Why waste the time?

Originally posted by Coletti
I wish you wouldn't pretend to be so stupid. But I guess you get a kick out of it. Your acting like you think a person who is say 600 or 700 years old, with a lifespan of 900, would look or act any older than a 30-year old does today. ...[text shortened]... hese things. I know for a fact that you are highly intelligent.

"I wish you wouldn't pretend to be so stupid. But I guess you get a kick out of it."

Cribs ....... busted ! 😀

Originally posted by rwingett
Your sources are a complete waste of time. I reject them out of hand. As I don't have the time to heap public scorn upon you as promised, just pretend I said something here which angers you greatly.

LOL you said it!

Why waste the time?

Originally posted by frogstomp
does 1996 help?

http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html

Thanks for the cite, I think it says evolution is okay as long as it doesn't say that the human mind is just a manifestion of living matter (?). In particular:

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.


Guess the RCC doesn't feel the need to roll dinosaur eggs onto the Ark or have 900 year old man go out on a round up.

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't understand why so many intelligent people waste their time arguing with creationists about evolution. They simply aren't worth the effort. Its counterproductive to even give creationists a springboard to vomit forth their antiquated views in. They should simply be ignored. Or publicly ridiculed if they must be addressed at all. People don't spend ...[text shortened]... should either be ignored or have scorn heaped upon them. They are not worthy of serious debate.

I do it for a few reasons. Number one is that I am very much interested in evolution, and I like to talk to those who can challenge me to look carefully at it. Also there is the political aspect; not just to convince the hardcore creationists that the TOE is legitimate, but even more to convince those who might be on the fence or close to it.

I think flat Earthers and holocaust deniers have views that are worthy of discussion.

Originally posted by ivanhoe


Why waste the time?

The Roman Catholic Churche's stance on the Theory of Evolution:

http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html

"In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576)."

From the Vatican, 22 October 1996.

http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html

Originally posted by Coletti
I see why that was rec'd - it's one of you better arguments. 😉

I wouldn't put too much stock in these little 'virtual backslaps' we call recs.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Thanks for the cite, I think it says evolution is okay as long as it doesn't say that the human mind is just a manifestion of living matter (?). In particular:

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is i ...[text shortened]... feel the need to roll dinosaur eggs onto the Ark or have 900 year old man go out on a round up.

I think it does say that, anyway as far as the RCC is concerned the genie has evolved its way out of the bottle.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Rather than going to your usual tactic of saying the Pope didn't mean what he said, I wish you and/or Ivanhoe or anybody else would cite some OFFICIAL source for the RCC's current views on evolution. Your point is absurd; a ...[text shortened]... me and see if you want to continue with this ridiculous assertion.

1. First, stop reading your own views into the Pope's writings - the Pope did not refer to [biological] evolution as monistic or pantheistic.
(a) What he did refer to were monistic and pantheistic notions about the world being in continual evolution.
(b) Monism and pantheism are metaphysical theories; a monistic/pantheistic opinion about the world would be an opinion about the nature of the world's reality. Processes outside the natural world would be exactly the kind of thing a metaphysical theory would look at.

The Pope meant exactly what he said. You're just misreading it.

2. That Spencer's particular views faced much criticism at the turn of the century did not mean his intellectual influence was waning.
(a) He was a social evolutionist and did more to popularise the term "evolution" that any other person in history - Darwin included. It was Spencer who coined the term "survival of the fittest".
(b) Along with Mill and Sidgwick, Spencer was a pioneer of liberalism and liberal utilitarianism - popular well into the 20th century.

In any case, Spencer was just an example. The influence of Social Evolutionism/Darwinism in the early part of the 20th century cannot be denied - take the American eugenics movement, or Nazi ideology, for instance. The last would still have been fresh in the mind of the war-time Pope when he penned his 1950 encyclical.

3. Humani Generis aimed to denounce several philosophies in vogue at the time - not just social/ethical evolutionism. Also explicit are the Pope's condemnations of [nihilistic] existentialism and historicism.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. First, stop reading your own views into the Pope's writings - the Pope [b]did not refer to [biological] evolution as monistic or pantheistic.
(a) What he did refer to were monistic and pantheistic notions about the world being in continual evolution.
(b) Monism and pantheism are metaphysical theories; a monistic/pantheistic opinion about th ...[text shortened]... ism. Also explicit are the Pope's condemnations of [nihilistic] existentialism and historicism.[/b]

I suggest you take a reading comprehension course; despite your posing as some sort of conservative pseudo-intellectual it obvious you can't read properly. Here's what the Pope said in 1950 in pertinent part:

and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.

