Changes

783 bytes added ,  15:37, November 29, 2007
→‎Reply to All: reply to DaleHill
Line 347: Line 347:     
Mr. Schlafly I assume you are referring to the citing of 2 Peter 2:4 above. Does Pope John Paul II's [http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences] on October 22, 1996 carry no weight? There he mentions his predecessor Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis (1950) ''had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation..'' Later he continues ''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. [...] The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line.'' Nowhere is the evolutionary time line explicitly rejected by his Holyness.  The above may well be a non-existant quote of endorsement by a Pope. [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 06:26, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 
Mr. Schlafly I assume you are referring to the citing of 2 Peter 2:4 above. Does Pope John Paul II's [http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences] on October 22, 1996 carry no weight? There he mentions his predecessor Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis (1950) ''had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation..'' Later he continues ''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. [...] The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line.'' Nowhere is the evolutionary time line explicitly rejected by his Holyness.  The above may well be a non-existant quote of endorsement by a Pope. [[User:DaleHill|DaleHill]] 06:26, 29 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
: DaleHill, your quote omits the rest of the sentence:  "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'''"  Those "indisputable points" are utterly incompatible with the modern [[theory of evolution]] as it is promoted, believed and taught today.  This is why the [[theory of evolution]] and an [[Old Earth]] erodes one's [[faith]]: it gets people to believe in things from which disbelief in [[Christianity]] logically follows.  Promoters of these [[atheistic]] concepts will say the equivalent of "no, I didn't say '2+3=6', I said '2+2=5'!!!"  The former plainly follows from the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 29 November 2007 (EST)
    
== Primeq's edits ==
 
== Primeq's edits ==
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,530

edits