It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pope says evolution doesn't mean there's no God

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: GetHyped


Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[5]

New definition of "theory", got it.

Theories are not "knowledge".

Any Theory (even most reliable, comprehensive, rigorous, scientific forms of one) is still only a theory.

Is that what is passing for science nowadays? Thats even worse than the bible. At least in the bible you have good "stories", i.e., tall tales.


This information wasn't exactly hard to find.

Neither did it describe life's origins. And thats why the theory is still a theory. When you find where they say this is tested, proven evidence of how life first appeared, let me know. Until then, more fairytales.



Like every creationist I've ever met, you don't know what is meant by theorum (ie. scientific theory). You think it means hypothesis and it doesn't.




posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: intrptr

Show me where I said theories were facts.


Alas, it is futile. As you have discovered, it is impossible to educate those who remain ignorant by choice. There is no critical reasoning involved in the posts of creationists about these topics. They are simply parroting the pseudo-science put out by the Institute for Creation Research which, interestingly, does no actual scientific research. The parroters lack the most basic education in science and have been duped into believing that the rubbish they cite is based on actual scientific research. The real problem isn't how to educate these people (they don't want to be educated) but how to stop them from gaining power and putting us all back into the Dark Ages.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Sabiduria


It's just, he suggested, that God came first.

Really?

If the Universe has always been there, how did anything come "first"?


They sound like the words of someone who was here before the Universe. As the Pope, how do YOU know?

Fact is, and this is a reply to the post in general, Religion is feeling more and more pressured by advancements elsewhere and has to explain/integrate religion in to the modern world. I see nothing taboo here.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

The Catholic Church originated the scientific method.

The Catholic Church, inspired by The Holy Spirit, compiled the Bible.

The Catholic Church invented hospitals.

A Catholic priest first proposed The Big Bang.

The Catholic Church follows Truth, wherever it may lead.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: Sabiduria

The Catholic Church originated the scientific method.

The Catholic Church, inspired by The Holy Spirit, compiled the Bible.

The Catholic Church invented hospitals.

A Catholic priest first proposed The Big Bang.

The Catholic Church follows Truth, wherever it may lead.


Galileo would disagree with the intention of this post



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: Sabiduria

The Catholic Church originated the scientific method.

The Catholic Church, inspired by The Holy Spirit, compiled the Bible.

The Catholic Church invented hospitals.

A Catholic priest first proposed The Big Bang.

The Catholic Church follows Truth, wherever it may lead.


Galileo would disagree with the intention of this post


en.wikipedia.org...

"In the Asclepieion of Epidaurus, three large marble boards dated to 350 BC preserve the names, case histories, complaints, and cures of about 70 patients who came to the temple with a problem and shed it there. Some of the surgical cures listed, such as the opening of an abdominal abscess or the removal of traumatic foreign material, are realistic enough to have taken place, but with the patient in a state of enkoimesis induced with the help of soporific substances such as opium.[2] The worship of Asclepius was adopted by the Romans. Under his Roman name Æsculapius, he was provided with a temple (291 BC) on an island in the Tiber in Rome, where similar rites were performed."


en.wikipedia.org...

"An Egyptian medical textbook, the Edwin Smith papyrus, (c. 1600 BC), applies the following components: examination, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, to the treatment of disease,[2] which display strong parallels to the basic empirical method of science and according to G. E. R. Lloyd[3] played a significant role in the development of this methodology. The Ebers papyrus (c. 1550 BC) also contains evidence of traditional empiricism. ""

Looks like you've been lied to.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

You're being sarcastic right?


The Catholic Church originated the scientific method



There are few explicit discussions of scientific methodologies in surviving records from early cultures. The most that can be inferred about the approaches to undertaking science in this period stems from descriptions of early investigations into nature, in the surviving records. An Egyptian medical textbook, the Edwin Smith papyrus, (c. 1600 BC), applies the following components: examination, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, to the treatment of disease, which display strong parallels to the basic empirical method of science and according to G. E. R. Lloyd played a significant role in the development of this methodology. The Ebers papyrus (c. 1550 BC) also contains evidence of traditional empiricism.

