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

Only gold can prove the existence of any life-giving force?

a reply to: sacgamer25

You saying this:

I have read more than most on the subject. I completely understand all scientific evidence when it comes to Big bang, Origins, and Evolution.

I could argue for the above far better than anyone I have ever spoken to about evolution. I completely understand the THEORY, their is nothing lacking in my mind.

... is shown to be complete delusion on your part when you say this three hours earlier:

By faith I am a created Son of God, not an evolved monkey, but you can keep believing in Monkeys if you want, I will put my faith in God.

a reply to: iterationzero

This graph explains it:

www.skepticblog.org...

I've always said this. Why do creationists and evolutionists argue? Why put a limit on Khod's power. Khod created evolution. She probably wanted to see what would come into fruition own its own.

originally posted by: Oannes
Why do creationists and evolutionists argue?

Because creationists make demonstrably false claims about the natural world and keep trying to get their religious beliefs taught in school science classes instead of actual science.

If the Pope is right why god didn't tell us so, in his holy book (the word of god)
Where does Adam and Eve fit with evolution?

Seems to me like the all knowing being only knows what his believer knows.
As societies evolve, religion tries to keep up, and all of the sudden god becomes more ''sophisticated''.

If only the pope would now admit that our existence can happen without god, he'd be on the right track

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Sabiduria

No worries. I appreciate people trying to learn new things and engage me intelligently. I get frustrated with the Creationists who refuse to educate themselves on basic ideas in the argument before coming in and start debating with people.

I like to try to know as much as I can before I form an opinion but with the process of Evolution, both in living organisms and the Earth, I can see it happening and see the evidence so I don't know a whole lot about what the non-believers use as arguments and some of the counter arguments like the God of Gaps theory.

If something gets used in a discussion/debate and I am unfamiliar with it, I will quickly look it up. If I still have a bit of a hard time with it, I will talk it out with my fiance. How can you try to counter the debate if you don't know what is being debated?

originally posted by: Sabiduria
originally posted by: sacgamer25
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have read more than most on the subject. I completely understand all scientific evidence when it comes to Big bang, Origins, and Evolution.

I could argue for the above far better than anyone I have ever spoken to about evolution. I completely understand the THEORY, their is nothing lacking in my mind.

Obviously they people you speak to about evolution are pretty ignorant to the subject because you still are completely failing and miserably. Krazysh0t called you out on stuff and you completely dismissed him because evolution goes against what your silly bible says.

Let's talk a bit about evolution shall we:

For those who have difficulty in accepting evolution because of what they perceive as contradictions with their fundamental religious beliefs, it may be useful to distinguish the ultimate origin of life from its later evolution. Many, if not most, biological scientists accept that primordial life on earth began as a result of chance natural occurrences 3.5-4 billion years ago. However, it is not necessary to believe in that view in order to accept that living creatures evolved by natural means after the origin of the first life. Charles Darwin modified his religious beliefs, as did many others, as a result of the discovery of convincing proof of evolution. Darwin's religious faith was also severely challenged by the death of his 10 year old daughter Annie in 1851. Apparently, he came to believe that his God created the order of the universe including the rules of nature that result in biological evolution. His famous book, On the Origin of Species, was not a denial of his God's existence. However, he did reject a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible. His religious beliefs were probably very similar to those who advocate "theistic evolution" today

Evidence of Evolution

Science is about scientific method, if speciation could be proven by scientific method the debate would be over. But they have to prove it first, otherwise it's still science fantasy.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

As for Speciation:

In the summer of 1995, at least 15 iguanas survived Hurricane Marilyn on a raft of uprooted trees. They rode the high seas for a month before colonizing the Caribbean island, Anguilla. These few individuals were perhaps the first of their species, Iguana iguana, to reach the island. If there were other intrepid Iguana iguana colonizers of Anguilla, they died out before humans could record their presence.

We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs—but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened. However, we can use our models of speciation to make predictions and then check these predictions against our observations of the natural world and the outcomes of experiments. As an example, we’ll examine some evidence relevant to the allopatric speciation model.

Evolution 101: Speciation

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has single handedly destroyed scientific method. When it comes to evolution man says "I think it therefore it is", sounds like a god complex.

Why is it you can't wrap your head around the fact that Darwin's Theory of Evolution isn't used anymore? Sounds like an arrogance complex.

