did pope francis really say evolution is true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hesso12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hesso12

Guest
pope Francis said both evolution and creation are both right
independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html
but both can’t be right,becuase in evolution man is formed from lesser animals meaning death in the world, now that would contradict the fact that in the beginning everything was perfect, evolution lowers the importance on man it would contradict that eve was taken out out of Adam if she was evolving.
 
but here are the proves against evolution
  1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.2
  1. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3
  1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
  1. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic sub-duction can remove it.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.
  1. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s (name removed by moderator)ut and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium (name removed by moderator)uts must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
 
  1. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
Electrical resistance in the earth’s core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth’s magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.

The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15
  1. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16
  1. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20
  1. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24
  1. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
  1. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
 
  1. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
  1. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.
  1. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.
 
Your topic headline makes it seem like you are asking a question and looking for an answer about whether or not Pope Francis actually said something yet all your actual posts makes it seem like you have made a decision and are trying to argue against what he “may” have said.
 
pope Francis said both evolution and creation are both right
independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html
but both can’t be right,becuase in evolution man is formed from lesser animals meaning death in the world, now that would contradict the fact that in the beginning everything was perfect, evolution lowers the importance on man it would contradict that eve was taken out out of Adam if she was evolving.
This link is basically the words of Adam Withnall with a few out of context quotes.
 
It is time to discard the idea that the word “evolution” fits all living organisms including the true real fully-complete, spiritual soul and decomposing anatomy, human being. There is evolution of plants and ants and an entirely different category known as the science of human evolution.

The Catholic Church position
is that plants and ants, bacteria and bears are part of the created physical/material universe known as our earthly home. The unique human person is part of the spiritual world because we have the supreme gift of being in the image of our Creator. Therefore, we can share in our Creator’s Divine Life.

Information source. Genesis 1: 26-27; State of Sanctifying Grace, Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, page 898; and paragraphs 355–357 and 1730-1732.

Links to this universal Catechism
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
  1. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). ***Yet only a few thousand have been found. ***This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

Yet those few thousand are the proof. Did they get delivered by aliens? Even one would be proof.
  1. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.

Look up “Mungo Man” (Australia) who is believed to have lived at least 40,000 years ago. People are not making this up. It has been proven. Aboriginal art is 30,000 years old.
  1. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.

A spurious argument. Why? He just did, that’s why. It is what it is. It took that long. You might as well ask why it took so long to do anything (harness electricity or steam, invent the camera, and so on and on).
 
It is time to discard the idea that the word “evolution” fits all living organisms including the true real fully-complete, spiritual soul and decomposing anatomy, human being. There is evolution of plants and ants and an entirely different category known as the science of human evolution.

The Catholic Church position
is that plants and ants, bacteria and bears are part of the created physical/material universe known as our earthly home. The unique human person is part of the spiritual world because we have the supreme gift of being in the image of our Creator. Therefore, we can share in our Creator’s Divine Life.

Information source. Genesis 1: 26-27; State of Sanctifying Grace, Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, page 898; and paragraphs 355–357 and 1730-1732.

Links to this universal Catechism
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
AMEN, Memaw
 
no am not talking about the big bang, the bang is the prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe.
 
The official Chirch position is that you can believe in the evolution of the body if you wish, but that there was no evolution of the soul. I personally believe in evolution, and will until the time that it’s shown to be false (which could happen- theories get disproved all the time). Currently it seems to me that evolution is the most logical scientific explanation for biodiversity, but it has nothing to do with the soul or with right or wrong. It does not contradict faith, because the book of Genesis is not meant to be taken as literally as, say, the Gospels. Genesis answers the “why” of our existence, not necessarily “how” or “when.”

So basically, you can believe in evolution if you want to, but you don’t have to. It’s really up to you and what you think is most scientifically accurate. But it doesn’t pose a challenge to your faith.
 
I don’t understand what this reporter is saying.
The media didn’t seem to blow what the pope said that much out of proportion.

The pope may have not said exactly: “I support evolution”…but he did say that evolution does *not contradict *the role of a divine creator. And then he describes evolution in nature and in humans.

Evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

“He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”

He is saying that divine creator AND evolution may both be true at the same time, that one being true does not mean the other is not true.
And he is describing the evolving of human beings (ie, “evolution”)

.
Here are two sentences which may look troubling to those who miss the material “nature” context. Try not to read with the secular concept.
Evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

*“He created human beings **and let them develop *according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”
It appears that the link is referring to the internal laws or natural laws perhaps involved in Intelligent Design and Creationism. There is no question that humans have a natural physical material body with natural extremely developed brains.

Catholicism teaches that it is because of the spiritual immaterial rational soul that the natural body made of matter (material) becomes a human person. We are an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world. (paragraphs 355-373, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition)

The link in post one has a lot of text by the link’s author Adam Withnall. Still, I did not find quotes from the Pope that denied the Catholic doctrine of God immediately creating the spiritual soul (image of God, Genesis 1: 26-27) at human conception. Therefore, I do not suggest the false assumption that the human person is the same category as pandas and puppies.
 
Okay.
But nothing you describe in those lengthy posts has anything to do with the evolution of the species.

.
Unless he is the author of the work on the site he is doing a straight copy and paste from there is really no point in trying to hold a discussion.
 
The official Chirch position is that you can believe in the evolution of the body if you wish, but that there was no evolution of the soul. I personally believe in evolution, and will until the time that it’s shown to be false (which could happen- theories get disproved all the time). Currently it seems to me that evolution is the most logical scientific explanation for biodiversity, but it has nothing to do with the soul or with right or wrong. It does not contradict faith, because the book of Genesis is not meant to be taken as literally as, say, the Gospels. Genesis answers the “why” of our existence, not necessarily “how” or “when.”

So basically, you can believe in evolution if you want to, but you don’t have to. It’s really up to you and what you think is most scientifically accurate. But it doesn’t pose a challenge to your faith.
May I gently report that the evolution model in the 21st century uses the Cladistics system based on genetic relationships between species horizontally and vertically. For example, chimpanzees are considered our “cousins” on the cladogram (Cladistics).

The Catholic Church directly opposes the current evolution theory of cladograms where the human species is an *originating *population in the thousands instead of an originating population of two. In other words, lots of first (original) humans created more humans which eventually resulted in today’s human population. Shall I gently point out that this current evolution theory is not the same as the Catholic doctrine that humanity began with two sole real fully-human founders? 😃
 
May I gently report that the evolution model in the 21st century uses the Cladistics system based on genetic relationships between species horizontally and vertically. For example, chimpanzees are considered our “cousins” on the cladogram (Cladistics).

The Catholic Church directly opposes the current evolution theory of cladograms where the human species is an *originating *population in the thousands instead of an originating population of two. In other words, lots of first (original) humans created more humans which eventually resulted in today’s human population. Shall I gently point out that this current evolution theory is not the same as the Catholic doctrine that humanity began with two sole real fully-human founders? 😃
Right, those are good things to point out. What I mean is, you can believe in the theory if evolution insofar as it matches the teachings of where original sin comes from, that we come from two human parents, etc.
There are some good official church documents out there on this; I’d recommend the OP look them up. They’d probably be more helpful than I would. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top