By the middle of the 1st millennium BC in Mesopotamia, Babylonian astronomy had evolved into the earliest example of a scientific astronomy, as it was "the first and highly successful attempt at giving a refined mathematical description of astronomical phenomena." According to the historian Asger Aaboe, "all subsequent varieties of scientific astronomy, in the Hellenistic world, in India, in Islam, and in the West – if not indeed all subsequent endeavour in the exact sciences – depend upon Babylonian astronomy in decisive and fundamental ways."


History of the Scientific Method

Last I checked, Egyptians & Babylonians came before Romans. (As the Roman Catholic Church first popped up into existence in Roman times)


The Catholic Church, inspired by The Holy Spirit, compiled the Bible.

C.S Lewis, a Christian, inspired by a picture of a Faun carrying an umbrella and parcels in a snowy wood, complied the Chronicles of Narnia. So what? Just because your fictional book full of morals was written by the Catholic Church because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit doesn't make it any more legitimate than a fictional book full of morals written by a Christian and inspired by a picture.


The Catholic Church invented hospitals

Again, this is something they stole from Egyptians.

In ancient cultures, religion and medicine were linked. The earliest documented institutions aiming to provide cures were ancient Egyptian temples.

History of Hospitals


A Catholic priest first proposed the Big Bang

Wrong again, Robert Grosseteste was a Christian not a Catholic. Sure it is a split from the Catholic Church but if you are going to use that as an argument than a Jew was the first person who came up with the Big Bang theory because the Catholic Church is a split from the Jewish religion.


The Catholic Church follows Truth, where it may lead

I think the line you are thinking of is "I will follow him, where he may go" which is a hymn about following God.
If the Catholic Church followed the truth, they wouldn't have allowed their members to molest, rape and murder children. They wouldn't have knowingly sent a pedophile onto another church so that they could start harming new children. They wouldn't have tried to cover up their abuse for so long and they would never have made a Pope a Saint. Jesus never would have approved of of the molestation, rape and murder of children so they shouldn't get to become Saints for knowingly covering it up and doing nothing about it.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   
This Pope's "revelation" is long time coming and nothing new to most people. Not really new. I know evolution to be fact and I still pray to the creator.

Why would I still pray to a creator? well
I remember the first time I looked up at the night sky, saw the stars and the milky way and thought of the vast limitless expanse and it blew my mind. I was a teenager at the time.

The same thing happened to me when I thought of life and how my life extends back in an unbroken chain to the point when life began billions of years ago. To think about it still blows my mind and generates a level of respect in myself and in the generations to come.

Not sure why creationists should fear this news. Except for the fact that the Pope is a Jesuit and playing the Jesuit/NWO/Venetian black nobility/House of Guelph end game towards universalism and then the extinction of religion. TPTB plan to replace the 24/7/365 God looking over your shoulder which they suppose makes people live orderly lives and they plan to replace it with the 24/7/365 surveillance state and an RFID ship in your body that will bring them more power. When they celebrate the supplanting of the creator, it will be their end.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

Welcome back Colbe lol.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Evolution is still far from a fact. It's a theory for which not enough evidence exists to proclaim it truth. I'm far from a six day creationist, but evolution is just as much a stretch, IMO.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: GnosticWay
Evolution is still far from a fact. It's a theory for which not enough evidence exists to proclaim it truth. I'm far from a six day creationist, but evolution is just as much a stretch, IMO.


Nothing is as much of a stretch than creationism! I mean who in their right mind would believe our world is only thousands of years old.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: GnosticWay

What is your hang up with Evolution? What part of it are you having a hard time in believing?

The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

Here are some articles from ATS that talk about different things pertaining to evolution:
To Study Evolution, Scientists Raise Fish That 'Walk' on Land

Simply complex: The origin of our body axes

Scientists reproduce evolutionary changes by manipulating embryonic development of mice

Human genome was shaped by an evolutionary arms race with itself

I also recommend watching the documentary series 'BBC: Planet Earth' there are signs of evolution happening in animals because they have to learn to adapt to their environment. There are species that have had to adapt to being in dark caves and no longer have eyeballs, yet you can still see where the eyeballs would have been.
edit on 11 2 2014 by Sabiduria because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

I'll add another area of interest in relation to evolution. Vestigiality.



