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

[Paul Hazelwood]

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?

Yep.  and the answer is affordability and reliability and safety.

Where is this vast Christian wealth being put to good use,  if all these Christian scientists are the REAL scientists then what have they developed, what are they knowledgable of that the rest of the evil mythical scientists are hiding?   

I'd say it is time for christianity to put up or shut up.  Where is their science and what does it have to offer along these lines?   If your going to talk about science and modern day technology, then provide your examples and not your excuses, sarcasm and accusations.

[WhiteWings]

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.

I certainly agree with that Doc.
But I want to add that, for me it's clear that, Darwinism is a false tool.
It's proved to be fake by scientific other tools. Not by religion.
I strongly feel the enemity between religion and science has a lot to do with it.

[Paul Hazelwood]

  Or like an insecure dog becomes a 'fear biter.'

True, I'll go along with that,  kinda like a christian who gets their theology threatened by a mythical scientist.

[Molly]

  Or like an insecure dog becomes a 'fear biter.'

True, I'll go along with that,  kinda like a christian who gets their theology threatened by a mythical scientist.

I am really having trouble understanding you.  Where has anyone said that Christians are threatened by science?  No one has said that.  In fact, real science is the Christian's best friend.  Have you heard what whitewings has said? 

[Molly]

Yep.  and the answer is affordability and reliability and safety.

And you know this how?  Last I checked a car costs minimum around 20K.  And, 50,000 people a year die in them.

But, seriously, look at the advances in airplanes in the last hundred years.  I mean the ones we know about.

Don't you think we could do a little better than we have done?

Or look at the advances in biology in the last hundred years.  I mean the ones we know about.

Don't you think it makes the current geopolitical climate around oil look stupid?

Meanwhile we still bop around town in a glorified model T.

[Doc]

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.

I certainly agree with that Doc.
But I want to add that, for me it's clear that, Darwinism is a false tool.
It's proved to be fake by scientific other tools. Not by religion.
I strongly feel the enemity between religion and science has a lot to do with it.

Well, sure. Darwinism itself is quite flawed.

[WhiteWings]

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?

Yep.  and the answer is affordability and reliability and safety.

Where is this vast Christian wealth being put to good use,  if all these Christian scientists are the REAL scientists then what have they developed, what are they knowledgable of that the rest of the evil mythical scientists are hiding?   

I'd say it is time for christianity to put up or shut up.  Where is their science and what does it have to offer along these lines?   If your going to talk about science and modern day technology, then provide your examples and not your excuses, sarcasm and accusations.

The first question is how many Christian scientist are there? Owning a Bible doesn't make you a real Christian that goes on, ahum, crusade.
Is the field they do research in relavant to in the religious debate?
Christian scientists can only prove something is false but not prove God exists.
A scientist needs to leave his religion home (I hope you understand that translated expression)
A scientist is a fact finder not  a dream promotor.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Yep.  and the answer is affordability and reliability and safety.

And you know this how?  Last I checked a car costs minimum around 20K.  And, 50,000 people a year die in them.

But, seriously, look at the advances in airplanes in the last hundred years.  I mean the ones we know about.

Don't you think we could do a little better than we have done?

Or look at the advances in biology in the last hundred years.  I mean the ones we know about.

Don't you think it makes the current geopolitical climate around oil look stupid?

Meanwhile we still bop around town in a glorified model T.

My argument is not against the climate for better technology, or the hope to get rid of the need for fossil fuels

If these real scientists that you support have something to offer the world , then they really have no excuses, not today, not with the billions of dollars Christians have at their disposal to actually prove something if they believe that can.

They need to stop making excuses if indeed they are the real deal and their way of science is better.   

[WhiteWings]

My argument is not against the climate for better technology, or the hope to get rid of the need for fossil fuels

If these real scientists that you support have something to offer the world , then they really have no excuses, not today, not with the billions of dollars Christians have at their disposal to actually prove something if they believe that can.

They need to stop making excuses if indeed they are the real deal and their way of science is better.   

Science is a funded activity Paul...
Does Christianity really hav eto spend billions of dollars? Not much of it is cash. Many Christians rather spend that cash on charity or spreading the word.
A fair share of Christian $ from into the pockets of the TV-preachers. Is it just me or are they serving a god named greed?
So little funding from them too. And not to forget: how many have the balls to swim upstream?

