Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[Valjean]

It seems to me that both you and the pope have beliefs in the magical claims of the bible.
The main difference is that the pope next to that also accepts evidence of reality.

So he accepts science + adds magical biblical beliefs.
Whereas you only accept magical biblical beliefs while rejecting science.

He simultaneously holds two mutually incompatable belief systems. Nothing unusual in that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He simultaneously holds two mutually incompatable belief systems. Nothing unusual in that.

Well, to play advocate of the devil here for a second (haha, pun intended)....
I don't see anything incompatible with accepting evolution and believing that mary got impregnated through magic instead of through sex.

At best, I would only point out that there's no reason to believe that there is such a thing as magic or gods but that there are an enormous amount of observations of pregnancy resulting from sex. Which is to say, ALL pregnancies except those that resulted from IVF.

 

[Pogo]

No, it doesn't.

There's nothing about evolution theory which positively excludes such magic from occurring.

It doesn't even need to be magical. We can in fact do this today...
We can take a virgin and implant an embryo through IVF. She would give birth to a child and still be a virgin.

See the Bible predicted modern technology years ago, it must be troow.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is against the forum rules to call members out like that.
I even have the points to prove it....

Prove what?!?!?!

 

[shunyadragon]

So you say evolution and the dogma that Mary is eternal virgin are not related, right?

Correct! One represents religious belief. Sciences of Evolution represent the knowledge based on objective verifiable evidence of ALL sciences.

An important note There are many conflicting subjective religious beliefs among the many religions of the world based on subjective faith, There is only one sciences of evolution accepted in agreement by 95%+ of all scientists and the major academic institutions. of the world,

Again there are no unanswered questions that disprove evolution, but nonetheless there are many unanswered questions and conflicting beliefs that seriously bring to question the certainty of any one religion or belief system.

 

[wellwisher]

Correct! One represents religious belief. Sciences of Evolution represent the knowledge based on objective verifiable evidence of ALL sciences.

An important note There are many conflicting subjective religious beliefs among the many religions of the world based on subjective faith, There is only one sciences of evolution accepted in agreement by 95%+ of all scientists and the major academic institutions. of the world,

Again there are no unanswered questions that disprove evolution, but nonetheless there are many unanswered questions and conflicting beliefs that seriously bring to question the certainty of any one religion or belief system.

I like to add new ways of looking at evolution, where it does not go. For example, we cannot infer the state of consciousness from fossils. We may assume form and function. However, in modern times, form and function, do not have to match, such as with trans-sexual. All we have are guesses. Sometimes, new behavior, outside the box, may give selective advantages; men in woman's sports.

In many ways, consciousness is also key to natural selection. Consciousness is often behind adaptation. The DNA does not give that information in any detail, either. There are no consciousness genes. Rather conscious happens more via cellular protein configurations; brain. The concrete, steel and glass (DNA analogy) components of a building do not make the skyscraper. It more about how this is all stack together, with many ways of doing the with the same materials. Evolution is more about the shell, that contains consciousness. While consciousness, in turn, is the key to evolution in higher animals. I am approaching evolution where it is lacking; helping the cause. I have already worked the biophysical chemical; water model. This can interface consciousness.

One question, I asked myself what happened to the human brain and consciousness that allowed civilization? The human that came before that major change also had human DNA. This common DNA is how we know they were also human; before and after, and not aliens or half aliens. Something in the brain, changed, that led humans away from natural instinct; form and function, to derivatives; ego center appears. This ego has more left brain access; differential side of the brain, and appeared to shifted away from the right brain; integration of instincts. The inner self is more right brain; symbols. It appears the ego is like a satellite of a planet that formed a secondary center beyond the primary center but under its gravity.

Based on consciousness and the current theory of natural selection, the upgrade in the modern human brain from 6-10K years ago, allowed for human selection, to be added to natural section. All the modern dog breeds, did not evolve naturally, yet they sustain. The Bible concept of will and choice, apart from nature, describes human selection and its impact on evolution of species; canine.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please respond completely to what the Pope believes concerning the scientific understanding of the physical world versus the religious beliefs of the Roman Church. The Pope sees no conflict.

I do not know if he sees a conflict between the theory of evolution and the impregnation of Mary when she was a virgin.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not know if he sees a conflict between the theory of evolution and the impregnation of Mary when she was a virgin.

He clearly states that he believes there is no conflict between the sciences of Evolution and his religious beliefs, He accepts miracles that cannot be explained by science. He would not accept evolution is he thought there was a conflict the spiritual nature of humanity and the miraculous nature of Miracle in the Bible.

