---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :

 Salyavin, 

 You seem to think that your reasoning is the only right way. 
 

 The "right way" of reasoning is the way that explains things the most 
adequately and (I think) doesn't rely on magical beings, this is because they 
don't explain where knowledge and complexity come from whereas evolution does. 
Any opinion is valid but they stand and fall on the quality of their evidence.
 

 Read what I say below, does it not make sense? Is the idea that god creating 
the potential knowledge and complexity we see the same thing as creationism or 
not? I think it is because it means the astounding complexity of life appeared 
magically with no explanation. 
 

 The popes problem is that he wants it both ways, he wants his version of 
creationism to fit in with the scientific way of looking at things, and it 
doesn't fit because they contradict each other. Now, a scientist would abandon 
his theory if he found it didn't fit the evidence as they can't both be right. 
 

 Popey chooses to continue ducking and diving because he has so much else 
invested in there being an all powerful god - his job for instance - and the 
probable sanity of his massive flock if he was to stand up and say "Sorry 
everyone, we screwed up two thousand years ago and have found ourselves a bit 
out of date, see Richard Dawkins for your comforting illusions about the next 
life" You see what the problem is, once you've got a belief that defines what 
you are, you have to keep that central tenet or it all becomes pointless. 
 

   We can ask you the same thing.  What made you think you are correct and the 
pope is wrong?
 

 Unlike me, the pope is apparently infallible, you'd be better off asking him 
too prove he is right.
 

 

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :

 

He sounds like a terminal dimwit to me, if he accepts that we could have 
evolved this complexity without god's help then why does he think we need god 
at all? 

 Listen to this:
 

 The pope explained that God "created beings and let them develop in accordance 
with the internal laws that He has given to each one, so that they could arrive 
at their fulfillment,"
 

 How can you create beings and THEN let them develop? There's only one law that 
governs all evolution and that is the principle of random genetic mutations 
creating genes that get spread through the population, or not. 
 

 There is no fulfillment plan in nature. The guy gives a talk to an alleged 
pontifical scientific academy and they don't seem to know the first thing about 
any of it.  Either the complexity we see in life was arrived at without help or 
god decided what everything was going to be like. You can't have your cake and 
eat it.
 

 Claiming that god gave a plan to each being for them to fulfill means that god 
must understand the workings of beings and must have planned for every creature 
that exists. This means that god holds all knowledge and the evidence we have 
of the evolution of complexity and intelligence effectively didn't happen over 
millions of years but were decided in advance by a supernatural being. 
 

 The pope is therefore a creationist. We always suspected this given his job 
title, but it must be such an intellectual embarrassment for him I'm not 
surprised he tries to hide behind some sort of scientific facade with his 
academy. I don;t suppose the followers will object though, as long as they can 
carry on thinking there's a role for their creator that seems to fit in with 
science they'll be happy. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :

 He believes science and religion can coexist.
 

 http://www.cnet.com/news/pope-says-evolution-doesnt-mean-theres-no-god/ 
http://www.cnet.com/news/pope-says-evolution-doesnt-mean-theres-no-god/




 
  






Reply via email to