Like I said you are free to believe, have faith in what has not been proven, but when I use the word science I expect it to be backed by scientific method, not one man's imagination.

Now that you have been shown more science to back the theory of Evolution, which by the way, isn't not one man's imagination (you are thinking of the Mormon religion and the Scientology religion, those were made by one man's imagination), will you at least continue to look at the evidence of evolution?

Oh and just in case that isn't enough, you say that there should be evidence of animals that appear to be in-between evolutionary steps:

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor. They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". i]Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception.[/i It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.

-Nautiloids to ammonoids
-Cephalopods
-Evolution of insects
-Evolution of spiders
-Invertebrates to fish
-Chondrichthyes
-Bony Fish
-Fish to tetrapods
-Amphibians to amniotes (early reptiles)
-Turtles
-From lizards to snakes
- Lizards
- Pterosaurs
- Archosaurs to dinosaurs
- Dinosauria
- Dinosaurs to birds
- Bird evolution
- Synapsid ("mammal-like reptiles") to mammals
- Evolution of mammals
- Early artiodactylans to whales (evolution of whales)
- Evolution of sirenians
- Evolution of the pinnipeds
- Evolution of the horse
- Human evolution

List of Transitional fossils



To believe in Evolution doesn't mean you can't believe in the God you do. Evolution could be the answer to how and God could very well be the answer to why since evolution doesn't address God in the slightest.

We don't need to believe in evolution. Evolution is a fact based on testable evidence. Using your thinking, evolution could be the answer to how and the Great Pumpkin could be the answer to why.

a reply to: Tangerine

I've said and I quote

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 higher power, by aliens, by the universe (the Universe would be a sentient being that wants to act out every single possible thing and that's what we are doing) Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

I've also stated that I'm an Empirical Agnostic, so your comment was completely unnecessary.

a reply to: sacgamer25

How did I prove your point? Taken from the second speciation quote I gave.

but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened. However, we can use our models of speciation to make predictions and then check these predictions against our observations of the natural world and the outcomes of experiments.

The link I provided for speciation goes on to talk more about it, which of course you ignored.

Scientists have found a lot of evidence that is consistent with allopatric speciation being a common way that new species form:

Geographic patterns: If allopatric speciation happens, we’d predict that populations of the same species in different geographic locations would be genetically different. There are abundant observations suggesting that this is often true. For example, many species exhibit regional “varieties” that are slightly different genetically and in appearance, as in the case of the Northern Spotted Owl and the Mexican Spotted Owl. Also, ring species are convincing examples of how genetic differences may arise through reduced gene flow and geographic distance. Spotted owl subspecies living in different geographic locations show some genetic and morphological differences. This observation is consistent with the idea that new species form through geographic isolation.

You said:

Science creating models to prove thier theory is possible. Not impressed, not even a little.

My model is God created it, works just fine for me

Science is able to back their theories with models and experiments yet no one can create any model or experiments that back anything to do with God. You may be fine with having nothing to help back your claims but the rest of the world likes to have proof to back their claims. Repeating experiments is how Science proves or disapproves anything, all you have is some fictional story book full of morals. Last time I checked, I can't climb into my closet and end up in Narnia even though that is what happens in the fictional story book full of morals called 'The Chronicles of Narnia'.

None of what you posted is proof of anything but genetic diversity. Genetic diversity and adaptation does not amount to speciation

Right a website about Evolution and a chapter about Speciation would have their information wrong, or maybe you do.

Let's try this then for evidence of speciation, seeing how you dislike the other site:

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 Events

Here are some other articles you can read about speciation:

1) Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8), pages 1747-1760.

2) Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.

3) Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.

4) Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric, speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.

5) Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium, Evolution, Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.

6) Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisiana Irises, P-NAS-US, Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.

7) Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

I thought about continuing to answer things in your response but I decided I would just leave it at this. It is obvious you would rather clutch to some fictional story book than look at tons of evidence around you. That's fine but leave the discussion to people who will actually discuss and debate things and not be close minded.

a reply to: Sabiduria

I don't believe in God.. but if there was a God .. then i can
see how evolution fits in with the Grand plan.

A God wouldn't build a museum piece ... he would build something that would adapt and change..

makes perfect sense to me

a reply to: rigel4

Even if there is no God, evolution could still exist. After all, evolution is based off of life already existing. It doesn't matter how it got started, just that it's there and doing its ever changing thing. I know some atheists who believe in Evolution.

