Announcement from Catholic Church... [Archive]

Makai Goblin

October 10th, 2005, 03:53 AM

wtf?

the creation story was never meant to be taken literally in the first place. It's more of the moral behind it that we are supposed to look at. This isnt anything new, it's just telling those bible literallists to lay off. Its like saying jesus' parables (sp?) are true. The bible was written with the intention of teaching morals through stories, those stories were never meant to be taken as FACT.

I know, but the signifigance, IMO, is that the offical polocy seemed to be to take the bible (at least for the most part) literally, now it isn't.

To me, it shows as a sigh of progress that they wish to "make it offical" and might be a first step toward less intolerance of things the bible speaks against (such as homosexuality, amongst other things)

And besides, even if the bible (like other books of myth) wasn't meant to be taken literally, it didn't mean that people didn't get it into theit heads to actually take it literally, and go on living in a deam world. The chuches new offical stance may change some minds for the better.

Lord Kelvin

October 10th, 2005, 04:01 AM

Not to mention, back in the Middle Ages people used to take it perfectly literally, forgetting that it was written by humans in the first place. This lead to a lot of stuff (ie some stuff that happened during the Crusades), and to a lot of the rigidness that the Catholic Church was known for (Galileo, anyone?).

Daywalker

October 10th, 2005, 05:20 AM

Any historical document should be veiwed with a grain of salt, so at the very least, the catholic church is admitting that the Bible has inaccuracies in it just like any history book.

Psyche

October 10th, 2005, 07:34 AM

wow so the catholic church has left the dark ages and finally now lives in the 50s..how hip and cool is that =x

Stig

October 10th, 2005, 08:20 AM

Now this is interesting.

Lord Kelvin

October 10th, 2005, 12:11 PM

Any historical document should be veiwed with a grain of salt, so at the very least, the catholic church is admitting that the Bible has inaccuracies in it just like any history book.
Yeah, but see, the problem here is that for the past two millenia they've basically built up the image that they're infallible, since God is infallible and God speaks to the Pope. That's what's driven them for this long. Now, the Church heirarchy probably knew that they were far from infallible for a long time, but it was their "infallibility" that's kept their followers with them for this long. If they'd done this earlier, it probably would have caused mass chaos, since lots of people took the Bible at face value.

siddy

October 10th, 2005, 01:55 PM

I must say that I'm quite surprised. I wonder how much of a backlash the church will get for that.

StandingCow

October 10th, 2005, 02:01 PM

Im really suprised at this move too...

I have always told people, you know... there is no reason evolution and the bible cannot both be correct... I mean why would god make us one way and keep us that way so we didnt get better?

Then some say WHAT ARE YOU SAYING GOD CANT DO THINGS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME?! No... but making us able to evolve makes us always on top of things...

Col.Kurtz

October 10th, 2005, 03:02 PM

how many of you are catholic? and not born catholic, but still practice and believe.

Modest Genius

October 10th, 2005, 03:05 PM

two points id like to make:

this is an announcement by the catholic church of britain. this is NOT an announcement by the vatican. thus, plenty of people in the catholic heirarchy probably disagree.

secondly, this is quite surprising. of course its obvious to you and me, but from a principle point of view, theyre admitting the bible is falible. whether this impresses people with its honesty, or causes them to doubt their faith, remains to be seen

DunNa

October 10th, 2005, 03:45 PM

I have always told people, you know... there is no reason evolution and the bible cannot both be correct... I mean why would god make us one way and keep us that way so we didnt get better?

Then some say WHAT ARE YOU SAYING GOD CANT DO THINGS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME?! No... but making us able to evolve makes us always on top of things...

Honestly I try and bring that up alot to, but most people just ignore it since they can't refute it or go off on some tangent about how god isn't perfect and therefor can't exist or some such.

One of the things the bible said is that god gave creatures free will. Could that free will not be to evolve? He may have created us in his image which may have been a gaint amoba or whatever and then we have changed into this. To think we are what god looks like is abit vain if you ask me.

As for a sect of the catholic church saying the bible isn't word for word exactly true, doesn't mean much to most anyone besides afew fanatics and some odd balls who live for nothing but to see christianity die/explode/whatever they want out of it. Beyond that most people realise its a book thats existed for a long time, wasn't writen in english so any translation to it would probably be messed up. Just look at modern day localistation for games, shows, or whatever. Then realise all these translations took place back in the day.

The only people I know to take the bible on what it says literally are crazy super devout people, and people who get confused reading fiction novels (like say Terry Goodkind, or Tom Clancy).

Lord Kelvin

October 10th, 2005, 04:23 PM

this is an announcement by the catholic church of britain. this is NOT an announcement by the vatican. thus, plenty of people in the catholic heirarchy probably disagree.
Hmm, missed that in the article. But isn't Britain largely Protestant anyways?

My own personal opinion is that although Christianity itself started out with honest roots (Jesus, the disciples, etc.), it got twisted around quite a bit through the millenia, especially through the Catholic Church. I mean, what's to stop a Pope back then from just twisting around the Bible to serve his own whim (and with this I cite the Medici family, which, I believe, was not only one of the wealthiest and most powerful families of Italy, but also had at least two family members become Popes; see the connection?)? God, whether or not He exists, may be infallible, but humans sure as hell aren't. But here the Catholic Church was, dictating that its word is Canon, when its word may have been spoken by a power-hungry Italian noble just to add a few liras (or whatever currency they used back then) to his bank account. There's no way in hell something doesn't get completely twisted around along the way.

Evil Superstar

October 10th, 2005, 04:32 PM

The other week I heard a professor in catholic law (possibly crappy translation on my part) say that over the years a number of changes have occured even though they were inspired by God's word. He said jokingly something along the lines of "well God seems to change his mind from time to time".

Whoami88

October 10th, 2005, 04:39 PM

Do they still believe in the Original Sin theory?

Lord Kelvin

October 10th, 2005, 04:40 PM

Wait, God's "worg"? Don't know the meaning of that word.

But the problem I see here is that God is supposed to be infallible; He knows everything about everything, before it happens, exactly how it will happen, and exactly what will happen after it happens, and so on. If this adheres, then God can never be wrong, and thus there would be no need for Him to change His mind. But then again, I've probably watched too much Dogma.

Evil Superstar

October 10th, 2005, 04:56 PM

sorry "word" I seem to make a lot of typo's now that I have a synth on my desk and my keyboard is much much closer to me.

Modest Genius

October 10th, 2005, 05:03 PM

Hmm, missed that in the article. But isn't Britain largely Protestant anyways?well, its mostly secular. most people put 'Church of England' down despite never going to church in their lives though, and the largest religion (by any measure) is definitely ProtestantBut here the Catholic Church was, dictating that its word is Canon, when its word may have been spoken by a power-hungry Italian noble just to add a few liras (or whatever currency they used back then) to his bank account.florins

puke o'hara

October 10th, 2005, 05:58 PM

But isn't Britain largely Protestant anyways?Mostly Anglican, and they aren't really Protestant. Think the Catholic Church, with the king/queen of ngland instead of the pope and the whole thing British'ed.

mg23

October 10th, 2005, 06:06 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

I'm rather surprised at this.
It's sad to see the Catholic church change its opinions as much as I change my pants. For some reason, they're more concerned with having the world agree with them then God.
Im really suprised at this move too...

I have always told people, you know... there is no reason evolution and the bible cannot both be correct... I mean why would god make us one way and keep us that way so we didnt get better?

Then some say WHAT ARE YOU SAYING GOD CANT DO THINGS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME?! No... but making us able to evolve makes us always on top of things...
This doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand, but regardless, its flawed logic. Considering evolution is based mostly on change, and the fossil record revealing little in the way of chance (sorry folks, skull size =! new species), I'm very reluctant to believe any rhetoric a Darwinist will spout.

Modest Genius

October 10th, 2005, 06:17 PM

Mostly Anglican, and they aren't really Protestant. Think the Catholic Church, with the king/queen of ngland instead of the pope and the whole thing British'ed.err, no. its very much protestantism, and nothing like catholicism

Lord Kelvin

October 10th, 2005, 06:34 PM

It's sad to see the Catholic church change its opinions as much as I change my pants. For some reason, they're more concerned with having the world agree with them then God.

It has more to do with interpretation; anybody's free to change their opinion.

This doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand, but regardless, its flawed logic. Considering evolution is based mostly on change, and the fossil record revealing little in the way of change (sorry folks, skull size =! new species), I'm very reluctant to believe any rhetoric a Darwinist will spout.
It has much more to do than simply skull sizes. For example, I could cite dolphins and whales, both of which still have finger bones in their fins and (if memory serves me right) also have what resemble leg bones inside their bodies. Not to mention Homo erectus and Neanderthal.

StandingCow

October 11th, 2005, 10:31 AM

This doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand, but regardless, its flawed logic. Considering evolution is based mostly on change, and the fossil record revealing little in the way of change (sorry folks, skull size =! new species), I'm very reluctant to believe any rhetoric a Darwinist will spout.

Sure it does, it has to do with views of the church.

Forget about darwin, and forget about skull sizes alone... just look at how people have changed short term... they aren't as big boned as they used to be for one, we are using more and more of our brains...

It would be ignorant to say that people have not evolved at all since we have been on the earth.

FloppyDisk

October 11th, 2005, 10:34 AM

Bobo*the*Clown

October 11th, 2005, 11:37 AM

two points id like to make:

this is an announcement by the catholic church of britain. this is NOT an announcement by the vatican. thus, plenty of people in the catholic heirarchy probably disagree.

Wrong. Please actually read the text of the article instead of just guessing what it may be about. Guys, either actually read what's in the article or don't rant off about what you 'think' is there.
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church....The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. This means that yes, it IS official Vatican teaching as part of the celebration of the 2nd Vatican Council that made sweeping changes to the church. Read more here. (http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=60277) It's not just the ramblings of the British branch-they're just the ones stuck trying to explain it to a very confused journalist.

secondly, this is quite surprising. of course its obvious to you and me, but from a principle point of view, theyre admitting the bible is falible. whether this impresses people with its honesty, or causes them to doubt their faith, remains to be seen Wrong again. They are reiterating what the majority of Catholic school students are taught (at least I was 20 years ago) that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not historical referance material. We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision and this section where the journalist blows it completly But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”. There aren't two different, conflicting stories of creation in Genesis..there's three. In fact, there are three distinct writers of the creation stories...as a journalist reporting this stuff, you'd think she'd get her facts straight.

This article is almost a joke like the Onion would produce-I love this: Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation... um...no they don't 'refute' Revelations. They say “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.” in other words...they refute the fundamentalist interpretation of Revelations as a literal interpretation of what will happen. Refuting a fundamentalist, literal interpretation is NOT the same as refuting Revelations itself. They're saying "We don't know if that's what will happen or not...it could well be rather symbolic."

There seems to be a whole lot of misunderstanding when it comes to the subject of Papal Infallibility...the only things that the Pope is considered Infallible on is on decisions of Faith and Morals. Things like "is abortion wrong" and other such topics. There is no Infallibility when it comes to the working of the church, the way mass is held, who is allowed to be priests...any of that. Those are decisions made by men that can be changed. I think it's completely asinine to slam the Church on one hand for the Galileo crap then slam them again for growing and changing to acknowledge the very science they once persecuted. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

HarryB

October 11th, 2005, 12:26 PM

err, no. its very much protestantism, and nothing like catholicism

The Anglican church was created by Henry(the 7th?) in direct response to the Catholic Church denying him the right to rewed. The only serious difference he made to distance the two was to eliminate that Pope as the head of the church. The rest of the material were left intact. Which was why most of the Catholics during that time had an easy time converting, because it wasn't really all that different. Then the Anglicans decided to persicute the left over Catholics and all that fun stuff.

It's sad to see the Catholic church change its opinions as much as I change my pants. For some reason, they're more concerned with having the world agree with them then God.

The bible is a collection of writings that were interrepted by people a thousand and some years ago, which, if God actually does exist, may have been way over there heads or way off. There is no reason not to admit that some things, in light of discoveries, might be inaccurate or were interrept wrong. Considering God won't show himself to correct errors, we are going to have to do it for him. Not to do so would be ignorant and detrimental to human growth, which I find more important than whether or not God likes the way something is told since, if he exists, apparently he doesn't care because he won't tell us.

