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

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: ArmyOfNobunaga
What if... maybe, these popes have access to information no one else in the world does.

They're simply playing catch up with the last century of discovery. They understand that to deny the reality of scientific discoveries only makes them look ignorant and backwards. Christianity is for the first time experiencing an increasing drop off in new subscribers. Alienating 21st century people any further with crazy claims that deny reality is not good for introducing and retaining new members.

I doubt it. I read a lot. I read a lot of real books that are not conspiracy stuff but with references. The Catholic machine is a well oiled, well planned, wave that just washes away things in its path. These people at the higher levels almost all have PhDs and Masters. Sure in Religion but it also means they are professional thinkers and planners. Do not be fooled.


Now do I think my original statement I posed to you is correct? Heck no. Im a guy that believes in almost nothing other that things in my face. BUT.... there is more to these 25 years of gradual redactions than you guys are giving credit to.


Be wary of this machine people... they are not just a backwards bunch of outdated fanatics in rome. Their budget is larger than many nations and they are ancient.

originally posted by: sacgamer25

originally posted by: amazing
Finally some common sense from religion. If only the American Evangelical Lunatics could get on board with some science.

You CAN believe in GOD and EVOLUTION at the same time! Yes!

Yes you can believe in both, and Evolution could even prove to be compatible with every religious text, but why have faith in two things?

Why can't we have God and WAIT for science to prove their claims before I am expected to believe in it.

We don't need the theory of evolution, unless someday we prove speciation. We need the theory of speciation. You can only take one step at a time.

And like I said, I let science teach me what it can prove, and I let God fill in the blanks. I don't really care how we got hear, It's only the WHY that has any real meaning.

If everyone could understand that I have no concern for the How, then maybe everyone would understand that it doesn't matter. What matters most is scientific integrity. Science and faith are compatible but they don't mix well.

I must have missed the part where you presented testable evidence proving that God exists.

originally posted by: JHumm
Religion evolves all the time in order to keep people. The rules are always changing so that Religious leaders can do as they please and just change the rules to make it ok .

that's it.

Dont be fooled people, this is still the Catholic Church!

This church will say anything to keep its numbers.

And remember, Pope Francis steals off dead people.

As I posted before it was a Catholic Priest in the 1930s who first came up with the Big Bang theory...this isn't anything new that the Pope is saying.

originally posted by: PennKen2009
Well, Catholic clerics have been involved in Science for a long time as seen here and it was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître who proposed the Big Bang theory. Not saying the Catholic Church has been perfect throughout the centuries in regards to science, but they have shared a big part in its discoveries.

a reply to: Sabiduria
At least some Christians don't completely have their heads where the sun don't shine.

I'm liking this new pope

a reply to: ignorant_ape

The way I see it, this is pretty much the opposite of the "God of the gaps" thing. God isn't going and doing little things here and there to make the universe work, He just started things and let them develop according to some laws (physics, mathematics), such that they'll satisfy whatever His purpose was. Something closer to the "God of the gaps" would be attributing the weirdness of quantum mechanics to God.

He is right about that.

Great things coming from this Pope.
It is well received by me, and I am sure, many others on this planet.

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.

Maybe evolution is one of the forms of expressing free will (which is a gift God gave us)? Giving lifeforms the choice to change their forms and livelihoods defines free will more than "I made your body, it will always be like this but you can make choices"

I think God's gift of free will applies to nearly everything. From where we choose to walk to how we maintain/modify our bodies.

But of course I'm divided because I feel certain things are metaphysically damaging not only to the body but to the soul and ultimately all of existence.

a reply to: sacgamer25

If you are well read on the theory of evolution then prove it. Actually show some competence in what you are talking about. Because you haven't said a SINGLE thing that was relevant to the current theory of evolution. The fact that you keep calling it Darwin's theory of evolution is just OUTSTANDING. You DO know that science updates its theories and positions over time right?

originally posted by: Sabiduria
You are assuming that evolution is a directed process. I said that I think it is the natural process that happens, the animal/insect/fish/etc evolves due to the natural changes in the environment not because God is directing it.