UMM, the world IS and always has been in continual evolution so the Pope must have been incredibly ignorant. It unclear how that simple truth can be "monistic" and/or "pantheistic" i.e. viewing reality as a unitary whole or equating God with nature. Perhaps you could puzzle it out for us.

The Nazi movement would have been even fresher in his mind during the Holocaust but he never found time to write a papal encyclical about it. To equate belief in evolution with Nazis and eugenics is a pretty demented stretch; I would have thought both those dead horses wouldn't need to be kicked in 1950. At any rate, I think the 1950 encyclical was a vestige and has been abandoned, although Popes can't say that out loud. Be happy that somehow the RCC got at least dragged kicking and screaming into the 19th century at least; maybe some day the old fools at the Vatican can intellectually make it past the days of horse drawn carriages.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. First, stop reading your own views into the Pope's writings - the Pope [b]did not refer to [biological] evolution as monistic or pantheistic.
(a) What he did refer to were monistic and pantheistic notions about the world being in continual evolution.
(b) Monism and pantheism are metaphysical theories; a monistic/pantheistic opinion about th ...[text shortened]... ism. Also explicit are the Pope's condemnations of [nihilistic] existentialism and historicism.[/b]

If you're still going to assert the Pope wasn't referring to physical evolution in those pasages, take a gander a paragraph 36:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful[11] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Sure sounds like he wasn't endorsing the TOE and that John Paul II in 1996 was.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I suggest you take a reading comprehension course; despite your posing as some sort of conservative pseudo-intellectual it obvious you can't read properly. Here's what the Pope said in 1950 in pertinent part:

and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.

UMM, the w ...[text shortened]... he old fools at the Vatican can intellectually make it past the days of horse drawn carriages.

Read the very next paragraph in Humani Generis:

"6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences."

This should make it perfectly clear that he is not talking about biological evolution.

Let me spell it out for you:

(a) A monistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution would hold that all aspects of reality are mutable and in continual evolution.
(b) A pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution would hold that God Himself is mutable and in continual evolution.

It is these precepts that the Pope is rejecting. You're mixing up the concepts of natural/biological evolution and the more general "metaphysical" evolution.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you're still going to assert the Pope wasn't referring to physical evolution in those pasages, take a gander a paragraph 36:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in con ...[text shortened]... wasn't endorsing the TOE and that John Paul II in 1996 was.

He sure as hell wasn't condemning it either. All he's saying is that the theory of evolution should be approached as what it is - a theory.

See also: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Read the very next paragraph in Humani Generis:

"6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism ...[text shortened]... logical evolution and the more general "metaphysical" evolution.

OK, moron, since your 3rd grade reading teaching obviously didn't do her job correctly, I'll do it. Let's look at the EXACT sentence in the encyclical.

Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.

What part of "the world is in continual evolution" is unclear to you? And how is that FACT an "audacious" "monistic and pantheistic opinion"? The person who was "mixing up the concepts of natural/biological evolution and the more general "metaphysical" evolution" was the Pope as they have nothing to do with each other. And the fact that he clearly discussing PHYSICAL evolution in the encyclical blows your absurd position out of the water. Perhaps he was talking about "metaphysical evolution" in paragraph 37 when he insists that evolution must be discarded if the scientific evidence indicates that any human beings are not descendants of Adam!!🙄

Originally posted by no1marauder
OK, moron, since your 3rd grade reading teaching obviously didn't do her job correctly, I'll do it. Let's look at the EXACT sentence in the encyclical.

Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which h ...[text shortened]... ce indicates that any human beings are not descendants of Adam!!🙄

First of all, when you quote, quote correctly (especially since you claim it's the "EXACT sentence" ):

"... explains the origin of all this" should read "... explains the origin of all things".

Second, what does the term "world" in "the world is in continual evolution" mean? The biological/natural world? The physical world? The spritual world? All of the above? It is clear from the context (and my explanation of monism and pantheism as applied to an evolutionary view of the world) that it is the last.

Third, even the theory of biological evolution is a theory - not a "FACT". Understand the difference.

Fourth, "PHYSICAL" evolution is a subset of the more general metaphysical evolution. Whenever the Pope mentions "evolution", he is referring to the latter. When he wants to refer to the former, he qualifies the term with a clause like "in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body" (n.36) or "in the domain of natural sciences" (n.5).

Fifth, get your facts straight - the Pope does not mention or talk about evolution in n.37. That paragraph deals with "another conjectural opinion" - polygenism. Once again, understand the difference.

Finally, what's with the juvenile insults and typing in CAPS?

LH