Modest Genius

October 11th, 2005, 12:45 PM

The Anglican church was created by Henry(the 7th?) in direct response to the Catholic Church denying him the right to rewed. The only serious difference he made to distance the two was to eliminate that Pope as the head of the church. The rest of the material were left intact. Which was why most of the Catholics during that time had an easy time converting, because it wasn't really all that different. Then the Anglicans decided to persicute the left over Catholics and all that fun stuff.Henry the XIII, and it was the right to divorce, not rewed (although obviously because he wanted to rewed). And a few years later he decided to dissolve all the catholic monastries and nick all the wealth he could from the (mostly catholic) church. the protestant/catholic persucutions and struggles for the throne was somewhat complex, and served to polarise the population. eventually, the integration of these polarised communities resulted in the broad CofE tradition.
The separation of the Church of England from Rome under Henry VIII, beginning in 1529 and completed in 1536, brought England alongside this broad Reformed movement. However, religious changes in the English national church proceeded more conservatively than elsewhere in Europe. Reformers in the Church of England alternated for centuries, between sympathies for catholic traditions and Protestantism, progressively forging a stable compromise between adherence to ancient tradition and Protestantism, which is now sometimes called the via media.

Henry VIII's Anglicanism was transformed into an explicitly toward Protestantist forms of religious expression during the reign of Henry VIII's heir, Edward VI

The Church of England considers itself to stand both in a Reformed church tradition (current English law regards it as Protestant) and in a Catholic (but not Roman Catholic) church tradition: Reformed insofar as many of the principles of the Reformation have influenced it and insofar as it does not accept Papal authority; Catholic in that it views itself as the unbroken continuation of the early apostolic and later medieval "universal church" rather than as a new formation. In its practices, furthermore, the Church of England remains closer to Roman Catholicism than most Protestant Churches. It holds many relatively conservative theological beliefs, its liturgical form of worship can feature tradition and ceremony, and its organization embodies a belief in apostolic succession through the historical episcopal hierarchy of archbishops, bishops, and dioceses.

In many people's eyes, however, the Church of England has as its primary distinguishing mark its breadth and open-mindedness. In addition to the traditional mainstream, the church has long included "high church" and "low church" factions with their own particular preferences.Seeing as, as far as i can see, i am the only person in this discussion who has regularly attended CofE services (i no longer do), i think im justified in saying it is a conservative form of protestantism. in its theologly, it is very close to catholicism (minus the pope), but its major differences are in its attitudes and especially in its decorative sense. by far the majority of CofE churches and cathedrals are identifiably protestant in style, although with heavily catholic influenced services conducted within them. ill admit that describing it as 'nothing like' catholcism was a bit strong, but its certainly not as similar as you are implying

Wrong. Please actually read the text of the article instead of just guessing what it may be about. Guys, either actually read what's in the article or don't rant off about what you 'think' is there.my apologies, i misread it. i interpreted it as they catholic church in england celebrating deo verbum, not the vatican.
[quote=They are reiterating what the majority of Catholic school students are taught (at least I was 20 years ago) that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not historical referance material.[/quote]
<shrug> this is the first time i have been made aware of a public proclamation that this is so. whether theyve been using that implicitly already is important, but does not have the same symbolic significance as a papal proclamation

StandingCow

October 11th, 2005, 02:38 PM

What the hell... who let you loose bobo?! =)

mg23

October 11th, 2005, 06:05 PM

It has more to do with interpretation; anybody's free to change their opinion.True, but the Church needs to be held to a much higher degree, since we offer the world something they can't buy or trade (disregarding those that have ignored this of course): we offer the hope of the world.

It has much more to do than simply skull sizes. For example, I could cite dolphins and whales, both of which still have finger bones in their fins and (if memory serves me right) also have what resemble leg bones inside their bodies. Not to mention Homo erectus and Neanderthal.
I'm not too familiar with the morphology of dolphins and whales, but I will say Homo Erectus and Neanderthal are one of the same, albeit Neanderthal suffered from what most people would call "rickets." It's also funny to note that most people don't realize that Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, and homo sapiens existed during the same time period for thousands of years. Don't try and argue fossils either, since I don't believe anyone has seen a REAL fossil, even in all those cool photos that have in textbooks. The last time real fossils were showcased was in 1984, at the American Natural History Museum in New York, where scientists shockingly found that most molds of actual fossils were quite inaccurate.
Sure it does, it has to do with views of the church.

Forget about darwin, and forget about skull sizes alone... just look at how people have changed short term... they aren't as big boned as they used to be for one, we are using more and more of our brains...

It would be ignorant to say that people have not evolved at all since we have been on the earth. What your talking about is microevolution and adaptation, which are far different than what "pure" evolution suggests.

Because clearly some antibiotics no longer work because God wills it.I'm not quite sure where this fits into my statement...

