Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Just recently the Pope stated that it is POSSIBLE to believe in both the teachings of the Bible and the Laws of Evolution.

I remember someone else saying this just recently on these boards as well....hmmm...........I wonder who........

Anata Wa Wakarimasu Ka.....

Do you have a link?


And most of the religious nuts on these forums will argue that it doesn't matter what the Pope says, as he isn't a true christian.

Pope Benedict XVI, restated his - and Pope John Paul' s (in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) - argument.

Ratzinger delivered a series of homilies that were published in 1990 under the title In the Beginning ...: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. He argued that: "The creation story in Genesis is a spiritual history. It simply doesn' t matter what physical means God used to create the world and all living creatures therein, what matters is that man is both body and soul, and his creation is not complete until God has breathed the breath of life into him. And about the creation of the soul (and, thus, of the complete man), science can tell us nothing."

Pope Pius XII proclaimed in his 1950 encyclical "Humani Generis" already that "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith..."

I think it is safe to say that it isn't the Catholics who are taking over school boards to trumpet creationism.

And as was mentioned before, those who see evolution as being in conflict with their religious beliefs probably think the pope is a terrible christian

Yeah, honestly, Catholics are pretty decent with changing their stance when they're about to be embarassed by science. Smart people can find justifications for lots of things, and meshing belief with science isn't hard for most people. You'll find some Catholic proponents of various levels of ID, but very few are adamate literal creationists.

Personally, I'm glad that the Pope is helping Catholics move on with scientific discovery, even if it does nothing toward correcting the various other flaws inherent within most religious belief.

At this point, evolution is accepted in most circles as scientific fact, so it only makes sense for religious institutions to fall in line. If you want to nitpick and say that even "facts" in science are nothing but probable hypotheses, not 100% certainties, then you'd be right. But it's that important distinction that seperates it from the dangerous dogma of fundamentalist religion.

Pope John Paul accepted the gradual stages of human evolution as scientific fact. However, the bible does claims that "man" was created in "God's" image, and since this cannot mean physicaly , it must be spiritual. The Pope basically argues that the body is developed through the evolutionary process, but the soul was interjected by God, which I guess is anti-evolutionary, atleast according to Richard Dawkins, since it requires a sudden addition of an incremental soul whereas evolution is a slow and gradual process.

No one has changed their stance. Didn't anyone read Storm's post?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
evolution (which is only a theory)

Someone (and it clearly isn't you) really, REALLY, REALLY needs to tell me how evolution being a theory somehow magically proves that is isn't a legitimate explaination. Legitimate, especially because there can be no proving or disproving of god, until the man decides to get off his lazy ass and do something. Something we can "understand", to boot. Whoops, I guess that's the catch 22 of organized religions.

Science isn't anything akin to religion. Science requires facts and testable hypotheses. Religion doesn't. All religion requires is a crazy guy in a bear skin stumbling out of the desert after 40 years. Or a crazy woman who goes around telling people god got her pregnant.

Yeah, Bicnarok you seriously need to learn the definition of what a scientific theory actually is.


Evolution is already regarded as scientific fact, and for anyone to deny the validity of Evolution is simply foolish, seeing as how we have fossils, carbon dating, bone structure similiarities, and even DNA similiarities which support the process of evolution throughout biological history.


Creationism is the "theory" which needs to be validated, because there is simply no evidense what-so-ever to validate it.

creationism is an HYPOTHESIS. proven false in many forms.

evolution is an ACCEPTED theory. just like reletivity and quantum mechanics are THEORIES. there are no scientific FACTS. only accepted thepries.

I enjoy a healthy debate, but have any of you taken the time to read the responses to this thread, not to mention your own, carefully? Frankly--and I mean no harm--the majority of you are presenting empty/blanket statements--providing zero evidence to support your claims. Others simply don't have the slightest clue as to what they are talking about. It is not my aim to make people's blood boil, but enough already!

For crying out loud, can't we all reach common ground and be honest with ourselves, namely to know when to be quiet and listen. The ego of some, not to mention the arrogance--you act like subject matter experts. Spend some money--a lot of money--and divorce yourselves from the internet in conducting research; the internet certainly can provide great research material--don't get me wrong--but most of you (I guarantee) lack the ability to distinguish a good source of information from a bad source. Rule number one: if it ain't got no references or bibliography, leave it alone. Period! Any body with an opinion can create a website and make claims. But where are the references and bibliography? And the dating of such... well, that goes without saying. I just hope its updating.

It is obvious--to me anyway--that some of you have definitely been digesting questionable material. I have read past posts of people proclaiming evolutionary theory to be true. In what way is evolution theory true--an undisputed fact--again? And what in the world does creation theory--in conjunction with molecular biology, astronomy, physics, and other respective fields--have to do with the Bible? For those of you who make such claims: please stop while your ahead. I have never been able to understand the correlation. Creation theory does have religious "implications," but it is "independent" of religion. Do any of you grasp that concept? Evolutionary theory is being questioned in light of advancements in scientific knowledge, not religious madmen hell bent on converting the world to Christianity. Don't believe the hype.

With all in tow, evolutionary theory is seemingly doomed; the origin of life remains an utter mystery; I mean science hasn't the first clue. And for those of you who have studied with an ounce of integrity, know exactly what I mean. Many state that creation theory has problems. I am not here to dispute that. Evolutionists have problems of their own, and they have yet to explain:

1) how nothing produces everything,

2) non-life produces life,

3) randomness produces fine-tuning,

4) chaos produces information,

5) unconsciousness produces consciousness, and

6) non-reason produces reason.

Again, it is not my aim to get people's blood boiling, I know that for some of you, this was a difficult to read indeed, but I am simply asking for people to be honest. For those of your curious enough to read my last post on the thread "God, or no God," click the hyper link: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=318446&pagenumber=83

Originally posted by ushomefree
I enjoy a healthy debate, but have any of you taken the time to read the responses to this thread, not to mention your own, carefully? Frankly--and I mean no harm--the majority of you are presenting empty/blanket statements--providing zero evidence to support your claims. Others simply don't have the slightest clue as to what they are talking about. It is not my aim to make people's blood boil, but enough already!

Oh the irony. Oh the Black voodoo.

If you like I could trawl this forum to find many examples of religious posters doing that, or doing things like "How do I know it is true? The Bible says... How do I know the Bible is true? Well the Bible says..."



The creation theory has problems? No it doesn't because it has a big old approved stamp in the form of "God did it." Hard to argue with that logic.

And do you notice that above you criticised others because they, by your standards, provide zero proof, but your proof to support creationism is simply to find flaws in evolution. That isn't really proof you know.

That is just:

"What proof is their creationism is real? Well, evolution can't yet answer how life began. Ergo a = b and creationism is real because it says God did it. I win, God bless you all."

That isn't proof for your theory, that is merely finding flaws in the opposite theory.

And sorry, but since when has biological or astronomical evolution dealt with point 4 or 6 - non-reason produced reason? What the...

Please read my post again; I think you misunderstood my point. First and foremost, I presented questions upon the theory of evolution, but I never went out of my way to disprove it. And I never--by attempting to disprove evolution--tried to prove creation science as victor. Surely underlying tones existed, but I was merely asking for people to be honest when debating.

Originally posted by InnerRise
Just recently the Pope stated that it is POSSIBLE to believe in both the teachings of the Bible and the Laws of Evolution.

I remember someone else saying this just recently on these boards as well....hmmm...........I wonder who........

Anata Wa Wakarimasu Ka..... I have no problem with my Faith or believing Evolution.

I've always had a problem with strict evolution also. It hasn't answered all my questions.

Evolution seems to be very fluid theory. There seem to be many new discoveries and insights which affect and changes theories from time to time. I believe Evolution is sound science but, as you, it doesn't answer all the questions for me.

Originally posted by Badabing
Evolution seems to be very fluid theory. There seem to be many new discoveries and insights which affect and changes theories from time to time. I believe Evolution is sound science but, as you, it doesn't answer all the questions for me.

Fluid in the sense that we're adding to it...but not really changing it. Darwin's initial observations are still scientifically valid under current scrutiny.

...

I like an analogy I read once by an evolutionary biologist (paraphrased):
Currently there is as much reason to doubt the theory of evolution as there is to doubt the theory that the earth revolves around the sun.

I don't like that analogy at all. It offends me.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
I don't like that analogy at all. It offends me. Why would that offend you?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Please read my post again; I think you misunderstood my point. First and foremost, I presented questions upon the theory of evolution, but I never went out of my way to disprove it. And I never--by attempting to disprove evolution--tried to prove creation science as victor. Surely underlying tones existed, but I was merely asking for people to be honest when debating.

No, I know what you were saying, but I chose to focus on those underlying tones.

You said "Frankly--and I mean no harm--the majority of you are presenting empty/blanket statements--providing zero evidence to support your claims."

I guess I could have worded it different - you are capable of arguing in favor of creationism providing evidence for it that does not solely exist on "holes exist in evolution"?


Certainly people who know evolution do the same - "but there is no evidence for any of creationism", but they could also bring up plenty of evidence that supports evolutionary theory as well as pointing out the holes that exist in creationism.

I was simply wondering that since you are criticising people here for providing "zero evidence" whether you are able to do differently (since previous posts of you have made indicate you stand behind creationist theory).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why would that offend you?

Originally posted by ushomefree
5) unconsciousness produces consciousness, and

6) non-reason produces reason.

both of these things are human constructs to try and explain the mind, and both fail miserably at actually explaining human cognition.

Humans are neither "conscious" or posses "reason" as you imply them here.

I suppose ardent Christians could use that same argument to say "imperfect produces perfect" as justification for their God, not realizing that it isn't a logical proof, and even if it was it would do nothing to prove the Christian God...simply a neutral state of "perfect".

Unjello produces jello.

Does it have Bill Cosby's stamp of approval though?

Originally posted by Robtard
Does it have Bill Cosby's stamp of approval though? What part of the Bible was this Bill Cosby fellow in?

Was he a disciple as well?

I don't believe anything would need his approval b/c the Bible says that Jesus's word is the final word and the only word that matters, whether Bill liked it or not. It just doesn't matter.........according to the bible that is.

Besides, I believe Unjello is in the new Testament anyway so it wouldn't involve Bill.

I'll go check someone's Bible to make sure. Believe it or not, I'm no expert.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Actually, Cosby references aside, I don't think we've actually answered his questions in an evolutionary sense. The questions or "problems" ushomefree presents display an incomplete view of evolution, and also a slanted view of some issues. But evolutionary theory DOES, in fact, answer most of what he presented.

I'll answer them to the best of ym ability within the quote below.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Evolutionists have problems of their own, and they have yet to explain:

1) how nothing produces everything,
- That's not a question for evolution. It's more dealing with the creation of the universe. And your question seems to be a vague allusion to Thomas Aquinas' cosmological "proof" of God's existence, which involves an infinite regress of causal forces, positing that God is the ultimate causal force behind creation. What it doesn't account for is what would cause God. That's not a valid question, Aquinas would argue...God is his own means to existence, but it does nothing but present us with the same problem. And even we assumed that there is a force behind the universe's creation (erroneous, at best), it doesn't prove a Christian God or even a religious deity. If this god-figure can be naturally existent without preexisting causes, how is it so hard to imagine that the universe could do the same?

2) non-life produces life:
- You're again going under the assumption that we're fundamentally different than, say, a robot. We're not. We're just infinitely more complex. Most critics of evolution have no concept of the hundreds of millions of years within which life on earth evolved. Given such a timeframe, it would actually be less probable that life wouldn't evolve. Strains of molecules bond together and eventually form Replicators, tiny gene-like structures capable of attracting identical substances to them, effectively making copies of themselves. Occasionally errors occur in the replication process and a mutation occurs. Mutations that are beneficial to the Replicator, that help it survive, tend to become dominant and continue to make copies of itself. These random mutations, over thousands of years, eventually lead to even greater complexity, allowing for the Replicators to increase in size, variety, and longevity. DNA is the modern descendant of those original replicating strands that began in our oceans, and is capable of amazingly complex processes as they work together toward survival, both individually and mutually. This is an insanely shortened view of evolutionary theory as we understand it, but I hope it conveys the basic principle.

3) randomness produces fine-tuning:
- Dealt with in #2. It's all the same process.

4) chaos produces information:
- Not sure I understand this one. Seems like it's a variation on #3. I also touch on this in my answer to #6.

5) unconsciousness produces consciousness:
- No one can claim to be an expert on consciousness because even "experts" can't reach a consensus. Some hard materialists claim that what we perceive to be consciousness is nothing but an illusion, a by-product of neural processes that most advanced creatures posess at different levels depending on their complexity. We can be reasonably sure, for example, that many varieties of monkey and ape are self-aware, a form of consciousness. But if God blessed us solely with this amazing gift, how is it that other species possess it? And even if consciousness is in fact seperate from the material world and is something that emerges as a transcendant experience of our sensory input, it still does nothing to invalidate evolutionary theory. "I have consciousness" isn't a refutation of evolution, nor is it evidence of a creator-deity.

