*Pope Confirms My Views: Evolution Is Not Where Humans Come From*

[Youwerecreated]

Catholics have believed in evolution for years. Even the two previous Popes.

It's American Christians that believe in "magical creation" and "irreducible complexity".

Despite all evidence to the contrary, they even believe conservative economic policies work. Those people are brainwashed.

Not all catholics believe in such a fairytale, that all living things are a product of a natural process called evolution as the schools teach.

Still waiting for answers as to where matter came from that caused the so called big bang?

Oh and how did non-living matter become living matter ?

 

[pinqy]

Still waiting for answers as to where matter came from that caused the so called big bang?

Nobody knows. "God did it" isn't actually an explanation either.

Oh and how did non-living matter become living matter ?

Well, we know that amino acids and other "building blocks" can be formed naturally under the right conditions, so these could theoretically lead to self-replicating molecules and then "life" (however we want to define that).

How do you think non-living matter became living matter? The breath of an incorporeal being? How does that work exactly?

Of course, neither of your questions are relevant to Evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Still waiting for answers as to where matter came from that caused the so called big bang?

Nobody knows. "God did it" isn't actually an explanation either.

Oh and how did non-living matter become living matter ?

Well, we know that amino acids and other "building blocks" can be formed naturally under the right conditions, so these could theoretically lead to self-replicating molecules and then "life" (however we want to define that).

How do you think non-living matter became living matter? The breath of an incorporeal being? How does that work exactly?

Of course, neither of your questions are relevant to Evolution.

Has what you said ever been proven in the labs under perfect conditions ?

So why is it considered rational thinking to think that an unguided natural process is the cause of all life ?

 

[pinqy]

Still waiting for answers as to where matter came from that caused the so called big bang?

Nobody knows. "God did it" isn't actually an explanation either.

Oh and how did non-living matter become living matter ?

Well, we know that amino acids and other "building blocks" can be formed naturally under the right conditions, so these could theoretically lead to self-replicating molecules and then "life" (however we want to define that).

How do you think non-living matter became living matter? The breath of an incorporeal being? How does that work exactly?

Of course, neither of your questions are relevant to Evolution.

Has what you said ever been proven in the labs under perfect conditions ?

You're not familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment? Of course, all it tells us is that it's possible...we certainly don't know exactly what the conditions were like.

So why is it considered rational thinking to think that an unguided natural process is the cause of all life ?

Because that's how it looks. Looking at all life on earth, there is a clear connection. Other versions/forms of life, using different chemicals etc are possible, but don't exist, and this points to a single origin. Any supernatural influence is untestable and outside the bounds of science, so purely natural processes are all that can be examined.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nobody knows. "God did it" isn't actually an explanation either.



Well, we know that amino acids and other "building blocks" can be formed naturally under the right conditions, so these could theoretically lead to self-replicating molecules and then "life" (however we want to define that).

How do you think non-living matter became living matter? The breath of an incorporeal being? How does that work exactly?

Of course, neither of your questions are relevant to Evolution.

Has what you said ever been proven in the labs under perfect conditions ?

You're not familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment? Of course, all it tells us is that it's possible...we certainly don't know exactly what the conditions were like.

So why is it considered rational thinking to think that an unguided natural process is the cause of all life ?

Because that's how it looks. Looking at all life on earth, there is a clear connection. Other versions/forms of life, using different chemicals etc are possible, but don't exist, and this points to a single origin. Any supernatural influence is untestable and outside the bounds of science, so purely natural processes are all that can be examined.

Correct and correct.

I like to think the bible was correct and we were all created from the ingredients of the earth.

 

[konradv]

Has what you said ever been proven in the labs under perfect conditions ?

You're not familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment? Of course, all it tells us is that it's possible...we certainly don't know exactly what the conditions were like.

So why is it considered rational thinking to think that an unguided natural process is the cause of all life ?

Because that's how it looks. Looking at all life on earth, there is a clear connection. Other versions/forms of life, using different chemicals etc are possible, but don't exist, and this points to a single origin. Any supernatural influence is untestable and outside the bounds of science, so purely natural processes are all that can be examined.

Correct and correct.

I like to think the bible was correct and we were all created from the ingredients of the earth.

Of course we were all made from ingredients in the earth, but the fossil record shows it didn't happen the way the Bible says it did. All of nature is of the same "kind", DNA proves it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're not familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment? Of course, all it tells us is that it's possible...we certainly don't know exactly what the conditions were like.



Because that's how it looks. Looking at all life on earth, there is a clear connection. Other versions/forms of life, using different chemicals etc are possible, but don't exist, and this points to a single origin. Any supernatural influence is untestable and outside the bounds of science, so purely natural processes are all that can be examined.

Correct and correct.

I like to think the bible was correct and we were all created from the ingredients of the earth.

Of course we were all made from ingredients in the earth, but the fossil record shows it didn't happen the way the Bible says it did. All of nature is of the same "kind", DNA proves it.

The best argument besides genetics against evolution is the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Unless if you accept ,could of, for an answer.

 

[Shogun]

The pope may not believe in evolution...

...but he sure the **** believed in the Hitler Youth program.

 

[pinqy]

The best argument besides genetics against evolution is the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Unless if you accept ,could of, for an answer.

Except genetics confirm evolution and there are plenty of transitional fossils. Unless you're one of those who think "transitional fossil" means half a wing, or a chimera or something equally ridiculous.

 

[konradv]

Correct and correct.

I like to think the bible was correct and we were all created from the ingredients of the earth.

Of course we were all made from ingredients in the earth, but the fossil record shows it didn't happen the way the Bible says it did. All of nature is of the same "kind", DNA proves it.

The best argument besides genetics against evolution is the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Unless if you accept ,could of, for an answer.

Sure there are transitional fossils. Haven't you ever seen the grapic depiction of the development of the modern horse? Transitional forms abound. The problem also lies in the fact that in order to be fossilized, bones must be buried under the right conditions. Very few individuals are actually fossilized. Couple that with the fact that an emerging species will have very few members, until either its advantages wipes out the older species or they find a new niche in which to live. Either way there would be very few fossils to find. However, the simple fact that there are similarities between species that lived millions of years apart, makes it hard to come up with any theory other than evolution. Different species were definitely not all created at the same time or we'd be finding dolphin and trilobite fossils together, which we don't.

 

[Wiseacre]

So we just popped up in the Garden of Eden?

Us and the talking snakes.

Whatever happened to them anyway?

They turned into democrats.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're not familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment? Of course, all it tells us is that it's possible...we certainly don't know exactly what the conditions were like.



Because that's how it looks. Looking at all life on earth, there is a clear connection. Other versions/forms of life, using different chemicals etc are possible, but don't exist, and this points to a single origin. Any supernatural influence is untestable and outside the bounds of science, so purely natural processes are all that can be examined.

Correct and correct.

I like to think the bible was correct and we were all created from the ingredients of the earth.

Of course we were all made from ingredients in the earth, but the fossil record shows it didn't happen the way the Bible says it did. All of nature is of the same "kind", DNA proves it.

I would not use the fossil record as proof of the theory,it's weak at best.

Some geneticist will disagree with you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The best argument besides genetics against evolution is the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Unless if you accept ,could of, for an answer.

Except genetics confirm evolution and there are plenty of transitional fossils. Unless you're one of those who think "transitional fossil" means half a wing, or a chimera or something equally ridiculous.

Pinqy, i would not believe you would fall for the fossil record as proof.

Many Geneticist would disagree with you.

Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."

The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.[18] In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were catalogued and identified in the world's museums.[19] Despite the aforementioned large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[20]

In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.[


Good reading material here.

Evolution - Conservapedia

 

[thespook]

Evolution happens in front of our eyes, you reading this is a form of evolution. Your brain is constantly changing evolving and adapting to its surroundings. To deny the existence of evolution is to say that human beings arent human

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution happens in front of our eyes, you reading this is a form of evolution. Your brain is constantly changing evolving and adapting to its surroundings. To deny the existence of evolution is to say that human beings arent human

So yes ,as humans grow older they become wiser. And you can even say we have become more complex can you say the same thing for any animal ? Yeah my brain evolved,it suffered from a stroke. So what would be your evidence of the human brain evolving ?

Human beings are human something we can agree on.

 

[pinqy]

The best argument besides genetics against evolution is the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Unless if you accept ,could of, for an answer.

Except genetics confirm evolution and there are plenty of transitional fossils. Unless you're one of those who think "transitional fossil" means half a wing, or a chimera or something equally ridiculous.

Pinqy, i would not believe you would fall for the fossil record as proof.

Where did I say it was proof?

Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."

He wrote that in 1953, he wasn't aware of many advances and his theories have gone nowhere.

Despite the aforementioned large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

And your cut and paste doesn't give the rest of what he said: "...This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."
"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature."

 

[Youwerecreated]

Except genetics confirm evolution and there are plenty of transitional fossils. Unless you're one of those who think "transitional fossil" means half a wing, or a chimera or something equally ridiculous.

Pinqy, i would not believe you would fall for the fossil record as proof.

Where did I say it was proof?

Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."

He wrote that in 1953, he wasn't aware of many advances and his theories have gone nowhere.

Despite the aforementioned large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

And your cut and paste doesn't give the rest of what he said: "...This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."
"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature."

I do believe changes can happen within a group but it is limited,i believe you believe the same thing, but where we differ is that i believe there are limits and someone caused those limits.

We who believe in creation would say there are DNA barriers that prevent changes that are not in line with what the creator wanted. I believe the creator allowed just enough room in the ability to change so we could adapt to new or changing enviornments but if we go beyond the limits it can result in sickness and or death.

Anytime an evolutionist turns to the fossil record as evidence of macroevolution i simply point out that argument is weak and it really does not support the theory. Actually it goes against what Darwin said.

If very intelligent men cannot under controlled circumstances repeat the beginning of life what makes you think an untintelligent natural process could do it ? How could an unintelligent process create something as complex as the first cell ? or how to cover it with skin for protection ? or give it a frame of bones to support it ? give it eyes to see ? and a means to reproduce ?

But before all of this,give it an enviornment that it can survive in ? like the sun and moon and gravity and water oh and plants and other animals for food. How bout a method of watering the earth to which it can have fresh water. That is a bit much to believe it all happened by chance from a natural process. It shows signs of a creator to a rational thinking person.

People use to die at earlier ages due to what the medical profession regards as minor complications according to todays technology. It was intelligence that created the technology not a natural process.

 

[editec]

Humans weren't the result of evolution you say?

Okay, I'm always ready to listen to someone's comological theoies.

Where did we come from, then?

Remember, support your theory with empirical evidence, please.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Humans weren't the result of evolution you say?

Okay, I'm always ready to listen to someone's comological theoies.

Where did we come from, then?

Remember, support your theory with empirical evidence, please.

My only empirical evidence is based on faith in what the bible says. The bible say's we came from the ground do you agree ?

The same evidence the theory of macroevolution is based on ,faith.

 

[Sheldon]

Good reading material here.

Evolution - Conservapedia

What a joke.