<p>
</p>
<p>This may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant to this argument.</p>
<p>You are simply labeling me, defining that label as bad, and saying that that invalidates my argument.</p>
<p>^^ Some variation of that statement has been said by pretty much everyone here except mifune, adenine, and a couple other atheists.</p>
<p>EDIT: Ninjad you back Circular!</p>
<p>^^^Your uncle is not in line with the Catholic Church then, even though that’s funny. And crazy. </p>
<p>Evolution is compatible with Catholic theology. Fundamentalist groups, not so much.</p>
<p>@eastafrobeauty, </p>
<p>No worries :). I just didn’t want mifune to have a field day.</p>
<p>^ I know he is not in line with their beliefs. That’s why I specified that he is crazy lol. </p>
<p>We no longer speak. It’s sad in many ways.</p>
<p>That is sad. I just wanted to make sure nobody thought Catholics believed that stuff.</p>
<p>^ No worries. Only extremists do. </p>
<p>Most sensible people on all sides of this issue know that.</p>
<p>
Science > Religion.</p>
<p>Happy?</p>
<p>^You still have a second line.</p>
<p>^^no acutally I’m not. Why don’t you contribute reasonably to the conversation, or leave?</p>
<p>^ mifune is an interesting character. I’m Muslim and I don’t think we accept the ideas of evolution. It’s not something we discuss in great detail or emphasize importance on…but according to that book it says we’re not supposed to :/</p>
<p>If you’re talking about Christianity, no one argues that it contradicts with science. Science can’t be wrong, but if you’re talking about Islam, then that’s a different story, because I still haven’t found anything in the Qur’an that would affect science and progress negatively, in fact, it supports it, and creates the perfect environment for science development.</p>
<p>You see, what happened to Christianity, is that the Church wanted power and wealth, and they messed up the religion that Jesus had.</p>
<p>^That is factually incorrect. Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church through the Apostles legitimately. Then, roughly around 476 AD, the Roman Empire and practically all secular authority fell in Europe to barbarian invasions from the north. The Church was the only organization left with any semblance of both power and hierarchy, and so naturally people turned to the Church for guidance. This led to the problem of Caesaropapism, which was a legitimate issue. There were indeed corrupt individuals within the Church’s hierarchy, however they were often placed there by secular entities. Many saints, however, such as Thomas More, led the call for reform and to make a long story short there were numerous reforms that led to the improved condition of the Church today. Note, however, that the Church is an organization made up of humans, and therefore is not free from error in that regard. The popes and the bishops, however, are infallible in teaching faith and morals. At no time did anyone in the Church “mess up the religion Jesus had” (whatever that means), instead there were people who did not follow the Church and instead followed themselves. </p>
<p>Please refrain from making statements that may splinter the topic of this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you claiming “no one argues that Christianity does contradict science” or “no one argues that Christianity does not contradict science”?</p>
<p>Because either way you’re very wrong, as a glance through this thread should show.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>[Geocentric</a> model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model]Geocentric”>Geocentric model - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>[Caloric</a> theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory]Caloric”>Caloric theory - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>[Plum</a> pudding model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum-pudding_model]Plum”>Plum pudding model - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>[Recapitulation</a> theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory]Recapitulation”>Recapitulation theory - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>[Spontaneous</a> generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation]Spontaneous”>Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>[Newton’s</a> law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_gravity]Newton’s”>Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>[Phrenology</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology]Phrenology”>Phrenology - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>On the contrary, science is pretty much always wrong. It’s just that sometimes it is slightly less wrong than others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true in many cases.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is also true. But some of those people claimed to still be the Church.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t agree with this. If it were true, why would one pope have to overturn the statement of a previous one?</p>
<p>It only applies when the Pope and all the bishops and cardinals are speaking ex cathedra on issues of faith and morals, meaning doctrine. It really means stuff like don’t kill, abortion, birth control, etc. etc. It does not include things such as liturgical decisions, private opinions, management decisions, etc. </p>
<p>I’m assuming you get the idea now. It is infallibility, not impeccability. Different concepts. Certainly none of the popes are perfect, and none have ever claimed to be. They just tend to be largely holy men who have spent their lives studying Theology, are very very smart (Benedict, for example, is a genius, the guy’s intelligence is through the roof), and live virtuous and moral lives. Some are not, as the link below explains. Thus, if one were to state a personal statement that was wrong, he would not be speaking on the right matters in the right way. So another “overturning” (bad word) his statement by no means invalidates infallibility. </p>
