• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pope Francis: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With The Notion Of Creation'

Unitedwestand13 said:
What is harder to believe? The theory of Intelligent design, or the possibility that the creation of life and everything that followed afterwords was a chance roll of the dice.
Click to expand...

Intelligent design requires the belief in a designer. That's the part I can't get past. I can understand chemistry and natural selection.
 
Luftwaffe said:
What don't you understand. I understand evolution existed before mankind.

I am saying the BELIEF IN THEISTIC EVOLUTION (because some people believe in theistic evolution) WAS BORN.

This has nothing to do with the "fact of theistic evolution" as I already stated (I say fact because I'm looking through the viewpoint of one who believes in such things to be fact) and has to do with man BELIEVING it to be so.

Hence, the man-made notion (the man-made belief in) a theory called theistic evolution was born.

Humanity's belief in something cannot precede humanity itself.
Click to expand...

Gravity didn't suddenly start to exist when Newton defined it.
 
Nilly said:
It'll be interesting to see if/when abiogenesis is discovered/replicated whether it will be claimed that it is also consistent with creation.
Click to expand...

If god can create life, maybe humans can as well. We haven't yet, but we've come pretty close.
 
recalcitrant said:
I'm so sick of this idiot pope trying to make catholism cool and contemporary. This fool should just get sleeve tattoos and plugs and make a rap video already. What a crowd pleasing butthead. Trojan horse bullsh!t.
Click to expand...

Ya know, I've got aunts who think the Church started to slide into hell when they stopped saying Mass in Latin.
They're idiots.
 
humbolt said:
Gravity didn't suddenly start to exist when Newton defined it.
Click to expand...

No, but Gravity suddenly was believed by humanity to be a fact of life a little after Newton discovered it.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If god can create life, maybe humans can as well. We haven't yet, but we've come pretty close.
Click to expand...

According to the Christians, we should share in creation (along with many other things) alongside God, so we should be able to create life (and be alongside God) right?

That is of course, assuming one is a Christian.
 
sawdust said:
Intelligent design requires the belief in a designer. That's the part I can't get past. I can understand chemistry and natural selection.
Click to expand...

That is the part they get right.
 
Top Cat said:
So let me see if I get this? Only believe the part of the Bible I tell you to, and in the manner I interpret the story?
Click to expand...

Or rather, believe all of the Bible, but keep in mind that some sections were superseded by others at the explicit command of Christ, and that many of its older sections were written by people who did not think of the world in the same way that we do today, and therefore might be meant to be taken allegorically, rather than literally.

As far as interpretation is concerned, the institutionalization of tradition serves to ensure not only doctrinal uniformity, but continuity over time. The interpretations of scripture endorsed by the modern Church are, by and large, the same interpretations carried by the people who lived only a few centuries after Christ himself.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Or rather, believe all of the Bible, but keep in mind that some sections were superseded by others at the explicit command of Christ, and that many of its older sections were written by people who did not think of the world in the same way that we do today, and therefore might be meant to be taken allegorically, rather than literally.

As far as interpretation is concerned, the institutionalization of tradition serves to ensure not only doctrinal uniformity, but continuity over time. The interpretations of scripture endorsed by the modern Church are, by and large, the same interpretations carried by the people who lived only a few centuries after Christ himself.
Click to expand...

Lol...it amazes how easily religious spin is accepted and defended. I'm not allowed to say what I really would say.
 
Gathomas88 said:
As per usual, nothing especially "new" here, per se. However, it is nice to see him publicly restate the official position either way regardless.

Evolution vs Creation doesn't have to be an "either / or" proposition.
Click to expand...

Yes, nothing new here but religion plagiarism the scientific honest work yet again. We work while it sits there and claims that our hard worked findings are the works of "God."

But if evolution is the law that "God" created, and the Bible is "God's" book, then why is not evolution mentioned in it? Why does religion claim that life occurred in thousands of years when we know that it took millions?
 
God isn't like a magician? The stuff Jesus did sounded like what we would consider magic.

It's not like he waved his hand over a cup of water and said "I have initiated a a self sustaining chemical process that will convert this water into wine in 9 to 12 months."

Why wouldn't people think of miracles in terms of magic tricks? What makes him think otherwise?
 
Magic tricks are illusions while miracles are real.
 
Luftwaffe said:
No, but Gravity suddenly was believed by humanity to be a fact of life a little after Newton discovered it.
Click to expand...

You mean that it wasn't a fact of life believed by humanity before Newton defined it? There was no belief prior to Newton that an object thrown into the sky would fall to earth?
 
humbolt said:
You mean that it wasn't a fact of life believed by humanity before Newton defined it? There was no belief prior to Newton that an object thrown into the sky would fall to earth?
Click to expand...

Who knows?

However, the belief in that fact of life certainly did not precede humanity like you keep on suggesting (most likely because you misread me).

This goes back to my point that the belief in theistic evolution was born. The belief is born, not the fact, that is what I had been saying this whole time.
 
DDD said:
But if evolution is the law that "God" created, and the Bible is "God's" book, then why is not evolution mentioned in it?
Click to expand...

I'm not following the logic here. Someone who creates something cannot write books about any other topic? All books such a person writes must include details of the things he created? But what if he wants to write a book on a different topic?

The bible doesn't talk about evolution because it's not a book about natural science.


DDD said:
Why does religion claim that life occurred in thousands of years when we know that it took millions?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. That's a minority opinion held only by a certain subset of Christians most of whom live in a small geographic area (the Southern USA).
 
CrabCake said:
I'm not following the logic here. Someone who creates something cannot write books about any other topic? All books such a person writes must include details of the things he created? But what if he wants to write a book on a different topic?
Click to expand...

So "God" choose not to speak of evolution in purpose then? Because "God" wanted to speak of different topics then?
 
Luftwaffe said:
Who knows?
Click to expand...

I do, as a matter of fact.

However, the belief in that fact of life certainly did not precede humanity like you keep on suggesting (most likely because you misread me).
Click to expand...

Nah. Here are your words: ""Evolution vs creation doesn't have to be an either / or proposition"

And thus, "theistic evolution" was born."...If in fact evolution is directed by a theistic motivator, then nothing was born but an understanding of that which existed prior to that understanding. If evolution is a dumb mechanical event, the result is the same - the events dictated by evolution continue as they have prior to any belief.

This goes back to my point that the belief in theistic evolution was born. The belief is born, not the fact, that is what I had been saying this whole time.
Click to expand...

But that's not what your words indicate. What you're indicating is that "theistic evolution" is a creation of man. You cannot substantiate that anymore than I can substantiate the theistic evolutionary view. Physics has been unable to explain the presence of information, and the presence and exchange of dynamic information will have to be addressed before any rational conclusion can be reached. Anyway, carry on, and enjoy the day. Enjoyed talking with you.
 
DDD said:
So "God" choose not to speak of evolution in purpose then? Because "God" wanted to speak of different topics then?
Click to expand...

Why would god have spoken to the people of two thousand years ago about evolution? The wouldn't have understood it anyway.
 
humbolt said:
Nah. Here are your words: ""Evolution vs creation doesn't have to be an either / or proposition"

And thus, "theistic evolution" was born."
Click to expand...

Exactly, from that "conflict" between the two sides one group of people thought "maybe they're both connected and not separate."

Notion is essentially implied however the tone-less internet confused you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom