Third Eye Open
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,400
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Church apologises to Charles Darwin over theory of evolution
- Thread starter Third Eye Open
- Start date
-
- Tags
- catholic church evolution
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
I hear the Catholic Church has a really good track record on dealing with pedophiles
Yeah, it's about damned time they admit they were wrong.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Depends where you look. In my country, I estimate about 8 catholics listen to the Pope. We call those people bishops.
PS. The article is about the Church of England, not the RCC.
Third Eye Open
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,400
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
Last edited:
RCC means Roman Catholic Church or more commonly referred to as the Catholic Church. This is the organization that the Pope presides over. The Church of England is related to the Anglican Church. It is a Catholic church but it is not the Catholic Church. Catholic is used to describe the entire Christian body when used by Protestants. It is used by Roman Catholics to refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Wikipedia is your friend.
Third Eye Open
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,400
Thank you Van Dutch.
Lion King, your thread is more appropriately placed than mine, even with typo.
...why did I post this in the science section? Probably because it is the only section I read, and anything that interests me must belong here!
Lion King, your thread is more appropriately placed than mine, even with typo.
...why did I post this in the science section? Probably because it is the only section I read, and anything that interests me must belong here!
Babylon Sister
Muse
- Joined
- May 21, 2003
- Messages
- 659
I like to think of the Anglican Church as the RRC without the guilt.
On the one hand, if Darwin was right then he's dead and gone and can't hear any apology, so there's no point in this. On the other hand, if he can hear the apology it means the church was right all along and so they don't need to apologise.
Lothian
should be banned
I think it is because some of them seem to think the bible is the word of god and we can be traced back to a rib.
On the one hand, if Darwin was right then he's dead and gone and can't hear any apology, so there's no point in this. On the other hand, if he can hear the apology it means the church was right all along and so they don't need to apologise.
Not right, at all. The apologise is not to much for Darwin himself (because he is dead) but ratter to the scientifically community in general, and a recognition from the part of the institution that they have been wrong all along and that they are willing to change (and change the peoples opinion specifically on the ID subject, that is seen by every major religious group as ridicule and disrespectful for religion).
That does not state that their religion is wrong, nor that the theory of evolution (or any other science for that matter) is incompatible whit God or after life.
H3LL
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,963
I fail to understand why anyone would listen to professional weasels and liars but they do.
The words of the Irrelevant Dr Malcolm Brown are meaningless and as likely to change as the wind when he gives up lying for a living and is replaced by someone with a different opinion.
When a whole organisation bases it's con on fantasy and interpreting fantasy, with zero evidence. There is no stability of facts and is as reliable as a snowflake in a hurricane.
His statement will probably be reversed - In the current climate probably sooner rather than later.
More fluff and of no import whatsoever.
Move along - Nothing to see here.
.
The words of the Irrelevant Dr Malcolm Brown are meaningless and as likely to change as the wind when he gives up lying for a living and is replaced by someone with a different opinion.
When a whole organisation bases it's con on fantasy and interpreting fantasy, with zero evidence. There is no stability of facts and is as reliable as a snowflake in a hurricane.
His statement will probably be reversed - In the current climate probably sooner rather than later.
More fluff and of no import whatsoever.
Move along - Nothing to see here.
.
Last edited:
Yes true. But it is also true the bible doesn’t state that is the word of God, or has any God intervention (“Except on strict cases where such is clearly stated”), which leads us to conclude that the statement “The Bible is the word of God” is not true by the bible description, and that such statement must be in fact a latter fabrication by priest (or any member of christian hierarchy) and therefore no merit for validation.
Why would you feel guilty about doing a Rotate Right through Carry?