Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.

clontaago

First Grader
POPE Benedict has said there is substantial scientific proof of the theory of evolution.

The Pope, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence.

In a talk with 400 priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the US and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said.

“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

But he said evolution did not answer all the questions and could not exclude a role by God.

“Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question 'where does everything come from?'“

His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design.

Climate change

Benedict is wrapping up a three-week private holiday in the majestic mountains of northern Italy where residents are alarmed by the prospect of climate change that can alter their way of life.

A full transcript of the two-hour event was issued yesterday.

“We all see that today man can destroy the foundation of his existence, his Earth,” he said.

“We cannot simply do what we want with this Earth of ours, with what has been entrusted to us,” said the Pope, who has been spending his time reading and walking in the scenic landscape bordering Austria.

World religions have shown a growing interest in the environment, particularly the ramifications of climate change.

The Pope, leader of some 1.1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide, said: “We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive.”

“This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness ... than the desires of the moment.

"Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive,” he said.

Last April the Vatican sponsored a scientific conference on climate change to underscore the role that religious leaders around the world could play in reminding people that wilfully damaging the environment is sinful.
 
How can the journo claim "his comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design"?

Looks like the complete opposite to me.
 
intelligent design, **** it isnt worth discussing the theory is so flawed and provides a default answer that you might as well discuss the flying purple spaghetti monster.

The thing that annoys me about religion, is that they are happy with a default, that has no facts. They say hey you cant say no withh 100% certainty, therefore I am correct, but where is their proof and evidence.

not worth discussing, matas showed his hand long ago and proved to me his consciousness has not been raised enough for me to waste my time discussing things with a man stuck on rung one of the ladder
 
Straight creationism claims that God made the world in 6 x 24 hour periods based on Genesis.

Intelligent design surmises that there is evidence of a creative force behind the world - in patterns, and various aspects that are linked in various ways- though some of its proponents are thinly veiled creationists who have hopped on the bandwagon.

There are many Christians including those in the scientific world who believe that God was behind the process of evolution in which the world came to be as it is. The pope has just woken up to this apparently.
 
Huh. I would have been surprised if he had spoken up for creationism, as told in Genesis, as it has been the (Roman Catholic) Church's stance for a while now that it is not to be taken literally and that it's obvious that evolution is how we got here.

As CW said, they haven't really extracted God from the process of evolution, but it has been fairly well documented that the Vatican has stated that the 6 day creation is not rooted in fact.

Now, just don't ask me for any links as I have a killer flu ATM.
 
Straight creationism claims that God made the world in 6 x 24 hour periods based on Genesis.

Intelligent design surmises that there is evidence of a creative force behind the world - in patterns, and various aspects that are linked in various ways- though some of its proponents are thinly veiled creationists who have hopped on the bandwagon.

There are many Christians including those in the scientific world who believe that God was behind the process of evolution in which the world came to be as it is. The pope has just woken up to this apparently.


oh please do you actually understand Evolution?

If you understood the actual principle of it and in total you wouldnt have dribbled that absolute ****
 
Straight creationism claims that God made the world in 6 x 24 hour periods based on Genesis.

Intelligent design surmises that there is evidence of a creative force behind the world - in patterns, and various aspects that are linked in various ways- though some of its proponents are thinly veiled creationists who have hopped on the bandwagon.

There are many Christians including those in the scientific world who believe that God was behind the process of evolution in which the world came to be as it is. The pope has just woken up to this apparently.

There is no creative force, there is no need for it in evolution at all.....not even in the slightest, you need to truly understand evolution and you will understand where you theory falls so so short
 
Welcome to the Silvertails magic roundabout boys and girls, where Dan gets to use his big words and try to steamroll all the other posters who have the temerity to disagree with him.

Sometime this arvo Matas will saddle up the trusty steed and ride into the argument and then these 2 will crap on for days referring to obscure doctrines and texts nobody else is anal enough to be interested in reading.

The more things change etc etc.....
 
problem is i have fact, evidence and study on my side........matas has myth and unfounded theorem

Let me give you an insight into one of the arguments matas will present.

