R
Rau
Guest
The church asserts the reality (truth) of precisely two first parents shared by all of us. She does not assert that all of the rest of the story is to be taken literally.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I
Inquiry
Guest
It is true; it can’t be completely literal. There are two accounts of Adam and Eve: one where they are made together, one where Eve is made from Adam.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Disagree… It’s not pedantic… Don’t know what you’re speaking of…A) That’s pedantic
B) Agreed
C) Not sure what you mean
T
tafan2
Guest
Not proof, but it is evidence of how they got there. Observing different species over time, in a progression is evidence of evolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
Are you speaking of Gen 1 vs Gen 2? If so, they are complementary accounts. One speaks of the order of creation seemingly written from God’s perspective, the other shows the importance of man.There are two accounts of Adam and Eve: one where they are made together, one where Eve is made from Adam.
Literal is what the author intended to convey.
B
buffalo
Guest
Many many assumptions go into dating.Observing different species over time, in a progression is evidence of evolution.
R
Rau
Guest
You know this how?Literal is what the author intended to convey.
T
tafan2
Guest
Ok. Your point?
R
rossum
Guest
Many many assumptions go into interpreting scripture.Many many assumptions go into dating.
B
buffalo
Guest
Theistic evolution is the attempt to reconcile theory with Scripture. Richard Dawkins even commented on theistic evo as being nonsense.That’s great. But saying “theistic evolution” is meaningless.
Did God know what Adam would look like?
E
EndTimes
Guest
Define please?You are missing the point. Evolution is evolution.
If you’re referring to common classic Darwinism? Nope
If you’re circularly claiming that Macro-Evolution is FACT? Nope…
Evolution - also simply means ‘change’
St. JPII _ declared to the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences…
that there’s “theories, plural” of 'evolution… .
_
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
What is the reliability % ?Ok. Your point?
T
twf
Guest
I believe the world was created precisely 36 seconds ago. God created all our preceding memories. It’s all a fabrication. This is, in fact, the first “real” post ever made on the brand new internet.
I
Inquiry
Guest
There’s no internet. You are a brain in the void who came together through sheer chance in an almost impossibly unlikely series of quantum fluctuations. You never experienced anything, you just have the memories of the brain of someone who did. You are not even reading this, it is just your freshest memory. You won’t have another one because you are about to dissipate in a few nanoseconds.
Are you still here? Guess I was wrong then…
Are you still here? Guess I was wrong then…
D
Dan123
Guest
That’s absurd, it was created a week ago Thursday, just after lunch. (this arguement-tool, obviously not a real theory, has one of the best names, Last Thursdayism)
Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the Universe than we do now.
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, #1)
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, #1)
E
EndTimes
Guest
evolution is true because evolution is true? == CircularThe evidence is indisputable that evolution is true.
If you refuse to at least present Your scientific arguement to the best your ability,
then … no one has to take mere say-so …
At any rate, Adam and Eve are the Real First Parents of Man -
The age of the Earth does not connect with theories (plural) of How Man Came To Be.
_
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
Poppycock! Balderdash! Heresy even!
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I suggest that the reason nobody has discovered a need for the expression “theistic gravity” is that nobody is claiming that acceptance of Einstein’s theories on gravity is acceptance of atheism. The expression “theistic evolution” has been coined because there are loud voices claiming that acceptance of evolution theory is acceptance of atheism. It isn’t, of course.So then what is “theists gravity”? And so, what is “theistic evolution”. The only response you will get (if any) is that it is exactly the same, except God is somehow involved. It’s a useless concept
G
goout
Guest
Christianity asks for human beings to be good observers of the world around us. Christ himself points to the world around us as evidence that can be employed in the search for Truth.
If scientific observation were at odds with faith, Christ would have cast suspicion on the world around us. He did not, rather he points to the harmony of faith and reason.
This antagonism towards mainstream science is, I’m sorry, not very Christian. It’s not only out of step with common sense scientific discovery, it’s out of step with the highest levels of Magisterial thought. And we are either docile to the Church’s thought, or we are “out on a limb”. And we all know what happens to people who sit at the end of a limb too long.
If scientific observation were at odds with faith, Christ would have cast suspicion on the world around us. He did not, rather he points to the harmony of faith and reason.
This antagonism towards mainstream science is, I’m sorry, not very Christian. It’s not only out of step with common sense scientific discovery, it’s out of step with the highest levels of Magisterial thought. And we are either docile to the Church’s thought, or we are “out on a limb”. And we all know what happens to people who sit at the end of a limb too long.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.