6) non-reason produces reason:
- I don't see what this has to do with evolution. It's a process of natural selection that has led to life on earth as we know it today. Part of the complexity of many creatures is the ability to process information from the world around them and use that information to make informed decisions about their welfare and survival. The eyeball, for example, evolved independantly in many strains of creatures as a survival mechanism. Not everything is solely in regards to survival, but the continuous complexification of life has produced what we call intelligence and reason as a by-product.



Hope that's more to your liking. I'm assuming you'll pick out one or two things to counter rather than the main body of it, and find some other questions to pose, but I felt like you at least deserved a straight response.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Yeah, honestly, Catholics are pretty decent with changing their stance when they're about to be embarassed by science. Smart people can find justifications for lots of things, and meshing belief with science isn't hard for most people. You'll find some Catholic proponents of various levels of ID, but very few are adamate literal creationists.

Personally, I'm glad that the Pope is helping Catholics move on with scientific discovery, even if it does nothing toward correcting the various other flaws inherent within most religious belief.

At this point, evolution is accepted in most circles as scientific fact, so it only makes sense for religious institutions to fall in line. If you want to nitpick and say that even "facts" in science are nothing but probable hypotheses, not 100% certainties, then you'd be right. But it's that important distinction that seperates it from the dangerous dogma of fundamentalist religion.

I think you are have a little misunderstanding. Catholics have accepted a long time ago, that the Bible is not a book of science or a book of history, regardless that it has many scientific and historical verifiable data in it.

Bible is a book of faith, and the truth contained in it is all about the progressive revelation of the love of God for mankind.

-Truth of Faith of the Genesis: God created everything, including man.

-How did he do it? Well scientists has to the task to find out and teach us. By now, the evolution theories have a long way to go, and a lot to investigate since the "missing links" have not appeared yet and new discoveries tear appart some long-accepted evolution models.

-Why does the Bible describe the creation in 7 days, etc? Because of the poetic genre used in some books of the Bible, to illustrate, teach about a truth of faith, that the ancient writers of course knew as truth, but were not able to understand, describe or know in detail, as as scientific or historical fact.

Originally posted by darkfan76
I think you are have a little misunderstanding. Catholics have accepted a long time ago, that the Bible is not a book of science or a book of history, regardless that it has many scientific and historical verifiable data in it.

Bible is a book of faith, and the truth contained in it is all about the progressive revelation of the love of God for mankind.

-Truth of Faith of the Genesis: God created everything, including man.

-How did he do it? Well scientists has to the task to find out and teach us. By now, the evolution theories have a long way to go, and a lot to investigate since the "missing links" have not appeared yet and new discoveries tear appart some long-accepted evolution models.

-Why does the Bible describe the creation in 7 days, etc? Because of the poetic genre used in some books of the Bible, to illustrate, teach about a truth of faith, that the ancient writers of course knew as truth, but were not able to understand, describe or know in detail, as as scientific or historical fact.


ARCHAEOPTERYX

Originally posted by Jbill311
ARCHAEOPTERYX

R U Yelling at me?

ha ha, anyway

Evolution as a whole is proven scientific fact, but it is also a fact that the theoritical models set for explaining the evolution of most species still lack of most of the "missing links", especially for human beings, because as you know, the recent discovery of some fossils has torn appart a long time accepted evolution model. Anyway, the fact that the studies are still incomplete and the theories come and go more easily than scientists would like to admit, doen't mean that evolution is false.

If Evolution is a fact, what's the explanation for the origin of sexual reproduction?

Originally posted by ushomefree

1) how nothing produces everything,

2) non-life produces life,

3) randomness produces fine-tuning,

4) chaos produces information,

5) unconsciousness produces consciousness, and

6) non-reason produces reason.



Evolution is a biological scentific model, and most if not all those questions do not even pertain to biology.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
If Evolution is a fact, what's the explanation for the origin of sexual reproduction?

Perhaps it evolved from asexual reproduction?

Originally posted by darkfan76
Perhaps it evolved from asexual reproduction?

How?

useless re-iteration... etc. etc. carry on...

Why did you repost that?

I obviously wasn't reading closely, i thought you were dredging up that argument again for use, and it has already been refuted. I'm REALLY tired...

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
How?


You see. Still a long way to go for evolution. The fact hat certain things are not known right now or cannot be explained in detail, doesn't mean it is false or could not be explained in the future, just as gravity, eectricity or magnetism in the past.

What is a proven fact is that the "Creationism" as understood by Bible fundamentalist is wrong. That doesn't mean that evolution model is completely right either.

I didn't state that "evolution was wrong", I simply stated it was not a scientific law.

Originally posted by darkfan76
I think you are have a little misunderstanding. Catholics have accepted a long time ago, that the Bible is not a book of science or a book of history, regardless that it has many scientific and historical verifiable data in it.

Thanks, since this was aimed at helping me understand some stuff, but I'm a de-coverted Catholic who was brought up in the faith until about age 20, so I'm well-versed in their beliefs and tendencies.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
I didn't state that "evolution was wrong", I simply stated it was not a scientific law.

This is a pretty general statement, so I can't really endorse or refute it. Basically, though, the more I learn about evolution as we currently understand it, the more I realize that a lot of people don't understand it...or worse, they pretend to.

If someone wants to see what questions evolution does and doesn't answer, read up on it and figure it out. Because the complexities of evolution aren't things that can be explained in useful KMC sound bites, even though many try. When someone asks a uestion like "How does evolution explain altruism?" there's a definite, verified scientific answer to it, but it requires a working knowledge of many underlying evolutionary processes before you reach the point of explaining something as complex as genetic altruism.

So there, I think I'm done in this thread. I did my best summarization (woefully inept, probably) about a page ago. From this point on, I simply wish to encourage people to learn more on their own to understand the issue.

Wouldn't there be a difference between Genetic Altruism and Moral Altruism?

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
I didn't state that "evolution was wrong", I simply stated it was not a scientific law.

Just out of interest can you give an example of something that is "scientific law" and explain the reason why it is an evolution isn't?

Is there scientific law? Science is always evolving.


As far as I understand, I may be incorrect, there are many laws that have loops holes or inconsisties and are only theories....not saying this nor that,..but.Oops, found a new one that disproves the old one................Ya now...........My questions have never been answered on this form.............

Hows the fries in your country?

Originally posted by debbiejo

Hows the fries in your country?

I'm not really a fries person, give me a chip or wedge, something with a bit of meat on it (well, potato meat anyway.)

But they aren't to bad, depends on where you get them.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Just out of interest can you give an example of something that is "scientific law" and explain the reason why it is an evolution isn't?

Scientific law is a principle that is irrefutable, Newtons Three laws of motions are a good example. Evolution isn't a scientific law because it stll has a lot answers to give.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Is there scientific law? Science is always evolving.


As far as I understand, I may be incorrect, there are many laws that have loops holes or inconsisties and are only theories....not saying this nor that,..but.Oops, found a new one that disproves the old one................Ya now...........My questions have never been answered on this form.............



The thing about science is that established laws are always being tested over and over again. A scientific law only remains one if it's fool proof, otherwise it's just a theory.

ALL scientific ideas are theories. It's what seperates science from dogmatic religions. The idea that the Earth revolves around the sun is a "theory". Calling it that doesn't invalidate it.

Evolution is similarly justified, and has been for decades, and anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know a ton on the subject or is pushing a religious agenda. We've added nuances to the theory since its inception, and will undoubtedly continue to do so, but as far as the general theory goes, nothing has come along to prove even Darwin wrong, let alone his more exacting scientific descendants, and any meticulously researched material only strengthens the argument.

It isn't a catch-all theory that includes religion and consciousness (thoough it posits theories on this, some more agreeable than others) and all manner of other scientific realms, things that critics try to cite as reasons for invalidating evolution. It's a biological process. Trying to broaden its scope beyond what it should be again would show a lack of knowledge or ulterior motives.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Wouldn't there be a difference between Genetic Altruism and Moral Altruism?

You could make that distinction, sure. We aren't conscious of our genetic programming, whether it's selfish or altruistic, so on an individual level it seems to possess morality. But it's essentially the same thing, with the genetic predisposition of our genes working its way outward until it manifests itself as individual human acts that work toward the preservation of those genes.

We can certainly learn forms of altruism that aren't necessarily consistent with our genetic programming, via our refined memory and cognitive processes, environmental and cultural influences, and possible other factors, but the intelligence used to do that is itself a mechanism that evolved for the purposes of gene survival.

So yes, we can overcome our genes selfishness, but only to a certain extent (I use the term "selfish" loosely...genes aren't at the cognitive level to be selfish...they are merely structured in such a way that it is convenient to label them as such).

Originally posted by DigiMark007
ALL scientific ideas are theories. It's what seperates science from dogmatic religions. The idea that the Earth revolves around the sun is a "theory". Calling it that doesn't invalidate it.


Evolution is similarly justified, and has been for decades, and anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know a ton on the subject or is pushing a religious agenda. We've added nuances to the theory since its inception, and will undoubtedly continue to do so, but as far as the general theory goes, nothing has come along to prove even Darwin wrong, let alone his more exacting scientific descendants, and any meticulously researched material only strengthens the argument.






Yes, Yes, But there is a difference between Scientific law and Scientific theory. True, they aren't dogmatic, but that isn't the point. To be a Scientific law, said principle would have to be irrefutable versus a Scientific Theory which has a working model but a few detractors or holes. Evolution fits in with the later.

I agree with what you said though, Evolution has not gone unchallenged ever since it's birth by any other working model . But, it has changed alot from the time it was hypothesised by Darwin. People tend to take it as a fact because it's been around for such a while without any legitimate opposition, but at the end of the day it's still a theory. Will it remain one, is another story.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Is there scientific law? Science is always evolving.


Yes, there is scientific law, just because science changes doesn't mean there a such things as laws. It's just that laws are challenged, because that is the nature of science.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Yes, Yes, But there is a difference between Scientific law and Scientific theory. True, they aren't dogmatic, but that isn't the point. To be a Scientific law, said principle would have to be irrefutable versus a Scientific Theory which has a working model but a few detractors or holes. Evolution fits in with the later.

I agree with what you said though, Evolution has not gone unchallenged ever since it's birth by any other working model . But, it has changed alot from the time it was hypothesised by Darwin. People tend to take it as a fact because it's been around for such a while without any legitimate opposition, but at the end of the day it's still a theory. Will it remain one, is another story.

I think you're misconstruing terms. Scientists don't have such a things as "scientific law". There's only probable and accepted theories. But like I said, the only serious advocates against evolution are either misinformed or blinded by religion. Even something like the First "Law" of Thermodynamics can be called into question by, say, Quantum Mechanics (at a microscopic level...in functional macro terms it still holds up admirably).

I think you're looking for me to validate evolution beyond saying that it's an accepted theory within the scientific community, but I won't, because that would be a false distinction simply to artificially reinforce my point. If you don't want to accept it as a fact, ok. That's your prerogative. But the onus of proof is on those who would choose to disbelieve it as an explanation of much of human behavior and animal action (again, learning about it is the best way to decide what exactly it does cover).

Scientists, for example, act as though the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics is a "fact" because that's the most widely supported theory we currently have. It helps to treat it as a fact as a means toward other truths. If everything was treated as an unproven theory, we'd never get anywhere with our discoveries. But that doesn't mean it's a "law" like the speed limit is for driving or somesuch.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I'm not really a fries person, give me a chip or wedge, something with a bit of meat on it (well, potato meat anyway.)

But they aren't to bad, depends on where you get them. Crunchy? Oh I hope so...............

What's the topic again? Moses? Hell? Hmm,......must get some fries.


Pope ...must be nice.

I think dj's stoned every time she posts anymore. Hell, I wrote my last post half drunk and it at least pretends to sound intelligent.

Don't you like fries???

I'm sure the Pope does.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I think you're misconstruing terms. Scientists don't have such a things as "scientific law".

Yes, they do. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Originally posted by DigiMark007


I think you're looking for me to validate evolution beyond saying that it's an accepted theory within the scientific community

I'm not asking anything other than telling you that there is a difference between Scientific law and Theory. Wether it's law or theory does not invalidate evolution.

Oddly, I've never heard of the distinction. But meh, it's kind of a moot point. Evolution stirs such controversy that its status would likely depend on who you're asking. And I trust that what you're saying is true, but as a rule I don't trust wiki. But I'll be sure to keep my eyes open for it in the future.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Don't you like fries???

I'm sure the Pope does.

Pope fries! Now with 30% more Jesus in every bite!







I'd eat them.

Originally posted by InnerRise
Just recently the Pope stated that it is POSSIBLE to believe in both the teachings of the Bible and the Laws of Evolution.

I remember someone else saying this just recently on these boards as well....hmmm...........I wonder who........

Anata Wa Wakarimasu Ka..... Catholicism is more flexible than most Protestant Christian churches when it comes to science because it is more based on an adherence to doctrine rather than scripture.

Therefore, because most high-profile Protestants are Evangelical fundamentalists (who believe that the Bible is inerrant), evolution is much more of a pickle for Protestants.