"Dawkins said there is a one in 50 billion chance that life existed by chance alone"

In fact he said 1 in a billion. In the known universe there are a billion billion planets thats could support life as we know it. The fact that we exist means that there is approx a 1 in a billion chance. which means therefore there is at least 1 billion planets in the universe that have life on them.

So no matter how small the chance matas presents....when put in perspective well, not that small a number is it.

I suggest you look up the anthropic (principle)?
 
problem is you are both more similar than you know, yes you may be coming at this from varying veiwpoints but the rest is very similar.

Both moderately intelligent,(although not as brilliant as you both think)very passionate, extremely pigheaded and convinced your way is correct. and both able to articulate your point well but with the small flaw of not being able to accept that anyone else might have one small iota of an idea.

And you are both ****stirrers of some talent as well :)
 
Daniel: is it not possible that when CW mentioned God being behind the process of evolution, that he was talking on a more molecular structure?

Your pithy science can't even tell us how things have mass yet, so how can we believe it when it tells us anything else? ;)
 
I don't believe that God had anything to do with evolution. What a load of rubbish. 4.5 billion years and he just picked this spot of roughly 100,000 years for us all to realise his genius. Don't mention the lucky rare climatic period of 10,000 years we just happen to be enjoying that has led to civilisations having a stable environment in which to flourish. If you look at the variables that made existence happen they ARE a billion to 1 and we are just lucky to be here. No fickle finger of the almighty was involved.
 
\"Dawkins said there is a one in 50 billion chance that life existed by chance alone\"

In fact he said 1 in a billion. In the known universe there are a billion billion planets thats could support life as we know it. The fact that we exist means that there is approx a 1 in a billion chance. which means therefore there is at least 1 billion planets in the universe that have life on them.

So no matter how small the chance matas presents....when put in perspective well, not that small a number is it.

I suggest you look up the anthropic (principle)?
Well if Dawkins said it must be true.

It's got me stuffed how science can say with confidence that there are a billion planets in the universe with life on them when we can't even get to one.
 
problem is you are both more similar than you know, yes you may be coming at this from varying veiwpoints but the rest is very similar.

Both moderately intelligent,(although not as brilliant as you both think)very passionate, extremely pigheaded and convinced your way is correct. and both able to articulate your point well but with the small flaw of not being able to accept that anyone else might have one small iota of an idea.

And you are both ****stirrers of some talent as well :)

Quote of the year for mine. Even I'm not dumb enough to take Dan's bait on this one.

*cue Dan's accusation that I've run out of ideas and therefore lost the argument* :roll:
 
Dan thinks something so it must be right!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

What is hilarious is that he argues if was the first one that thought of these things and they haven't been talked about in much more intellectual circles than Silvertails.
 
What is hilarious is that he argues if was the first one that thought of these things and they haven't been talked about in much more intellectual circles than Silvertails.

Didn't you know these charades are redundant unless Dan graces them with his intelligence?
 
[quote author=Dan]
\"Dawkins said there is a one in 50 billion chance that life existed by chance alone\"

In fact he said 1 in a billion. In the known universe there are a billion billion planets thats could support life as we know it. The fact that we exist means that there is approx a 1 in a billion chance. which means therefore there is at least 1 billion planets in the universe that have life on them.

So no matter how small the chance matas presents....when put in perspective well, not that small a number is it.

I suggest you look up the anthropic (principle)?
Well if Dawkins said it must be true.

It's got me stuffed how science can say with confidence that there are a billion planets in the universe with life on them when we can't even get to one.

[/quote]


Anthropic principle.

We know what it takes to support life as we know it.
We know there are a billion billion planets that have the properties to support life
we know life exists on our planet which means 1 in a billion

which if you do the math means through theory at least 1 billion supports life, maybe only half may, but even the biggest improbibilty is scalable to be more and more likely when you put it in perspective.

And Narc...no CW meant god as in a sky god or personal god, not "nature" as people like Hawkins refer to a god.
 

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom