Final-Fan said: Baroque_Dude said: Final-Fan said: Baroque_Dude said: highwaystar101 said: Oh good, I'm so glad that I didn't offend you. Even though I was being honest, I thought maybe I was crossing a line there. But it's all good. About the Christian "bias" if you will. I've never understood the whole evolution/big bang Christian thing anyway. Obviously there are a few problems between the two but I believe it was pope John Paul II who said something like... "Evolution and the big bang are perfectly compatible theories with Christianity, as long as long as you accept god was the creator then why couldn't evolution and the big bang just be his methods of creation?". I think that was severely paraphrased as it was from memory, but you get the point. If there is a god then why shouldn't these be his methods of creation? They obviously work, regardless of who or what started it. Just a side note, partially related to your post, although not directly related with the current topic: Being the papacy a completely antibiblical institution (not only because of its origin and reasons to exist, but also because of its doctrine nowadays and in the past), the Pope isn't the best source that Christians should listen in order to know how they have to behave Christianly. Not at all. One may embrace creationism or not, but if you call yourself a Christian (that means not only accepting Christ as your Saviour, but also accepting what He taught and He didn't change the Old Testament nor the Creation account), it's utterly stupid to believe "in" evolution. I repeat, I'm not referring to discuss if evolution is true or not, I'm pointing out that saying to be Christian and believing in evolution isn't simply compatible. If you believe in evolution, good for you, but do "Christianity" a favour and don't call yourself a Christian because you're rejecting the very base. Some people (both Christians and atheists/agnostics) understand this very well while others seem to keep smashing their heads against a wall, by saying that is compatible. Thank you, Pope, for one more of your stellar contributions to Christianity. *breathes, sighs, leaves* Well, "Catholics aren't Christian" is better than "the Pope is the AntiChrist", but ... no.   Also, I think you're putting way too much on the phrase "believing IN evolution".  Most people who might say yes to "do you believe in evolution?" really mean that they are confident in the correctness of the theory, not that they subscribe dogmatically to some mythical faith revolving around evolution.   So in short, don't jump on a minute misspeech that [edit: highwaystar101] and the Pope didn't even commit.    That's why I put "believe "in" evolution. Do you see that? We humans accept and assume things differently, sometimes. When I say that they believe in evolution I was precisely referring to what you said, although I must also say that a lot of people accept it "just because". Regards. And at what point exactly did the Pope say it's OK to "believe in evolution"?  Because otherwise that whole part of the post falls apart.

Well, I "believed in" highwaystar101, he mentioned that. Therefore, I replied. However, that statement, whether true or false, insn't the only one to regret to the Pope, but that's not the topic, here.

Good night.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

@baroque

It comes from a reading of various philosophies and religious texts combined with personal experiences with meditation and lucid dreaming.

But I hold none of my beliefs strongly since I don't really care.

Baroque_Dude said: Final-Fan said: And at what point exactly did the Pope say it's OK to "believe in evolution"?  Because otherwise that whole part of the post falls apart.   Well, I "believed in" highwaystar101, he mentioned that. Therefore, I replied. However, that statement, whether true or false, insn't the only one to regret to the Pope, but that's not the topic, here. Good night. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No, in the quoted post he said nothing of the sort about what the Pope said.  Nothing of what highwaystar101 said about what the Pope said supports what you apparently got out of it.  

He didn't say that the Pope said that the ideas in those theories were something Christians could put faith in, just that the theories did not contradict Christianity.  

Although now that I'm thinking about it, I'm interested in why ... no, no, I think it's best to avoid expanding this.   

Final-Fan said: Baroque_Dude said: Final-Fan said: And at what point exactly did the Pope say it's OK to "believe in evolution"?  Because otherwise that whole part of the post falls apart.   Well, I "believed in" highwaystar101, he mentioned that. Therefore, I replied. However, that statement, whether true or false, insn't the only one to regret to the Pope, but that's not the topic, here. Good night. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz No, in the quoted post he said nothing of the sort about what the Pope said.  Nothing of what highwaystar101 said about what the Pope said supports what you apparently got out of it.   About the Christian "bias" if you will. I've never understood the whole evolution/big bang Christian thing anyway. Obviously there are a few problems between the two but I believe it was pope John Paul II who said something like... "Evolution and the big bang are perfectly compatible theories with Christianity, as long as long as you accept god was the creator then why couldn't evolution and the big bang just be his methods of creation?". I think that was severely paraphrased as it was from memory, but you get the point. If there is a god then why shouldn't these be his methods of creation? They obviously work, regardless of who or what started it. He didn't say that the Pope said that the ideas in those theories were something Christians could put faith in, just that the theories did not contradict Christianity.   Although now that I'm thinking about it, I'm interested in why ... no, no, I think it's best to avoid expanding this.

Kind of messed, don't you think?

- highwaystar101 indeed quoted the Pope.

- The Pope said that both elements in discussion, here, are compatible.

- I criticized what the Pope said.

That's it.

I don't think that you and me should actually argue on that, mate. Maybe you didn't understand or I explained something not the best way at some point.

I must leave, now.

Good night.

Baroque_Dude said: Final-Fan said: Baroque_Dude said: Final-Fan said: And at what point exactly did the Pope say it's OK to "believe in evolution"?  Because otherwise that whole part of the post falls apart.   Well, I "believed in" highwaystar101, he mentioned that. Therefore, I replied. However, that statement, whether true or false, insn't the only one to regret to the Pope, but that's not the topic, here. Good night. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz No, in the quoted post he said nothing of the sort about what the Pope said.  Nothing of what highwaystar101 said about what the Pope said supports what you apparently got out of it.   About the Christian "bias" if you will. I've never understood the whole evolution/big bang Christian thing anyway. Obviously there are a few problems between the two but I believe it was pope John Paul II who said something like... "Evolution and the big bang are perfectly compatible theories with Christianity, as long as long as you accept god was the creator then why couldn't evolution and the big bang just be his methods of creation?". I think that was severely paraphrased as it was from memory, but you get the point. If there is a god then why shouldn't these be his methods of creation? They obviously work, regardless of who or what started it. He didn't say that the Pope said that the ideas in those theories were something Christians could put faith in, just that the theories did not contradict Christianity.   Although now that I'm thinking about it, I'm interested in why ... no, no, I think it's best to avoid expanding this.    Kind of messed, don't you think? - highwaystar101 indeed quoted the Pope. - The Pope said that both elements in discussion, here, are compatible. - I criticized what the Pope said. That's it. I don't think that you and me should actually argue on that, mate. Maybe you didn't understand or I explained something not the best way at some point. I must leave, now. Good night.

Here's something you can read in the morning, then:  

Now, although a close reading reveals that you don't explicitly combine "believing IN evolution (and claiming to be Christian) is stupid" and "the Pope's quote is stupid", your post seems constructed to give that impression.  If giving that impression is both unintentional AND contrary to what you meant to say, well, whatever.  

[edit:  Plus you're contradicting yourself now.  When I asked where the Pope said it's OK to "believe in evolution", you said, "Well, I "believed in" highwaystar101, he mentioned that."  But now you are backing up and claiming you never meant to argue that, only that the Pope is wrong about evolution theory being "compatible" with Christianity, and nothing more.  If that was true you would not have said that -- it makes no sense.  

[Also, you're wrong when you say that HWS101 "quoted" the Pope; he explicitly said it was a paraphrase at best.]

@Baroque_dude: Christian means a member of christian church, so anyone who is a member, is christian. No matter whether the person believes in gods or doesn't.

Christianity is polyteistic and requires supporting the trinity of father, son and holy spirit. For example monoteistic Jehovas Witnesses aren't christian, although JW otherwise would fit christianity.

Baroque_Dude said: Rath said: @Baroque. I think it is supremely arrogant to believe that your interpretation of Christianity is the only one that is really Christian. I'm feel kind of bad that a serious user like you has misjudged me. I'm not arrogant, at all, just for expressing my opinion. Don't you express yours? Does that make you arrogant? Did I say that you're arrogant because you're fighting here who believes in intelligent design (in other words, you're explaining that your opinion is better and why)? I don't agree with your opinion, but I didn't call you arrogant for this. What you said is like: "you're arrogant because you think that your opinion is the best". ...

If I said that my particular beliefs were the only true version of atheism I would indeed be being arrogant. However I am quite understandingof the fact that atheist is indeed a very broad term that covers a lot of different people and quite a range of beliefs.

 

I have no problem with your version of Christianity, it's your claiming that other peoples view of Christianity 'isn't really Christianity' that annoys me.

highwaystar101 said: Slimebeast said: highwaystar101 said: Slimebeast said: About wings. Why arent there any species on their way to develop wings, but thousands of species with regressed wings (which have some use, but cant be flied with any more) (some bugs and other insects, bats, penguins, ostriches, kiwi etc) I need a good explanation for that, because statistically it doesn't make any sense. Manusjustus and bdbdbdbd have already answered this so I wont because I want to bring up a different point. Surely the fact that you have acknowledged that thousands of species have regressed wings proves you actually accept evolution. Remember organ evolution doesn't just have to be progressive, it can be regressive too.   I'm going to be honest and I really hope that it doesn't offend you. I think you are obviously one of, if not the most intelligent and logical member on the site (and I don't mind admitting that). That aside, I get the feeling with you that you do in fact accept evolution in the back of your mind, but you repress it somehow. When you speak about evolution it's not the same type of denial that many members show, you don't argue in the same way. When I read your arguments I always have a feeling that you are arguing against it but you accept subconsciously, even if you don't consciously.   I hope I didn't offend you, sorry if I was a bit brutally honest there. Thanks for the compliments. That's a great analysis. There's a lot of truth to it. I admit that as a Christian it lies in my interest that evolution is false, while there's lots of evidence pointing towards evolution. I guess this is why ID was 'invented' basically. But it's also for technical reasons in evo discussions much easier to argue from a 'let's assume this for a second, however...' methodology, like in the regression of wings example. (btw just a note, many creationist sort of accept organ and trait regression - I dont remember the term for it, but as long as there's no evidence for 'de-novo evolution' it's okay, and from a relgious point of view regression is part of the defect state of the world - you could say sort of a Satanic devolution, or something, which also explains why people early in Biblical history lived 800 years while now diseases and defects kill us early)     Oh good, I'm so glad that I didn't offend you. Even though I was being honest, I thought maybe I was crossing a line there. But it's all good. About the Christian "bias" if you will. I've never understood the whole evolution/big bang Christian thing anyway. Obviously there are a few problems between the two but I believe it was pope John Paul II who said something like... "Evolution and the big bang are perfectly compatible theories with Christianity, as long as long as you accept god was the creator then why couldn't evolution and the big bang just be his methods of creation?". I think that was severely paraphrased as it was from memory, but you get the point. If there is a god then why shouldn't these be his methods of creation? They obviously work, regardless of who or what started it.

I agree mostly with Baroque Dude, see what he said about the Pope and Catholicism.

The Bible isn't always to be taken literally of course, there's many errors cause it's written by humans and it's only a text, but stuff can't contradict too much to reality and hard evidence or else you must doubt if God guided the process of the Bible coming into creation.

I do not accept an evolution process from slime into humans without drastic divine intervention. The Dawn of Man part is important too, cause it's disturbing if we came from gorillas, while the Bible speaks in detail about Adam and the fall of man and all that.

 

bdbdbd said: @Baroque_dude: Christian means a member of christian church, so anyone who is a member, is christian. No matter whether the person believes in gods or doesn't. Christianity is polyteistic and requires supporting the trinity of father, son and holy spirit. For example monoteistic Jehovas Witnesses aren't christian, although JW otherwise would fit christianity.

Where have you got these crazy ideas?

I completely disagree. In first hand the term 'Christian' ascribes someones faith or belief. Only later it has become a label for people who were just born in a Christian culture or society, and for those reasons are part of a institutionalized church and stuff.

And Christianity is not polyteistic. There's only one God, no matter if you believe in the Trinity or not.

@Slimebeast: We didn't come from gorillas. We and gorillas share a common ancestor.
That's basically pretty common misunderstanding of the consept. At the time when humans started to become its own breed, the other apes weren't what they are today either.

Closest genetical relative to us is bonobono with chimpanzee as number two. Gorilla is much more distant.