The Pope and Evolution

Appeared in Winter 2001, Vol. XXVI, No. 4 Download PDF here Pope John Paul II, in a speech given on October 22, 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences entitled “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth,” states that

media.christendom.edu

After outlining the teaching of Pius XII on evolution, the Holy Father revises the judgment of the Church in the light of “the results achieved by the natural sciences.” What are those results? A “series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge” and “the convergence…of the results of work that was conducted independently” have led to the progressive acceptance of this theory by almost every researcher in the field.7 And so, just as in the case of Galileo, but in a more timely fashion, the Church recognizes that it is time to remove the prohibition on teaching evolution as an established scientific theory. The Church recognizes that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.”8

The Pope acknowledges Evolution of the physical life, but rejects the Materialist (Philosophical Naturalist) view of the nature of Evolution and life itself.

The Pope and Evolution

Appeared in Winter 2001, Vol. XXVI, No. 4 Download PDF here Pope John Paul II, in a speech given on October 22, 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences entitled “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth,” states that

media.christendom.edu

After outlining the teaching of Pius XII on evolution, the Holy Father revises the judgment of the Church in the light of “the results achieved by the natural sciences.” What are those results? A “series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge” and “the convergence…of the results of work that was conducted independently” have led to the progressive acceptance of this theory by almost every researcher in the field.7 And so, just as in the case of Galileo, but in a more timely fashion, the Church recognizes that it is time to remove the prohibition on teaching evolution as an established scientific theory. The Church recognizes that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.”8

pope science laws and miracles - Google Search

The Catholic Church's view of miracles in relation to science and laws of nature is that miracles are extraordinary events that can occur when God directly intervenes, suspending or making exceptions to the laws of nature:

• Miracles are not violations of nature: Miracles are not in opposition to nature, but rather suspend its laws.
  
  
  
• Miracles are not logically impossible: Miracles are not logically impossible violations of scientific laws.
  
  
  
• Miracles are caused by God: Miracles are caused by God's direct intervention, not by natural forces.
  
  
  
• Miracles can be in accord with nature: Some miracles, like the miraculous catches of fish in the Bible, are in accord with the laws of nature.
  
  
  
• Miracles can be contrary to nature: Some miracles, like Christ feeding the 5,000 and turning water into wine, almost certainly go against the laws of nature.
  

The Catholic Church's process for assessing miracles involves a medical board of independent scientists who investigate the claimed miracle. The board looks for natural explanations first, and two-thirds of the board must agree that a miracle occurred before a canonization case can proceed.

 

[Eli G]

Miracles are not solely about the impossibility of fitting an event into contemporary scientific paradigms.

Miracles also involve occurrences that happen at precisely the right moment (when it's needed), impacting a particular person or group while others nearby remain unaffected.

Additionally, a miracle often follows a direct plea to or warning from a divine source, showcasing power, providing special protection, serving as a punishment for a defiant act, ...

So, to classify an event as a miracle, one or several criteria may be considered.

PD: Since events occur in real life that can be described by any of the above characteristics, miracles exist. This implies that miracles are "natural" in that sense: they are possible under certain circumstances. IMHO, the adjective "unnatural" does not accurately describe them, since the fact that the laws behind their occurrence are unknown does not mean that they do not exist.

 

[Argentbear]

I like to add new ways of looking at evolution, where it does not go. For example, we cannot infer the state of consciousness from fossils. We may assume form and function. However, in modern times, form and function, do not have to match, such as with trans-sexual. All we have are guesses. Sometimes, new behavior, outside the box, may give selective advantages; men in woman's sports

Congratulations, not many can weave bigotry into a thread like this

 

[shunyadragon]

Miracles are not solely about the impossibility of fitting an event into contemporary scientific paradigms.

Miracles also involve occurrences that happen at precisely the right moment (when it's needed), impacting a particular person or group while others nearby remain unaffected.

Additionally, a miracle often follows a direct plea to or warning from a divine source, showcasing power, providing special protection, serving as a punishment for a defiant act, ...

So, to classify an event as a miracle, one or several criteria may be considered.

PD: Since events occur in real life that can be described by any of the above characteristics, miracles exist. This implies that miracles are "natural" in that sense: they are possible under certain circumstances. IMHO, the adjective "unnatural" does not accurately describe them, since the fact that the laws behind their occurrence are unknown does not mean that they do not exist.

Actually the Roman Church (RCC) ie the Pope have become skeptical of coinsidental claims of miracles that can have natural explanation

This is sort of OK, but there is a problem of considering the coincidence of events desired as miraculous. I may address this problem further. There is a huge gray area in the belief in the coincidence of events as miracles when they fit within the cause and effect of natural events.

