we are back in the dark ages, did you? -- Even though you transport yourself every day from here to there in 100 year old technology.  You haven't noticed?  :laughing7:

I wonder if you dropped the accusations and sarcasm what you would have left to present in a scientific nature?

[Paul Hazelwood]

What you really find is if you have enough conversations on a casual basis and not just debate, argument, mocking and sarcasm is that atheists do not inherantly reject the basic idea of God.  They reject the mainstream christian outlook that they are going to go to hell because they do not measure up to the christian interpretation of the bible. 

Atheists really do not believe in God.  And, they call anyone who does believe in God stupid.  Believe me, I know, I'm surrounded by them.

If you have doubts, you are no longer atheist, you are agnostic.

Not really that just convenient labeling.   Maybe if an atheist thought a person wanted to just share ideas rather than being seen as some person who is beneath a believer they would loosen up a bit. 

[Molly]

I wonder if you dropped the accusations and sarcasm what you would have left to present in a scientific nature?

That is not sarcasm. It's the truth.  You are using 100 year old technology to transport yourself from here to there.  Why is that?  Have you ever asked yourself that question?

Atheists want to share ideas?  I believe in God.  They know this and that is all they know about me.  They have no idea what flavor of God I believe in, although they know it is Christian.  They aggressively deny God of any flavor.  This is tied into their need to believe they are the most important beings in the universe.

You probably think that Einstein is the most brilliant scientist to ever live.  His name is synomous with 'genius.'   Then explain to me why he was never given the Noble Prize for the one thing that his name is associated with --special relativity.   Could it be because those were not his ideas at all?  Could it be because he took the philosophical and theoretical ideas of scientists before him and called them his own?  That's called plagerism where I live.  But, if they can convince you that a man is really a monkey in disguise, they should have no trouble convincing you that a high school drop out patent clerk is the smartest man that ever lived.

[Molly]

It seems like there are people in this world who are afraid of science for fear that it may disprove God. To me, science is more the study of God, moreso than any religion in this world. If I believe in a Creator... how can science NOT be the study of the Creator? Science studies the creation. Now, people who don't believe in God may not see it that way, and that's perfectly fine. Because of what I believe about God, I can secretly in my heart delight in the thought that there is a wonderful surprise waiting for them. God. God is behind the things that they are studying. I find a lot of joy in that.
And to think, there are those that condemn the scientist who doesn't believe in God, tell him he is going to suffer hellfire for all eternity... sheesh. If people would see that God is love, they would just let the scientist alone, let him walk his own path.

Hi Sparrow--what you are describing is really a war for the minds of men.  You are saying you could win that war with love, if only you could get that message out.

But, these things don't just 'happen.'   They are carefully orchestrated.  If you want to know satan, study the history of ideas, and then you will see what you are really up against.

The hardest thing we might ever do is escape the prison we have been put into within our own minds.

[Paul Hazelwood]

This is tied into their need to believe they are the most important beings in the universe.

Well that contradicts the assertion that evolution makes them think they are nothing.

You probably think that Einstein is the most brilliant scientist to ever live. 

Why do you think I probably think that?    Like I said before.....

His name is synomous with 'genius.' 

Well, people all over taker pride in their IQ score, so what?

But, if they can convince you that a man is really a monkey in disguise, they should have no trouble convincing you that a high school drop out patent clerk is the smartest man that ever lived.

ok, like I said before.........

[WhiteWings]

I don't really know what type of evolution I do believe in. Or even of that type has a name.

Belief is really not a factor in whether something is scientifically valid or not.

It's just a way of expression Paul....
It's just like I believe you are a male from the USA instead of a female from Sweden. I didn't meet you first hand.
Neither did I do the experiments/archeology that is relevant to evolution.

When it is proved a scientific theory is fake; the only conclusion you can draw that theory is fake.
It doesn't mean you proved another theory.

[Molly]

Well that contradicts the assertion that evolution makes them think they are nothing.

Not really.  Human psychology is funny that way.  Or maybe it is just animal psychology.  The most insecure human portrays himself as the most important and powerful.   Just like a scared cat puffs himself up with hair.  Or like an insecure dog becomes a 'fear biter.'