[Paul Hazelwood]

My argument is not against the climate for better technology, or the hope to get rid of the need for fossil fuels

If these real scientists that you support have something to offer the world , then they really have no excuses, not today, not with the billions of dollars Christians have at their disposal to actually prove something if they believe that can.

They need to stop making excuses if indeed they are the real deal and their way of science is better.   

Science is a funded activity Paul...
Does Christianity really hav eto spend billions of dollars? Not much of it is cash. Many Christians rather spend that cash on charity or spreading the word.
A fair share of Christian $ from into the pockets of the TV-preachers. Is it just me or are they serving a god named greed?
So little funding from them too. And not to forget: how many have the balls to swim upstream?

Like I said,  they need to put up or shut up. 

All that is just excuses.  Maybe they do serve a God named Greed, but that irrevalent.   

While these people rake in the money from those who think they are saving souls from an eternal hell they sit on their pile of money critisizing and offering the world little more than that in terms of science.

If mainstream science is this great myth that molly implies, then they need to offer the world something substantial enough to prove it.

They demand proof,  why can't they deliver it?

[Paul Hazelwood]

  Or like an insecure dog becomes a 'fear biter.'

True, I'll go along with that,  kinda like a christian who gets their theology threatened by a mythical scientist.

I am really having trouble understanding you.  Where has anyone said that Christians are threatened by science?  No one has said that.  In fact, real science is the Christian's best friend.  Have you heard what whitewings has said? 

LOL, sorry molly,  saying "real science" is avoiding the issue.

Mainstream science supports the theory of evolution, it is irrevalent to say it is fake or whatever.   Evolution gets the christians all into fear biting mode because they are threatened.

[WhiteWings]

LOL, sorry molly,  saying "real science" is avoiding the issue.

Science without proof is no science. Where is the proof of the Darwin type of evolution?
Plus that other fields of science hint that Darwinism isn't true.
I write 'hint' because it isn't realy research that is aimed at figuring out evolution.
But a 'side-effect' of for example medical research and gentech.

Mainstream science supports the theory of evolution,

Really. Not from what I have read about it. Same goes for the 2 articles Martin posted.
You must take care not to confuse scientific evidence with a Darwin news hype.
I don't know when sparrow found that article from the Vatican but is it a coincidence it's close to Darwins birthday.
Today is his birthday and full pages in newspapers are spend on telling us a little about the life and work of Darwin.

is irrevalent to say it is fake or whatever.

If not proven it's indeed irrevant from a scientific view.

Evolution gets the christians all into fear biting mode because they are threatened.

I'm sure that's true for many. But certainly not for all.

[WhiteWings]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA  -> especially the "Female inheritance" chapter
"mitochondria are normally inherited exclusively from the mother"
"The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables researchers to trace maternal lineage far back in time."
"The concept of the Mitochondrial Eve is based on the same type of analysis, attempting to discover the origin of humanity by tracking the lineage back in time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

The key of whole the story is this. Take a random living woman. Race is not relevant. She traces back a long long time.
But never to, for example, apes.
So what this proves?
Perhaps between now and Eve the looks have changed. That's even a fact because wasn't black and white at the same time to mention one thing. But the change is looks never traces back to the wife of King Kong  :laughing7:
This is just one thing that disproves Darwin type of evolution. Why? Well.... because mtDNA passes on unchanged 'we' should also find in in apes and even fish. But there it isn't found...

[Paul Hazelwood]

Science without proof is no science.

What is considered proof?


What is the proof God exists, after all, christian scientists maintain there science is valid as opposed to evolution.


Evolutionary theory has a broad range of things and macro evolution has nothing to do with a fish turning into a dog, that is the hype.   It is scientific observations that form a conclusion that can be falsified. Direct observance is not required.  Saying it is false does not make it true, pointing out that the observations do not add up is a factor of falsification.  

So then the people point out, God cannot be directly observed. That would be fine, if christians could allow for the fact that perhaps "Allah" is the creator or we were placed here already alive by an alien life form.   It all is consistant with scientific conclusions.  

[WhiteWings]

Science without proof is no science.

What is considered proof?