Actually this line of thinking concerning the problem of belief in miracles versus science as described concerning the Pope's views on evolution.,

We referring to the problem of believing in Biblical miracles as factual and also supporting the factual objective basis for the sciences of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually the Roman Church (RCC) ie the Pope have become skeptical of coinsidental claims of miracles that can have natural explanation

This is sort of OK, but there is a problem of considering the coincidence of events desired as miraculous. I may address this problem further. There is a huge gray area in the belief in the coincidence of events as miracles when they fit within the cause and effect of natural events.

Actually this line of thinking concerning the problem of belief in miracles versus science as described concerning the Pope's views on evolution.,

We referring to the problem of believing in Biblical miracles as factual and also supporting the factual objective basis for the sciences of evolution.

Here is the thing as I see it now. God makes the laws of nature and of the universe. Those laws are steady and consistent. They can be counted on by humans. Since God is God, however, He can interrupt those laws without bad consequence according to His will. That's how I see it now.

 

[Pogo]

Here is the thing as I see it now. God makes the laws of nature and of the universe. Those laws are steady and consistent. They can be counted on by humans. Since God is God, however, He can interrupt those laws without bad consequence according to His will. That's how I see it now.

How convenient, my solution is an unevidenced something that can do whatever we see happening, I'll admit, you can't disprove it because it can do anything but why? This explanation is just as useful if you consider the world a terrible place and an evil mastermind to be in charge.
This is like the tiny kid that thinks his daddy can do anything before he grows up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do not know if he sees a conflict between the theory of evolution and the impregnation of Mary when she was a virgin.

Why would there be a conflict?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, to play advocate of the devil here for a second (haha, pun intended)....
I don't see anything incompatible with accepting evolution and believing that mary got impregnated through magic instead of through sex.

At best, I would only point out that there's no reason to believe that there is such a thing as magic or gods but that there are an enormous amount of observations of pregnancy resulting from sex. Which is to say, ALL pregnancies except those that resulted from IVF.

I am asking those who claim to be in a "Christian" religion basically how they figure it happened. And so far -- I'm receiving answers like it's all mythical about the account in reference to Mary, with an addendum that myths do not necessarily have to be lies. Hmmm... so really -- I got my answer. And I appreciate it! Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would there be a conflict?

Let me delineate it again, if possible. The Pope and others here purporting to be Christian say evolution is true. So if Mary was a virgin (and perpetually proclaim many) how do you think that fits in with evolution or explained? So far I see answers like (it could be magic) or it's a myth, or it's a myth but maybe not a lie...etc. If you don't see a conflict with belief and no further explanation except it's either magic or mythical, so be it. (and thanks again)

 

[YoursTrue]

How convenient, my solution is an unevidenced something that can do whatever we see happening, I'll admit, you can't disprove it because it can do anything but why? This explanation is just as useful if you consider the world a terrible place and an evil mastermind to be in charge.
This is like the tiny kid that thinks his daddy can do anything before he grows up.

Well -- it's ok and I'm not asking a question right now about that but rather about the concept of a "perpetual virgin" who gets pregnant and how someone believing in that would explain it if they also believe in the theory of evolution. So far, as you might have noticed, it's either a myth or magic. But you have a good day, and thanks for participating.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am asking those who claim to be in a "Christian" religion basically how they figure it happened

So? I don't need to be a christian to see how there is nothing inherently incompatible with a miracle pregnancy on the one hand and natural evolution on the other....
All one has to do is allow for magic to be possible, et voila. You can accept both evolution and a magic pregnancy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me delineate it again, if possible. The Pope and others here purporting to be Christian say evolution is true. So if Mary was a virgin (and perpetually proclaim many) how do you think that fits in with evolution or explained?

You assume that just because the Pope (and others) accept evolution, like rational people do, that that somehow makes them incapable of also accepting the possibility of magic and thus a magical pregnancy.

Why?

I asked you WHY you think these things are incompatible. Instead of answering the question, you are just repeating your claim that they must be incompatible.

 

[YoursTrue]

He simultaneously holds two mutually incompatable belief systems. Nothing unusual in that.

I don't believe it is "magic" that Mary was impregnated. But...! -- since I do believe in a Creator, a Supreme Power and do not consider it "magic," I will tell you that. Yes, I was wondering how others who profess a religion based on the Bible figure it and therefore I asked. And so far -- on this thread -- from those professing a bond of sorts with a religion claiming a basis on the Bible in part, I find the answer that the Bible, as said by religious believers of sort is "mythical," all of it. So I thank you for answering I am happy to have received the responses.