I think you misread that statement. I'm arguing that it ISN'T a directed process by showing that if it were a directed process, it would be way too haphazard.

It's funny how Creationists argue "there is no evolutionary changes happening right now, therefore evolution doesn't exist" and Evolutionists argue "If evolution is a directed process, why hasn't it been directed for humans to lose their wisdom teeth yet?" Both are arguing about a change that isn't happening at the moment, therefore the other thing doesn't exist. Evolutionists know changes don't happen right away and creationists assume changes are happening all the time.

Please don't use the word "evolutionists" There are creationists and then there are people who believe in science. Evolutionists aren't a thing. Second, I am not inferring anything as a definite here. All I am saying is that it is unlikely that it is a directed process. I didn't say that it isn't. I'm agnostic too.

Yes it makes sense for there to a gap in an understanding of something so God is used to explain it. I don't know if that is what the Pope is saying though, that God only exists because of certain things we do not exist.

More or less the god of the gaps idea is the only way you can reconcile God, as defined by Christianity, with science. That is until you can prove God exists and exactly what God can and can't do.

((Sorry, I'm still reading up on it and having a bit of a hard time with it because I'm having problems focusing. I just kept my response simple))

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.

originally posted by: JHumm

originally posted by: CraftBuilder
This is like a couple of years ago when the Catholic church, with good foresight, had to back peddle and say that the bible didn't exclude the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. Oh, and when they had to admit that Earth wasn't flat. And when they had to admit Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Is ancient mythology going to be able to stand up against the exponentially increasing, collective knowledge of how things work in reality?

Exactly, and wasn't it a capital crime to say that the earth was not the center of the universe? Like I said, just keep changing the rules to keep the people coming and giving money.

No, it wasn't and neither Galileo nor Copernicus were executed, or held in chains - sheesh, it would take you 20 seconds on google to see that.

Neither the bible nor the Catholic Church ever proclaimed the Earth is flat, although there has been a 'from all corners of the Earth' saying which is obviously not directly tied to any religion and has been used since I guess maps were first designed.

At no point in the bible that I'm aware of does it say there is no life anywhere but Earth and I've yet to hear or see any quote from anyone of ANY of the major faiths that makes such a claim.

So, let's go back to that changing rules point - which ones are you saying the statement from the Pope changes again?

^He didn't say flat, he said center of the universe. He also mentioned nothing about Galileo or Copernicus getting executed. Nice try at diverting though.

So, let's go back to that changing rules point - which ones are you saying the statement from the Pope changes again?

Gee, I dunno. Just that minor thing about god creating the earth in genesis in 7 days and believing the old testament.

Creationists take note. This is how rational theists reconcile their faith. They don't deny scientific evidence simply because they don't like the picture it paints. They trust science because it's a reliable method of fact discovery and understand that fundamentalism is a very dangerous ideology in any faith and that the writings of primitive people from 2000+ years ago could easily be wrong, incomplete, or metaphorical to teach morality. It doesn't have to be exact unwavering absolute truth. It's a compilation of numerous stories.

originally posted by: sacgamer25
Yes you can believe in both, and Evolution could even prove to be compatible with every religious text, but why have faith in two things?

Why can't we have God and WAIT for science to prove their claims before I am expected to believe in it.

We don't need the theory of evolution, unless someday we prove speciation. We need the theory of speciation. You can only take one step at a time.

I had to pause and chuckle a bit after reading this because it is completely backwards.

Why can't we have science and WAIT for god to be proven before blindly assuming so? You really want people to just accept god without evidence and to wait for science to definitively prove the origin of life, and if they can't god wins by default? Sorry, but my double standard detector is off the charts here. You don't need faith to believe scientific evidence. You do need it for any version of god out there, because there is zero objective evidence for any/all gods.