Vestigiality refers to genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained through evolution.[1] Assessment of the vestigiality must generally rely on comparison with homologous features in related species. The emergence of vestigiality occurs by normal evolutionary processes, typically by loss of function of a feature that is no longer subject to positive selection pressures when it loses its value in a changing environment. More urgently the feature may be selected against when its function becomes definitely harmful.

edit on 2-11-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sabiduria
a reply to: GnosticWay

What is your hang up with Evolution? What part of it are you having a hard time in believing?

The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

Here are some articles from ATS that talk about different things pertaining to evolution:
To Study Evolution, Scientists Raise Fish That 'Walk' on Land

Simply complex: The origin of our body axes

Scientists reproduce evolutionary changes by manipulating embryonic development of mice

Human genome was shaped by an evolutionary arms race with itself

I also recommend watching the documentary series 'BBC: Planet Earth' there are signs of evolution happening in animals because they have to learn to adapt to their environment. There are species that have had to adapt to being in dark caves and no longer have eyeballs, yet you can still see where the eyeballs would have been.


You speak of micro-Evolution, adaptation. Yes, there is evidence for these, but macro-evolution? The fossil record does not bear out in accordance with such, as Darwin himself pointed out. In the absence of the fossil record for macro-evolution, the whole theory falls apart. The Permian explosion itself throws evolutionary theory completely out the window. It just doesn't bear up to close scrutiny. I be live life forms adapt their environment over time, but there has never been any fossils found of one species changing into another species. The would be fossils of half one species, half another and there just aren't any. The change would take a long time and the fossil record would show the change in numerous examples and that's just not what we see at all. Not even close.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I'm not religious but it will be a sad day when they destroy it. It does keep most of the population in line. The morals are sound (well most) as long as people don't take it out of context. I'm not kissing his pinky ring ever.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Religion's one of the most divisive forces the world has ever known. It doesn't bring anything that cannot be gained outside of the religious world.

But yeah a big high five to the pope for recognising evolution.....but hes still the head of a bigoted cult, and has a lot more work to do if he wants to bring it into the 21st century.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: GnosticWay
You speak of micro-Evolution, adaptation. Yes, there is evidence for these, but macro-evolution? The fossil record does not bear out in accordance with such, as Darwin himself pointed out. In the absence of the fossil record for macro-evolution, the whole theory falls apart. The Permian explosion itself throws evolutionary theory completely out the window. It just doesn't bear up to close scrutiny. I be live life forms adapt their environment over time, but there has never been any fossils found of one species changing into another species. The would be fossils of half one species, half another and there just aren't any. The change would take a long time and the fossil record would show the change in numerous examples and that's just not what we see at all. Not even close.


You must be new to science?



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
First I'll start with Speciation:


Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292

Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.) (Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)
Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

Some more observed speciation

Now for MacroEvoultion:


Example 1: bird-reptiles

In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (a dromaeosaur from China now named Cryptovolans pauli; Czerkas et al. 2002 ) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al. 1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"), Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.



One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.4 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.

29+ Evidences for Marcoevolution

Anything else I can help you find?



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: GnosticWay
In this day and age there is no excuse to be parroting old debunked creationist nonsense.



The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity.

-Society of Vertebrate Paleontology-
Link


The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features. Evidence from the fossil record is unique, because it provides a time perspective for understanding the evolution of life on Earth. This perspective is not available from other branches of science or in the other databases that support the study of evolution.

-American Geological Institute-
Link


Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases.
Evolution is also a theory – an explanation for the observed changes in life through Earth history that has been tested numerous times and repeatedly confirmed. Evolution is an elegant theory that explains the history of life through geologic time; the diversity of living organisms, including their genetic, molecular, and physical similarities and differences; and the geographic distribution of organisms.
Evolutionary principles are the foundation of all basic and applied biology and paleontology, from biodiversity studies to studies on the control of emerging diseases.

-The Paleontological Society-
Link

If you genuinely want to have so much as a chance of understanding this topic you need to stop the creationist rubbish. Seriously. You're embarrassing yourself.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
I'm not religious but it will be a sad day when they destroy it. It does keep most of the population in line. The morals are sound (well most) as long as people don't take it out of context. I'm not kissing his pinky ring ever.


I suggest that you read the entire Bible before making that proclamation about morals.




top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join