The bible is a collection of writings that were interrepted by people a thousand and some years ago, which, if God actually does exist, may have been way over there heads or way off. There is no reason not to admit that some things, in light of discoveries, might be inaccurate or were interrept wrong. Considering God won't show himself to correct errors, we are going to have to do it for him. Not to do so would be ignorant and detrimental to human growth, which I find more important than whether or not God likes the way something is told since, if he exists, apparently he doesn't care because he won't tell us.
"Because of that, we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. Pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a light shining in a dark place--until the day Christ appears and his brilliant light shines in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophets themselves or because they wanted to prophesy. It was the Holy Spirit who moved the prophets to speak from God." 2 Peter 1:19-21

That verse right there is the evidence the Catholic church should need. Noone knows whether or not the Bible has been changed in any way, and to be honest, there appears to be more evidence that it hasn't changed; but regardless, the Church needs to stick by its very foundations.

siddy

October 11th, 2005, 06:22 PM

Don't try and argue fossils either, since I don't believe anyone has seen a REAL fossil, even in all those cool photos that have in textbooks. The last time real fossils were showcased was in 1984, at the American Natural History Museum in New York, where scientists shockingly found that most molds of actual fossils were quite inaccurate.

Please, keep talking about fossils and molding. I work at a company where we mold, cast, and mount dinosaur fossils, and other fossils.

I will agree that molds are innacurate, but depending on the molding technique, you're looking at possibly 1-2% expansion, or even as little as 0.2% depending on the type of molding.

If people have not seen 'real' fossils, why do I have one right beside me? Explain how that is not a real fossil.

"Because of that, we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. Pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a light shining in a dark place--until the day Christ appears and his brilliant light shines in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophets themselves or because they wanted to prophesy. It was the Holy Spirit who moved the prophets to speak from God." 2 Peter 1:19-21

That verse right there is the evidence the Catholic church should need. Noone knows whether or not the Bible has been changed in any way, and to be honest, there appears to be more evidence that it hasn't changed; but regardless, the Church needs to stick by its very foundations.

Are you using the bible as proof of itself?

Col.Kurtz

October 11th, 2005, 06:26 PM

i dont know why, but time and time again i find my self in agreement with bobo.

so what i have come to realize, bobo ftw.

mg23

October 11th, 2005, 06:43 PM

Please, keep talking about fossils and molding. I work at a company where we mold, cast, and mount dinosaur fossils, and other fossils.

I will agree that molds are innacurate, but depending on the molding technique, you're looking at possibly 1-2% expansion, or even as little as 0.2% depending on the type of molding.

If people have not seen 'real' fossils, why do I have one right beside me? Explain how that is not a real fossil.
A human fossil?
Are you using the bible as proof of itself?
Yes, in fact I am. Only to make a point however, which is that the Catholic church needs to stand behind the very Word that keeps it together.

Captain Colon

October 11th, 2005, 07:14 PM

A human fossil?
Are humans the only things said to have evolved? Why would it matter what it's a fossil of?

mg23

October 11th, 2005, 07:55 PM

Are humans the only things said to have evolved? Why would it matter what it's a fossil of?
Because that's what my original post was pertaining to.

siddy

October 11th, 2005, 07:56 PM

I've not got a human fossil, however, I do have a cast of Turkana boy sitting in the same room

http://www.anthropology.at/virtanth/evo_links/turkana%20boy.jpg

more reading:

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

Agent Law

October 11th, 2005, 08:08 PM

What your talking about is microevolution and adaptation, which are far different than what "pure" evolution suggests.
What is evolution but change to adapt? Simply that micro- and macroevolution are words made up. Have enough small changes, and it'll add up to appear to be a big one. It's like cracks in a dam: The small ones go unnoticed until they add up to form a sizeable crack. When they realize that it's there, they smack their heads and say, "How did we miss that?" Though not completely accurate, I'm sure the analogy gets the point across.