Speciation has been done in a lab as others have shown. Speciation isn't a separate theory, it's part of modern synthesis. But yeah, you definitely know more about evolution than the rest of us. Keep schooling us on the truth, brother!

If everyone could understand that I have no concern for the How, then maybe everyone would understand that it doesn't matter. What matters most is scientific integrity. Science and faith are compatible but they don't mix well.

If scientific integrity matters the most, then why do you deny scientific evidence in favor of a complete guess? Where is that integrity when it comes to god? You don't care about the how. Good for you. The rest of the world does, because knowledge of how things work is beneficial to our lives, like how evolutionary concepts are used in modern medicine to fight diseases. But yeah, keep reaping the benefits of science and the knowledge learned from it, while at the same time denying them in favor of a guess.

a reply to: Sabiduria

You just proved my point, are you too blind to see it?

In your post you agree with me. The only way they can claim speciation is by creating models that predicts what they see.

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.

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

Your Iguanas, when they set out to sea they were lizards, when they landed they were lizards. This is not speciation, this is science grasping into thin air.

When you read about evolution you allow your mind to be carried away by a logical and fine sounding argument. It may even prove to be true someday.

However...

What we observe is that mutations never seem to add to genetic traits, wich is a HUGE barrier to evolution, and mutations are virtually never viable for reproduction.

You do realize that men in lab coats have been working for almost 200 years to prove evolution in single cell organisms?

I'm not sure what amazing crap they have subjected single cell organisms too, but I can bet that they have tried just about anything imaginable and still not once has even a simple lifeform ever been changed into a multicellular, self replicating organism.

We can't even build a machine that does what our cells do, it is that advanced, but we assume it evolved from something simpler, but what was simpler has vanished without a trace.

You want me to believe in lifeforms that you claim used to be here, vanished without a trace, and don't seem to be able to come into existence from non life like they once had to do according to natural theory? And this is scientific (based on observed and tested facts)?

The visual, and scientifically tested evidence suggests a possible type of de-evolution, the loss of genetic material in mutations, without ever witnessing a mutations that has added genetic material. Again very problematic.

But I will propose for you the only feasible way to make the leap from ape to human. The fossil and DNA evidence almost prove that the transition from ape to man could not have been gradual.

This leaves us with a male and female needing to be born with the exact same mutations, allowing them to mate with each other, but not with other apes. The only possibility I can see is paternal twins or simblings. It's my opinion the visual and DNA evidence also is a problem for Evolution.

But to prove that I truly don't care and that I too have an imagination, I have given you a viable way for the Evolution from ape to human to happen.

I am only looking to protect scientific integrity and to help scientists believe that it's ok to say "We don't know". The beauty of science is scientific method. When it comes to Origins and Evolution we settle for models that can't be proven and still call it science.

Darwin never had a theory of evolution. He had hypothesis. And the models are based on his hypothesis.

By the definition of the word theory, speciation is only a hypothesis. A theory needs something more than because thier are birds, fish, and simpler life they evolved.

And currently the models say Evolution is real because the model they created prove it.

God is real the book I read that says he is real proves it.

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.

a reply to: sacgamer25

In other words you believe in something despite no evidence because you are scared that the alternative is true. But unfortunately for you, the more we learn through science, the more we see that the Christian god is the same as Zeus. Mythology.

originally posted by: sacgamer25
None of what you posted is proof of anything but genetic diversity. Genetic diversity and adaptation does not amount to speciation.

LMAO. Speciation means changing from one species to another. It doesn't mean a fish suddenly turning into a lizard. It's been duplicated in a lab, so we know for a fact that it can happen. There are numerous examples in the lab and in nature. To deny it and move the goalposts as you have only shows your ignorance of evolution, despite claiming you have read more than the supporters and understand it. You don't even know what speciation means.

Your Iguanas, when they set out to sea they were lizards, when they landed they were lizards. This is not speciation, this is science grasping into thin air.