<p>In other words, they have not formally rewritten the Catechism, except to make it clearer or expand upon something or something like that. It would take much more than a mere statement to invalidate infallibility, it take a formal revision of Catholic doctrine. Here’s a link for more information and a better argument than mine: </p>
<p>[Papal</a> Infallibility](<a href=“http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp]Papal”>http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp)</p>
<p>Hope that clears it up.</p>
<p>@mifune: Sorry I somehow missed this the last time I logged in:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep. It was a pretty awesome lecture, though of course I didn’t feel like I understood all the details.</p>
<p>Well, I guess I should follow the format of the discussion and reply to what you wrote in response to my post too…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or you can call religion “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” Even though it does not base itself upon empirical methods of understanding the universe, I do not think religion, by definition, necessarily forbids the investigation of natural phenomena in objective ways as implied by your post (though it also depends on the specific religion in question). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A belief in religion does not wholly preclude the pursuit of scientific methods; rather, certain religions, including Buddhism and especially a system of beliefs called the Baha’i Faith, were founded on the basis of harmony between religion and science. Certain East Asian religions also encourage accurate and impartial examination of nature, emphasizing causality and empiricism. Grouping all religions under one umbrella in order to abolish all supernatural beliefs is a precarious endeavor that you’re undertaking :).</p>
<p>Also, isn’t our scientific knowledge also limited to the “perception of a particular culture at a particular time”? The human understanding of the natural world is subject to current availability of relevant discoveries, and it may (and will most likely) change with time while shaping the mainstream culture.</p>
<p>
Now I didn’t ask you if you were happy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cultures have invented supernatural allies to gratify hypotheticals and account for ignorance of the natural world. It’s an easy argument to parody. But the terms “cloud-fairy” and “sky-fairy” aren’t inventions of my own. They are generalized terms for mythical elements featured in religious texts. More specifically, “cloud-fairy” references any god, animism, or supernatural invention for which there is absolutely no valid evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You say there isn’t any “real scientific evidence to support it” because you simply aren’t aware of it, not because it doesn’t exist. If you were more enlightened on the matter, you wouldn’t state that (unless you refuse to believe the available evidence). The most famous, of course, pertaining to this topic is the Miller-Urey experiment, which demonstrated the assemblage of amino acids and organic compounds by sending an electrical discharge through a medium that best emulated the conditions of the primitive Earth. </p>
<p>[ScienceDirect</a> - Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics : Synthesis of purines under possible primitive earth conditions. I. Adenine from hydrogen cyanide*1](<a href=“http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WB5-4DXBHXT-RF&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1961&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=67ab422d6ebf6fd383f5b6a1a5d55844&searchtype=a]ScienceDirect”>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WB5-4DXBHXT-RF&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1961&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=67ab422d6ebf6fd383f5b6a1a5d55844&searchtype=a)</p>
<p>[SpringerLink</a> - Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, Volume 9, Number 2](<a href=“http://www.springerlink.com/content/tvx0013g77u51v37/]SpringerLink”>http://www.springerlink.com/content/tvx0013g77u51v37/)</p>
<p>[Early</a> Earth atmosphere favourable to life: study | News, Media, and Events | University of Waterloo](<a href=“http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348]Early”>http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348)</p>
<p>Here are some university lecture notes that do a very fine job of explaining primitive organic synthesis: [The</a> Origin of Life](<a href=“http://www.science.siu.edu/microbiology/micr425/425Notes/14-OriginLife.html]The”>http://www.science.siu.edu/microbiology/micr425/425Notes/14-OriginLife.html)</p>
<p>[Evolution</a> of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code ? Mol Biol Evol](<a href=“Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic”>Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic)</p>
<p>[‘Lost</a>’ Miller-Urey Experiment Created More Of Life’s Building Blocks](<a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081016141411.htm]'Lost”>'Lost' Miller-Urey Experiment Created More Of Life's Building Blocks | ScienceDaily)</p>
<p>Is everyone aware of Stephen Hawking’s latest remarks on this topic?</p>
<p>[Guest</a> Voices: Stephen Hawking says there’s no creator God; the twitterverse reacts - On Faith at washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/09/stephen_hawking_says_theres_no_creator_god_the_twitterverse_reacts.html]Guest”>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/09/stephen_hawking_says_theres_no_creator_god_the_twitterverse_reacts.html)</p>
<p>I will say that the immediate Christian outburst to this was remarkably pathetic (i.e. ridiculing his disability because of his honest assertions) and hugely ignorant, which is well-highlighted within the article.</p>