A very pleasant to watch documentary done by the BBC shows evolutionary changes without it being it's direct intention. It's called 'BBC: Planet Earth' It is a great documentary series about different areas around the world and the life that lives there.

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"?

It's funny, we have people here saying "omg, only some Christians will change their view everyone else will remain bigoted!" And then you have assholes like this guy who still insist on pushing buttons with the "all or nothing mentality" It's people like this guy who convince and push Christians away from change because he wants them to completely drop their religion and come over to science cold turkey. You don't give anyone time to change. Proper change comes slow. So sit down and shut up because this is a step in the right direction.

a reply to: chuck258

If all that you just said was directed at me, then what do you mean slow down? An epiphany is sudden as Saul's experience on the road to Damascus.

Non believers as well as believers get knocked down suddenly by truth and realization.

a reply to: intrptr

How do you know that this universe is the first one? How do you know this isn't the 3rd time the universe has gone through a life and death cycle?

Maybe God is in a parallel universe from ours, we split off from it at some point along. We still have the concept of God but God has no control in this parallel universe.

There are too many unknowns and too many possibilities

originally posted by: sacgamer25
a reply to: Barcs

If thier is no God, their is no WHY greater than the MATERIAL world.

If thier is no God, LOVE, GOODWILL, and INTEGRITY, actually hinder your ability to enjoy the physical reality, which is the only reason you are here.

So if thier is no God, WHY do you search for LOVE. Love is spiritual but you are only physical, at least that is what you claim.

First of all, the word is spelled their not thier. God is not necessary for non-materiality. Love is a chemical reaction. Goodwill and integrity have zero to do with God. You might have noticed that neither is prevalent among believers.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: chuck258

If all that you just said was directed at me, then what do you mean slow down? An epiphany is sudden as Saul's experience on the road to Damascus.

Non believers as well as believers get knocked down suddenly by truth and realization.

You have just proven me right. Why does their NEED to be a epiphany, why can't you allow slow change? This proves you do not want change for any good, you are just combative and bigoted towards another persons point of view for the sake of being combative. You want a 2000 year old religion to dissapear overnight, as unrealistic an expectation as me expecting you to be respectful of someone else's viewpoint I suppose.

And before you start, I am an Atheist, but I want science and religion to peacefully coexist, throught thought such as the pope has presented here, you want religion to drop dead and dissapear.

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: chuck258

If all that you just said was directed at me, then what do you mean slow down? An epiphany is sudden as Saul's experience on the road to Damascus.

Non believers as well as believers get knocked down suddenly by truth and realization.

You have just proven me right. Why does their NEED to be a epiphany, why can't you allow slow change? This proves you do not want change for any good, you are just combative and bigoted towards another persons point of view for the sake of being combative. You want a 2000 year old religion to dissapear overnight, as unrealistic an expectation as me expecting you to be respectful of someone else's viewpoint I suppose.

And before you start, I am an Atheist, but I want science and religion to peacefully coexist, throught thought such as the pope has presented here, you want religion to drop dead and dissapear.

I understand what you're saying but the reality is that science and the Abrahamic religions can not peacefully co-exist because it's not in the best interest of either. Organized religion isn't going to allow the scientific method to be applied to religion and science is not going to accept the notion that belief is interchangeable with fact. Sure, the Pope can say that evolution doesn't prove that God does not exist because it obviously doesn't prove it. But you'll never hear the Pope say that God's existence is not fact just belief. Eventually, push will come to shove and the line will be drawn.

Ever hear of suing for a million to get 10,000? People who are strident about throwing off the yoke of religion realize that it's a process but wishful thinking, alone, isn't going to make it happen. Have you forgotten the history of the Abrahamic religions? There's nothing peaceful about it. Peaceful co-existence is a pipe dream.

a reply to: Sabiduria

All I know is here we are. Everything else is Disney. With instruments like Hubble we see billions of light years. The Universe is the same as far as we can see. Stretch out your hand as far as it can go, there is no "wall" out there, which means the Universe goes on forever, which means it has always been there. There is no beginning or end like we have been taught here at the movies, in books and on TV. There just is. Always. Thats the infinite and eternal.

As far as the unseen spirit world, I have seen spirits. They are right here all around us, our "sight" doesn't detect them unless they want us to.