Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth

[AV1611VET]

If God does it, is it still a mutant copy-error?

You left the second half of my statement off.

 

[laconicstudent]

Of course, the entire faculties of the departments of Biology and the School of Theology disagree with your statements, as well as multiple Popes, but we're all entitled to our own opinions I suppose.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, the entire faculties of the departments of Biology and the School of Theology disagree with your statements, as well as multiple Popes, but we're all entitled to our own opinions I suppose.

I have a feeling I know what higher academia teaches about the Bible, and I don't kiss the Pope's ring.

 

[laconicstudent]

<staff edit>

If you read Humani Generis, an encyclical by Pope Pius XII, you'll see that you would be wrong in your denial of that point.

And then Pope John Paul II in his address to the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences affirmed it.

Humani Generis


Pope John Paul II[wash my mouth] 22 October 1996[wash my mouth][wash my mouth] To Pontifical Academy of Sciences

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.
For my part, when I received the participants in the plenary assembly of your Academy on October 31, 1992, I used the occasion&#8212;and the example of Gallileo&#8212;to draw attention to the necessity of using a rigorous hermeneutical approach in seeking a concrete interpretation of the inspired texts. It is important to set proper limits to the understanding of Scripture, excluding any unseasonable interpretations which would make it mean something which it is not intended to mean. In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research.
4. Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith&#8212;a point to which I shall return.
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies&#8212;which was neither planned nor sought&#8212;constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are a piece of dirt.

Chapter and verse, please.

 

[laconicstudent]

<staff edit>

My answer to how I can be scientific and religious is Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Freodin]

Chapter and verse, please.

Oh, come on. Can´t you keep within Genesis 2?

Oh, yes, I know, you are a ultra-literalist... when it suits you. So you are the offspring of a piece of dirt.

And now stop derailing and get back to my post.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you read Humani Generis, an encyclical by Pope Pius XII, you'll see that you would be wrong in your denial of that point.

Fair enough --- I plead "guilty" to being wrong about Humani Generis.

 

[desimusxvii]

My answer to how I can be scientific and religious is

Theistic evolution is vegetarian spaghetti with meatballs. Science can not include magical explanations. End of story. Period. Case Closed. Done. BAM.

 

[laconicstudent]

Theistic evolution is vegetarian spaghetti with meatballs.

..........what?

Science can not include magical explanations. End of story. Period. Case Closed. Done. BAM.

Good thing Theistic Evolution doesn't require any "magical explanations" for anything other then the origin of souls. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, come on. Can´t you keep within Genesis 2?

Oh, yes, I know, you are a ultra-literalist... when it suits you. So you are the offspring of a piece of dirt.

And now stop derailing and get back to my post.

I'm not going to let you telephone Genesis 2.

Show me the word "dirt", or this conversation is over.

 

[gipsy]

Theistic evolution is vegetarian spaghetti with meatballs. Science can not include magical explanations. End of story. Period. Case Closed. Done. BAM.

As long as you keep your god spiritual, there is no need to use it for any physical explanations. So no problem with science ...

 

[laconicstudent]

My NIV says "Dust of the ground". Technically AV is correct. Genesis 2 doesn't say "Dirt".

 

[AV1611VET]

Theistic evolution is vegetarian spaghetti with meatballs. Science can not include magical explanations. End of story. Period. Case Closed. Done. BAM.

You, Wiccan Child, trt, and Consol are high on my list of impressive evolutionists.

You come across as the real McCoys.

 

[desimusxvii]

..........what?



Good thing Theistic Evolution doesn't require any "magical explanations" for anything other then the origin of souls. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

The point is that science requires critical analysis. Religion holds itself immune to such things. This makes science and religion fundamentally inconsistent approaches to discerning what is real and what is not. Theistic Evolution fails to reconcile this inconsistency.

 

[laconicstudent]

The point is that science requires critical analysis. Religion holds itself immune to such things. This makes science and religion fundamentally inconsistent approaches to discerning what is real and what is not.

That is true..... So?

Theistic Evolution fails to reconcile this inconsistency.

It doesn't have to.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is that science requires critical analysis. Religion holds itself immune to such things. This makes science and religion fundamentally inconsistent approaches to discerning what is real and what is not. Theistic Evolution fails to reconcile this inconsistency.

That does it --- check your reps.

 

[Freodin]

I'm not going to let you telephone Genesis 2.

Show me the word "dirt", or this conversation is over.

I´d say that you started that game. Show me the definition of humans as an "error" in any biological texts.

Ok, so the KJV uses "dust". Hey, you are the offspring of a piece of dust.

All this is IRRELEVANT. Dust is what you are spreading here, nothing more.

My point is simply that you deny that God could have created humans by a certain method BECAUSE YOU DON´T LIKE IT!

 

[sfs]

Theistic evolution is vegetarian spaghetti with meatballs. Science can not include magical explanations. End of story. Period. Case Closed. Done. BAM.

Theistic evolution does not include magical explanations in science. Really, making this kind of elementary mistake about the subject one is criticizing would let a creationist in for blistering criticism.

 

[desimusxvii]

As long as you keep your god spiritual, there is no need to use it for any physical explanations. So no problem with science ...

A God that doesn't manipulate the world? What good is that?