B
buffalo
Guest
How exactly do you know that?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
We are in agreement they have not?
I
intjhatesyou
Guest
No. You misunderstand the definition of faith. The scientific theory of evolution has been proven time and time again; it requires no faith-only understanding. Religion requires faith. Absolute, without question.
T
Techno2000
Guest
What does your name mean ? 
A
Aulef
Guest
No, it has not be proven.
And the very definition of faith is to submit the intelligence to something, even if it has not been proven logically or by the senses (this includes lab tests)
And the very definition of faith is to submit the intelligence to something, even if it has not been proven logically or by the senses (this includes lab tests)
A
Aloysium
Guest
It’s been proven time and time again that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. I have a different more comprehensive way of understanding what is going on than that theory which is ultimately an “illusion” secondary to a particular limited, worldly point of view.
Last edited:
I
intjhatesyou
Guest
It most certainly has been proven. Further, it has been acknowledged and accepted by the Catholic Church.
E
edwest211
Guest
I’ve read that many times. It’s not that simple.
B
buffalo
Guest
Does reality exist?
B
buffalo
Guest
What is the cause of reality?
B
buffalo
Guest
So reality is uncaused?
J
Juvenal
Guest
With apologies, I haven’t read more than a few of the 2000 posts already included in this thread, but I’ve been engaged in these discussions for many years, with Christians, Jews, and Muslims. My favorite response, bar none, came from a conservative Rabbi, who explained to me that he distinguished between spiritual time, which by his lights accounted for some 6000 years, and the time we measure in science, which is generally acknowledged to be 4.5 billion years for our planet, and three times that for our visible universe.
G
Glark
Guest
I already accept that there exist plenty of practical uses for “the theory of evolution”. But that’s not what I asked for - I asked for an example of how the information that all life on earth evolved from a microbe is useful to science. As far as I can ascertain, Darwin’s “tree of life” hypothesis is totally worthless as far as the real world is concerned - which I find mighty strange, considering it is supposedly the greatest “discovery” in the history of science (… on the other hand, a hypothesis that is false is going to prove perfectly useless).
“That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs – ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements.”
(the late) Louis Bouroune, Professor of Biology, University of Strasbourg; Determinism and Finality; edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79.
I claimed that Scripture possibly allows for a creation that existed before the “six days” of creation - a creation that was destroyed, possibly as a result of the rebellion and fall of Lucifer and other angels.
I didn’t make any claim about the earth existing for “(ostensibly, a looong) time” before any life was created - that’s something you came up with. But even if the earth was lifeless for a very long time … so what?
Each of the days 2-6 in Genesis 1 begin with the words, “And the Lord said …”. So according to this pattern, I assume that Day 1 begins likewise, where these words appear for the first time - “And God said, 'Let there be light” - in v.3. In other words, I believe the “six days” of creation begin in verse 3. If this is so, then in which of the “six days” do we find the creation of the earth described? None of them, so the earth must have been created before v.3, ie, before the “six days” … which is just what we read - the creation of the earth is described in verse 1.
G
Glark
Guest
But the question is, to what extent can “evolution” change a species? No one questions that “evolution” (microevolution) occurs, but has the evolution of microbes to man been proved? No, not even close - and it never will be.
The evolution of microbes to man is not a fact, but a belief, so it defintiley does require faith.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
This is as absurd as saying the existence of a Ferrari doesn’t require a cause.
Perhaps what you are trying to say is, I don’t want God to exist, therefore I choose to belief in the irrational superstition that the universe created itself.
Stick your head in the sand if you must, but the Creator catches up with everyone on Judgement Day.
Perhaps what you are trying to say is, I don’t want God to exist, therefore I choose to belief in the irrational superstition that the universe created itself.
Stick your head in the sand if you must, but the Creator catches up with everyone on Judgement Day.
G
Glark
Guest
No, you don’t KNOW that. You are just guessing. How can you possibly KNOW what happens after death?
G
Glark
Guest
So are you saying I’m so dazed and confused that I’ve got it all backwards - ie, rejecting evolution and believing in a literal interpretation of Gnesis is actually a doctrine of demons?
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
No. It is not simple faith that is the doctrine of demons. It is the obstinate public insistence that you must be right and evolutionists must be wrong that delights demons. The devil rejoices in the rejection of Reason, which is one of the chief qualities of God, and part of the essence of Catholicism.
B
buffalo
Guest
We agree. We Catholics understand God to be reality itself.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
6000 years? I don’t think so. It’s an interpretation that seems to be a reading into scripture of a meaning which was not intended. As to spiritual time, since we are dealing with real persons, I would assume that a day would be a day and a year is a year for someone 6000 years ago as it is now, be it measured by a scientist, a farmer or a shepherd.
Now if we are talking about a six day creation, that’s something different. It begins before we were brought into existence. So that would be more spiritual time. What is time anyway? Perhaps it has to do with more than just chronicaling and measuring change. It could be some sort of unit that contains small and immense events temporally. A Planck unit would be the smallest, the entire trajectory of everything that will ever exist being the largest, and a day being the unit of creation. Creation would be a spiritual event and it could be logarithmic in structure. As we progress from the first to the seventh day, the amount of change contained in each day diminishes. If this is the case, each day of Genesis would have lasted as long as one day lasts now.
The picture could be something like this, where the portions of the pie represent the amount of change happening in each day, a day being a constant. That change is what science would now compare to that which occurs in one day now, the smallest slice of the pie. So it only looks as though billions of days happened from our perspective. (The proportions shown here would obviously not be accurate.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I don’t see how science could prove or disprove this. Is this of any importance? I don’t know but it is interesting to contemplate how things are.
At a quantum level it doesn’t matter when the apparatus locates an electron passing through a slit; during or after the event it will detected as a particle rather than a wave in a beam, which is how it behaves when we are not trying to find what the individual event is doing. This would indicate that time is woven into events. It also comes in bits and is not merely a flow. Whatever, this is beyond our pay grade, I’m sure.
Last edited:
- Status