Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, I think it is in that case pseudoscience.

Okay, so let's discuss the scientific method and see if it is or not. And while we are at it we need to discuss the concept of scientific evidence. An honest creationist (I know, I know, that is an oxymoron) will have to admit that there is endless scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none for creationism.

That is little difficult, because in some cases it seems people could claim a white racist is different species than a black person, because they can't reproduce.

Are you kidding me? You have no heard of biracial children? One reason that white racists oppose interracial marriages is because they do not consider the offspring of interracial couples "white". Which is just silly. The idea of being white or black is more cultural than anything else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. People who are lactose intolerant can reproduce with people who are lactose tolerant and their offspring is fertile. Why are you having such a difficult time understanding the concept of species?

It is a defense mechanism. Creationists have to force themselves not to understand at times. It is an example of why the far too often true "There is no such thing as an educated and honest creationist" saying arose. If a person has any intellect at all one has to force oneself into ignorance and misunderstanding.

 

[Audie]

Scientific method is very well defined: Observe, hypothesize, test, record results, conclude, repeat. Evolution is not pseudoscience. The problem here is that you just reject science.

Don't be foolish. They reproduce all the time.

You are trying to discuss calvulus with
someone who argues that zero isn't a
number. And letters are letters, cannot be
numbers.

No educated person thinks they have found
basic irredeemable flaws in evolution theory.

Or that zero isn't a number, thrrefore all of math
since the Egyptians needs to be thrown out.

Whether Egyptians could have been taught
math we will never know.

But no creationiston on earth can be taught,
and grasp the basic principles of science.

 

[Audie]

It is a defense mechanism. Creationists have to force themselves not to understand at times. It is an example of why the far too often true "There is no such thing as an educated and honest creationist" saying arose. If a person has any intellect at all one has to force oneself into ignorance and misunderstanding.

Ha. The saying arose coz I arosed it.

 

[Audie]

Okay, so let's discuss the scientific method and see if it is or not. And while we are at it we need to discuss the concept of scientific evidence. An honest creationist (I know, I know, that is an oxymoron) will have to admit that there is endless scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none for creationism.

Are you kidding me? You have no heard of biracial children? One reason that white racists oppose interracial marriages is because they do not consider the offspring of interracial couples "white". Which is just silly. The idea of being white or black is more cultural than anything else.

Or just polluted.
Don't pick on your white people though.
It's common around the world to think the same way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or just polluted.
Don't pick on your white people though.
It's common around the world to think the same way.

I know. It is always a case of those that in power not wanting to lose that power. Dang furriners am a threat!!

 

[Muffled]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

I believe they are real people but not the first ones. The would be the first couple in the Semitic race. Evolution is still unproven and most likely never will be. The idea that the first couple came from Africa may or may not be true. However if one goes back far enough in time one is likely to have at least one African ancestor out of millions.

 

[Muffled]

I wouldn't really base what American Protestant fundamentalists do as to what's correct. They seem to believe in progressive revelation, which in my opinion, means that their beliefs can change over time.

I do not believe that the idea that more gets known as time goes by is incorrect but sometimes what is seen a progressive is actually regressive and new information can be just as incorrect as old information.

 

[Muffled]

Not all American Christians have problems with the theory of evolution. That is only the more fundamentalistic sects. The US Catholic church has no problem with evolution. Nor do many protestant sects. The problem is that the creationist Christians tend to be very very noisy. They have a history of trying to force their beliefs upon others. When I was a Christian the sect that I was in had no clear policy on evolution at that time. I don't think that they have one now.

Oh, and some of the fundamentalistic sects here will openly state that Catholics are not "real Christians" and they have called the Pope the Anti-Christ. You are not dealing with people that most would call sane when it comes to that belief.

I believe I am sane and quite logical which is more than I can say for some others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe they are real people but not the first ones. The would be the first couple in the Semitic race. Evolution is still unproven and most likely never will be. The idea that the first couple came from Africa may or may not be true. However if one goes back far enough in time one is likely to have at least one African ancestor out of millions.

So silly. Gravity is still unproven and most likely never will be. You just said the equivalent of that.

I believe I am sane and quite logical which is more than I can say for some others.

Sane yes, logical, no.

 

[Muffled]

First of all, if a more sophisticated modern approach to core religious values and interpretation of ancient texts, then I wouldn't try and seek that in circles where they think it's wise and rational to believe YEC ideas.

Secondly, I view the bible no different then I view other mythological works, like that of the ancient greeks. These are tales that express all kinds of sides of humanity like pride, aggression, peaceful intention, emotion, jealousy, greed, etc. I have no problem with reviewing such tales and to use them as a basis for reflection on whatever subject is being brought up.

But it's no different then the same ideas being expressed in tales of the Star Wars saga.

The Word of God is not mythology because God knows everything and He is factual in His statements.

 

[Muffled]

So silly. Gravity is still unproven and most likely never will be. You just said the equivalent of that.

Sane yes, logical, no.

I believe gravity is observable but evolution is not.

I believe we disagree on how logic is applied.

 

[Audie]

I believe they are real people but not the first ones. The would be the first couple in the Semitic race. Evolution is still unproven and most likely never will be. The idea that the first couple came from Africa may or may not be true. However if one goes back far enough in time one is likely to have at least one African ancestor out of millions.

Making things up again.
All of the above.

 

[Audie]

I believe gravity is observable but evolution is not.

I believe we disagree on how logic is applied.

Ignorance and denial is not logic at all.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe they are real people but not the first ones. The would be the first couple in the Semitic race. Evolution is still unproven and most likely never will be. The idea that the first couple came from Africa may or may not be true. However if one goes back far enough in time one is likely to have at least one African ancestor out of millions.

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. There was no "first couple" of humans. Modern humans evolved very slowly from earlier hominids. There was no single moment when "Wow, look the first homo sapiens sapiens!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Word of God is not mythology because God knows everything and He is factual in His statements.

What is this "word of god" and how do you know it is not mythology? Now we are talking about the Bible and it is demonstrably mythology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe gravity is observable but evolution is not.

Incorrect. You do not know how to observe evolution. To even begin to teach you how you first have to learn the basics of science. Are you willing to learn.

I believe we disagree on how logic is applied.

I know that. You do not understand how logic works either. We can go over that as well. Just because you can repeat a term that you have heard does not mean that you understand it.

 

[Audie]

What is this "word of god" and how do you know it is not mythology? Now we are talking about the Bible and it is demonstrably mythology.

If God is factual then " the bible" isn't his book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If God is factual then " the bible" isn't his book.

I like to point out the fact that creationists are calling their own God a liar when they claim that the myths of Genesis are true. It is even worse for them if the stories are true. If there was an Adam and Eve and a Noah's Ark flood then not only are they calling their God a liar, he would be a liar. God would have had to have covered up his evil actions with false evidence. That is a form of lying.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Word of God is not mythology because God knows everything and He is factual in His statements.

God did not put pen to paper. The bible is written by men. You have the option to believe that somehow these men were inspired by God. But its not the same thing as God dictating the bible.