Humm, not so easy to answer.
Useally I would say it can be reproduced in every test. But that's a bit hard for a proces that is claimed to be random and takes millions of years.

What is the proof God exists, after all, christian scientists maintain there science is valid as opposed to evolution.

I think you mistunderstood me Paul.
Proving Darwinism is a hoax doesn't proof God exists. Surely you find people who claim they proved God.
I'm not one of them. But I have to admit that my feeling is that 'open ends' in many scientific fields (like it's impossible the Big Bang occurred but it did) point a little to God.
But let's say that's my personal religion. I by no way make a claim I can prove God.

Evolutionary theory has a broad range of things and macro evolution has nothing to do with a fish turning into a dog, that is the hype.

Possibly we have different defenitions for macro evolution?
Or what Darwin actually theorized.
In my understanding he indeed suggested that a fish turn into a dog after many steps. Or not?

So then the people point out, God cannot be directly observed. That would be fine, if christians could allow for the fact that perhaps "Allah" is the creator or we were placed here already alive by an alien life form.   It all is consistant with scientific conclusions.

What do you mean with 'consitant with scientific conclusions'?
The problem with God is you can't prove Him with science. But neither can you disprove Him.
Even if we have knowledge of every atom in the universe. When we reached the point even a child knows all science there is to be know in the universe. Then we can only look back till the big bang. We still can't prove what was before/'outside' the big bang

[Doc]

That's just it, isn't it? Science is a useful tool, but it can only measure what can be measured. You can't use it to prove or disprove God, because you can't "measure" God. The arguments that arise between Science and Christianity come mainly from comparing apples and oranges, so to speak, once the agenda-pushing is swept aside.

[Molly]

Science without proof is no science.

What is considered proof?


What is the proof God exists, after all, christian scientists maintain there science is valid as opposed to evolution.


Evolutionary theory has a broad range of things and macro evolution has nothing to do with a fish turning into a dog, that is the hype.   It is scientific observations that form a conclusion that can be falsified. Direct observance is not required.  Saying it is false does not make it true, pointing out that the observations do not add up is a factor of falsification.  

So then the people point out, God cannot be directly observed. That would be fine, if christians could allow for the fact that perhaps "Allah" is the creator or we were placed here already alive by an alien life form.   It all is consistant with scientific conclusions.  

Paul, please.  I have my beliefs.  I do not have to allow for the fact that Allah might be the creator or some alien life form.  I do not have to do that.  My beliefs are my own.  Freedom of religion, remember?  I do not have to be accomodating to the beliefs of another, other than to allow them to believe their own thing in freedom.  I do not have to believe in the religion of relativism or the religion of secularism or the religion of scientism.  Those are other  religions.  I do not have to be double minded to please a bunch of relativists.

Darwinism and monkey to man is being taught as fact right now to our children with my public funds.  It is a lie.  It should not be funded by the gov't, especially to the exclusion of all other theories of like ilk.  Put it where it belongs--in a history class.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Paul, please.  I have my beliefs.  I do not have to allow for the fact that Allah might be the creator or some alien life form.  I do not have to do that.

This isn't about you and your beliefs other than an appearance that evolution threatens them.
Science is not about belief.  A christian assertion that evolution is a belief and science is a religion simply is a lie itself, but a lie you don't seem to mind.

[Molly]

Paul, please.  I have my beliefs.  I do not have to allow for the fact that Allah might be the creator or some alien life form.  I do not have to do that.

This isn't about you and your beliefs other than an appearance that evolution threatens them.
Science is not about belief.  A christian assertion that evolution is a belief and science is a religion simply is a lie itself, but a lie you don't seem to mind.

Evolution does not threaten my beliefs. Lies threaten them.  Especially lies taught to children.  Lies are my enemy.

Science should not be about beliefs but it has become that.  Science was completely corrupted in the 20th century.

The theory of evolution is just one example, although maybe one of the best, of that.

That is the point I am making, and I am sticking to it.

You don't have to be a real Christian to know that evolution is bunk, just a real scientist.

[Paul Hazelwood]

That is the point I am making, and I am sticking to it.

Thats why christians will find such a hard time getting their ideas taken seriously. You make the accusation of a lie when thats not really what is going on.  You don't care about a method that really works quite well for discovery and things that become useful to our lives because your belief is more important than being reasonable.