If they were always lizards, then where were they during the Cambrian and other early stages of life on earth? Why is it that not a single one has been found in those geological periods? Small changes in genetics happen. It's confirmed. Natural selection happens. It's confirmed. Small changes adding up over time and eventually showing as bigger changes is logic 101... unless of course you have a reason why they cannot add up that goes beyond a fairytale book? LOL at grasping into thin air. You believe in god with zero evidence. Case closed.

What we observe is that mutations never seem to add to genetic traits, wich is a HUGE barrier to evolution, and mutations are virtually never viable for reproduction.

FALSE.

You do realize that men in lab coats have been working for almost 200 years to prove evolution in single cell organisms?

And how many thousands of years have people been trying to prove god with no success at all?

We can't even build a machine that does what our cells do, it is that advanced, but we assume it evolved from something simpler, but what was simpler has vanished without a trace.

There's this funny thing called the fossil record. It's not complete but it shows a pretty good picture. Not all has vanished without a trace, in fact it's the opposite.

You want me to believe in lifeforms that you claim used to be here, vanished without a trace, and don't seem to be able to come into existence from non life like they once had to do according to natural theory? And this is scientific (based on observed and tested facts)?

You want me to believe in god that you claim used to be here, vanished without a trace, and doesn't seem to be able to come into existence from non life like he had to based on the laws of physics. Do us a favor and look up pre cambrian fossils before you make yourself look any more foolish. You are talking complete nonsense.

The visual, and scientifically tested evidence suggests a possible type of de-evolution, the loss of genetic material in mutations, without ever witnessing a mutations that has added genetic material. Again very problematic.

FALSE.

But I will propose for you the only feasible way to make the leap from ape to human. The fossil and DNA evidence almost prove that the transition from ape to man could not have been gradual.

FALSE. The fossil record shows a slow change over a 7 million year period based on the 20+ species of hominids that have lived on earth.

It's my opinion the visual and DNA evidence also is a problem for Evolution.

It's my opinion that you know pretty much nothing at all about evolution.

Darwin never had a theory of evolution. He had hypothesis. And the models are based on his hypothesis.

Red Herring.

And currently the models say Evolution is real because the model they created proves it.

Oh yeah, that pesky model. How dare they study species in a lab and nature to see how they genetically change over time. They didn't create it, they observed it.

God is real the book I read that says he is real proves it.

Moby Dick is real. The book I read that says he is real proves it. If you just trolled me, great job. I didn't even realize it until the end and noticing your post afterwards with atrocious spelling and grammar. Nobody of sound mind would make an argument like that. The bible does not prove god. It makes claims that cannot be verified.

Love is spiritual

Love is an emotion... unless you've got evidence to suggest it's something else. Where's that scientific integrity you claim to be preserving?

originally posted by: Barcs
^He didn't say flat, he said center of the universe. He also mentioned nothing about Galileo or Copernicus getting executed. Nice try at diverting though.

Nice try at not reading the thread, I was responding to someone who gave an affirmative to the following....

"This is like a couple of years ago when the Catholic church, with good foresight, had to back peddle and say that the bible didn't exclude the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. Oh, and when they had to admit that Earth wasn't flat. And when they had to admit Earth wasn't the center of the universe."

The poster I responded to added -

"Exactly, and wasn't it a capital crime to say that the earth was not the center of the universe?"

Which is what many people say is the fate that befell Copernicus and Galileo but didn't. In fact Copernicus stated it was the sun which was the centre of the universe which isn't much different actually in its accuracy. If you have evidence of anyone who was executed for stating the Earth was not the centre of the universe then I would be very interested to hear about it, but then if it happened roughly 800 years ago then I'm not sure exactly how relevant it would be.

Now, about that diverting claim. Which pope in relatively recent time can you quote that said evolution is a theory they had an issue with?

a reply to: Barcs

Sacgamer clearly doesn't understand how recursion works. Because evolution is a HIGHLY recursive process.