Modest Genius

October 11th, 2005, 10:45 PM

oh yay, weve been invaded by creationists

go and read the blind watchmaker or something. ive had this discussion way too many times, and winning repeatedly isnt fun

Agent Law

October 11th, 2005, 10:48 PM

oh yay, weve been invaded by creationists
A creationist.

mg23

October 11th, 2005, 10:49 PM

What is evolution but change to adapt? Simply that micro- and macroevolution are words made up. Have enough small changes, and it'll add up to appear to be a big one. It's like cracks in a dam: The small ones go unnoticed until they add up to form a sizeable crack. When they realize that it's there, they smack their heads and say, "How did we miss that?" Though not completely accurate, I'm sure the analogy gets the point across.
While I respect your analogy, I don't quite agree with it since what evolution claims isn't just "small cracks."
oh yay, weve been invaded by creationists

go and read the blind watchmaker or something. ive had this discussion way too many times, and winning repeatedly isnt funYour arrogance is your undoing. :)

Edit: I wanted to add, I'm sorry this got off-topic, evolution has been a recent study of mine, and I felt compelled to say something. I won't comment on it any further, and I'd like to see this get back on topic.

Agent Law

October 11th, 2005, 10:55 PM

While I respect your analogy, I don't quite agree with it since what evolution claims isn't just "small cracks."
Evolution is gradual development; not leaps and bounds.

Modest Genius

October 11th, 2005, 11:17 PM

StandingCow

October 12th, 2005, 01:31 AM

What your talking about is microevolution and adaptation, which are far different than what "pure" evolution suggests.

And with more time those bunch of small changes becomes one very large change.

Bobo*the*Clown

October 23rd, 2005, 09:11 AM

actually, that depends which school of thought you subscribe too. there are biologists who believe in 'punctuated equilibrium', that is periods of rapid evolution interspersed with virtual standstill

the interesting point is that its still evolution, just in a slightly different quantitative mould to the neo-darwinians

anyway, yes, this has got a bit off topic
Ok, this is what completely pisses me off about so called 'evolutionists'.
If it's 'in a slightly different quantitative mould' it's a DIFFERENT THEORY.

People seem to ascribe that 'evolution' is one giant happy fucking family of science and it's not. It's hundreds of theories & ideas patchworked from existing fossil records that have been faked numerous times in the last hundred years. Look it up guys. Better yet...quit studying evolution and start studying Geology. It's usually geologists that shred the finds of 'evolutionary archeologists'. It always cracks me up when 300,000 year old fossilized remains are found embedded in 2 million year old sedimentary rock layers. (Um...nope. Can't happen. Hey...how did that bone get here? Easy answer: someone put it there.)

And gentlemen, that is the problem with evolution as a whole. There's no where NEAR enough evidence to support a full scientific validation that "yes, this IS the way it happend". It's guesswork. And just as creationists have philosophical motivation to ignore 'evidence' that goes against their theory, so do the dozens...if not hundreds...of different evolution theorists. Its as much politics as it is science. In fact...it's not even hard science. There is simply no way on earth in our lifetime to study, replicate and validate a theory of evolution. It fails the standard tests of scientific measurement and validation-how the hell is that hard science? It's not. It's a social science-aka 'soft science' just like history, sociology and yes....the study of religion. It's science that can be strongly influenced by the personal philosophy and motivation of the person doing the study.

When you argue 'evolution' vs. 'creationism' you are not arguing 'science' over 'religion'. You are arguing one set of social beliefs against another set of social beliefs. And nothing more. Call the other side ignorant all you want....no one will ever have hard scientific proof either way because the debate is about what someone believes, not what someone can prove. Face it, if either side could prove their argument...the debate would be over.

FaKToR

October 23rd, 2005, 10:05 AM

Ok, this is what completely pisses me off about so called 'evolutionists'.
If it's 'in a slightly different quantitative mould' it's a DIFFERENT THEORY.

Not necessarily, unless you really want to nit-pick semantics. They can share a common notion of how evolution functions, but a different application.

People seem to ascribe that 'evolution' is one giant happy fucking family of science and it's not. It's hundreds of theories & ideas patchworked from existing fossil records that have been faked numerous times in the last hundred years. Look it up guys. Better yet...quit studying evolution and start studying Geology. It's usually geologists that shred the finds of 'evolutionary archeologists'. It always cracks me up when 300,000 year old fossilized remains are found embedded in 2 million year old sedimentary rock layers. (Um...nope. Can't happen. Hey...how did that bone get here? Easy answer: someone put it there.)
Except geology is the study of rocks, and they'll tell you how they think the planet formed (based on ideas from other areas of science btw) but really what you're looking for is another area of science. A closer example would be Paleontology. Are you saying all fossil records have been falsified, or what exactly is your point other than to portray a limited sample as the standard to be used in evaluating all of this?