You can believe whatever you want, but please, the  oppression complex is getting old.  Read the boy who cried wolf.

[Molly]

That is the point I am making, and I am sticking to it.

Thats why christians will find such a hard time getting their ideas taken seriously. You make the accusation of a lie when thats not really what is going on.  You don't care about a method that really works quite well for discovery and things that become useful to our lives because your belief is more important than being reasonable.

You can believe whatever you want, but please, the  oppression complex is getting old.  Read the boy who cried wolf.

I am saying these things as a scientist, not as a Christian.

[sparrow]

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.

Molly, I'm afraid we do not see eye to eye on this. I do not believe Satan is some boogeyman out to get everyone. I just don't. I believe Satan is more our carnal nature.

I never said anything about winning any wars.... You put those words in my mouth.
What I am saying... is everyone has a path to walk.


I see human beings who are here on this earth to learn. We are all related. We are brothers and sisters.
An atheist is my brother just as much as someone who believes the same things as me.
Every human being must walk their own path.
I'm not into forcing others down my path or "winning wars".
I'm the same as anyone else... struggling to get to truth.
Some don't struggle, some don't care. Some are too scared to care.
All any one person can DO is share their beliefs, listen to others, and have an open mind with each other.
No-one knows everything.
There is ALWAYS something to learn. (and something to teach.)
We just need to be more open and accepting and loving towards each other, man...

That's it.

[Doc]

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.

Molly, I'm afraid we do not see eye to eye on this. I do not believe Satan is some boogeyman out to get everyone. I just don't. I believe Satan is more our carnal nature.

I never said anything about winning any wars.... You put those words in my mouth.
What I am saying... is everyone has a path to walk.


I see human beings who are here on this earth to learn. We are all related. We are brothers and sisters.
An atheist is my brother just as much as someone who believes the same things as me.
Every human being must walk their own path.
I'm not into forcing others down my path or "winning wars".
I'm the same as anyone else... struggling to get to truth.
Some don't struggle, some don't care. Some are too scared to care.
All any one person can DO is share their beliefs, listen to others, and have an open mind with each other.
No-one knows everything.
There is ALWAYS something to learn. (and something to teach.)
We just need to be more open and accepting and loving towards each other, man...

That's it.

That's the way I tend to lean as well, sparrow. I guess I kind of see the adversary as something in between the two extremes we usually see advocated. I think the terms 'principalities, powers and spiritual forces of wickedness in high places' is more along the lines of what we're dealing with as an adversary. In some sense, the adversary is somewhat undefined and undefinable, yet still very real. This is the same type of thing as the spirit of antichrist, and also explains why Jesus could refer to Peter at one point as "satan".
We do tend to get unnecessarily hung up on the personifications that are present in the language of scripture.

[Molly]

I'm the same as anyone else... struggling to get to truth.

That's what I am calling war.  You might not think of it as war, but it's the way the bible characterizes it.  That is why we are told to put on armour, like soldiers do before they go to battle.  Truth is absolute, and rare in the minds of men, and there are forces continually working against it.


11Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

--Eph 6

[Paul Hazelwood]

Science without proof is no science.

What is considered proof?

Humm, not so easy to answer.
Useally I would say it can be reproduced in every test. But that's a bit hard for a proces that is claimed to be random and takes millions of years.

I'll try a perspective here to get a better idea what I am talking about.


There was a conclusion at one time the earth was flat,  now that we know that is not correct,  does that make the conclusion of a flat earth (at the time it was thought to be correct) a"lie",  does what we know now prevent the flat earth theory from being valid science (at the time)?


In the 4th century it was proposed that the earth was spherical.  How can it be valid science to propose such a thing?   They could not observe the earth from space and offer proof,  the could not directly prove anything.  So how was their theory any more valid than the theory for the "type" of evolution that would take millions of years to directly observe?


Another aspect of science that gets ignored is that the flat earth theory was indeed a "scientific fact"  its "truth" is irrevalent to it being one.   So when people complain that evolutionary theory is taught as fact, it is indeed a scientific fact,  whether it is "true" or not has no bearing on it being one.    They just happen to leave off the scientific word in order to twist things.