There's no where NEAR enough evidence to support a full scientific validation that "yes, this IS the way it happend".

Maybe you're not familiar with what a theory is? It's not a definitive conclusion, a scientific theory is represents the results of a set method with falsifiable hypotheses. It's not a fact per se but it is supported, more so than can be said for creationism or intelligent design or whatever you wish to call it.

It's guesswork. And just as creationists have philosophical motivation to ignore 'evidence' that goes against their theory, so do the dozens...if not hundreds...of different evolution theorists.
It's better than guesswork. One might think with all the creationists out there would be an ample supply of people attempting to credibly disprove it or are all scientists "evolution theorists"?

There is simply no way on earth in our lifetime to study, replicate and validate a theory of evolution.
Then we'll never know will we. Might as well start throwing out parts of astronomy too while we're at it, anything that can't be tested in real time becomes useless. Btw we can test smaller cases of this, such as the replication of fast reproducing organisms.

It's a social science-aka 'soft science' just like history, sociology and yes....the study of religion.
Except is has nothing to do with the studies of humans and their interactions and therefore is not a social science.

When you argue 'evolution' vs. 'creationism' you are not arguing 'science' over 'religion'. You are arguing one set of social beliefs against another set of social beliefs.
Except one has a method behind it that can be explained and tested, whereas the other is based upon faith. "In the former case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want."

Face it, if either side could prove their argument...the debate would be over.
That's rather asinine. One side is attempting to support it's position and thereby prove it while the other has no chance of "proving" their position short of an intervention by god.

puke o'hara

October 23rd, 2005, 11:59 AM

When you argue 'evolution' vs. 'creationism' you are not arguing 'science' over 'religion'. You are arguing one set of social beliefs against another set of social beliefs. And nothing more.One of the sets of social beliefs corresponds with empirically observable reality to a considerable degree, while the other does not. Evolution might not be a perfect theory to describe the developement of life on earth, but it lacks the downright absurd claims of creationism. And the difference between science and religion is mainly in the methodology, in the thinking behind the theory itself - the idea of evolution is based on observation of nature around us, the idea of creation on the bible.

Modest Genius

October 23rd, 2005, 01:18 PM

Ok, this is what completely pisses me off about so called 'evolutionists'.
If it's 'in a slightly different quantitative mould' it's a DIFFERENT THEORY.not true. if its qualitatively the same, then its part of the same theory

for example, some solid crystals are modeled as a free electron gas, whilst others are modeled as tightly bound electrons. the maths by which you do this is very different, but both are parts of the same theory, namely quantum mechanics. you can come up with any number of examples of this in any area of science, eg Van der Waals forces vs retarded Van der Waals potentials for chemistry
Face it, if either side could prove their argument...the debate would be over.its a theory, not a theorem. of course it cant be proved, any more than gravity can be proved or we can prove the world is made of atoms. the fact is though, that its the best way of explaining all the observational evidence. oh and there IS DIRECT observation of evolution happening, in bacteria, fish and others

SOCOM-DELTA

October 27th, 2005, 09:31 AM

"They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”."

http://forums.worldatwarmod.com/showthread.php?t=3335&page=3

Ya know, this really only serves my theory that religion is an invalid practice, because in order to follow a religion one must adhere to beliefs that are set in stone; yet, if the beliefs change with the time, then who's to say what the religion is? or if it is real at all? just another ploy for some loser to try to gain power at whatever cost.

SOCOM-DELTA

October 27th, 2005, 09:37 AM

I love steering the discussion in an entirely different direction...... :)

Milkman Dan

October 27th, 2005, 09:44 AM

Ya know, this really only serves my theory that religion is an invalid practice, because in order to follow a religion one must adhere to beliefs that are set in stone; yet, if the beliefs change with the time, then who's to say what the religion is? or if it is real at all? just another ploy for some loser to try to gain power at whatever cost.
They're not particularly changing the beliefs, but rather how the beliefs are presented. As been said before, they still want you to study the word of God. However, they do not want you to believe everything written is completely fact. Catholics are not particularly fond of following everything to the "t". That's why they have Confession. They're not Puritans.

Also, who is the "loser" gaining power? The Church doesn't have as much political pull as it used to, and it just worsens since the molestation incidents. They cannot even control their own men, so what makes you think they can gain even more power in this modern world?

I love steering the discussion in an entirely different direction......:)Quit post padding, unless you want Goat to come down on your ass.