Creation or Evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Could it be argued that Fr Gregor Mendel OSA also contributed very much to our understanding of science, with his insights into heredity?

Absolutely. Mendel was quite interested in theories of evolution. And his theory rescued Darwin’s theory, because it eliminated an important objection against Darwinian theory:

“If heredity is like mixing blood, then how could a new feature survive? I would be like a drop of white paint in a barrel of red, never to be seen again.”

Mendel showed that heredity was particulate, not humoral, and the objection was shown to be invalid.

His patient experimental work and insights led to the science of genetics and many advances in modern science such as the genome projects.

Would it be true to say that he disagreed with Darwin and in the 1940s a synthesis of the work of both Darwin and Mendel developed.

Yes. And Mendel ranks with Darwin as one of the greatest scientists in history.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Pope has said that he accepts the evolution of man’s physical body; he does not accept the evolution of man’s soul.<

Here lays the evidence that human being ADAM did not evolute, for mankind had not been human, before it (he) had a soul

Here, you are equating “human” with “descendant of Adam.” And it might be true. Adam might have been the first species of Homo. Or maybe not. God doesn’t say. Of course no individual evolves; only populations evolve.

So Adam never evolved, regardless of which species he happened to be.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

mightbe this paper from our elder brothers in God helps a bit:

thehope.org/olamadam.htm

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
There is abundant evidence for speciation

If there’s evidence,show it.

Sure. Some rare cases happen so rapidly that we can see it in a human life time, like the evolution of O. gigas from O. lamarckania.

Gradual speciation is harder to document, because it’s difficult to show precisely when the change took place in a very gradual process. The apple maggot fly didn’t exist when Europeans came to America, because there were no apples here. There was the hawthorn maggot fly, however, that lived on hawthorns, a relative of apples. Not long after apple trees became established, some of the hawthorn flies were able to live on apple fruit. It was not an easy thing, because apples develop at a different time, and the reproductive cycle of hawthorne flies does not match the availability of apples.

Over time,some of them evolved a different reproductive timing to take advantage of apples. Now, because of the timing, they rarely interbreed in nature; hybridization is successful only about 5% of the time… They are an incipient species.

And then there are ring species:

A classic example of ring species is the Larus gulls circumpolar species “ring”. The range of these gulls forms a ring around the North Pole. lineages meet.
Wikipedia.

If several populations were to go extinct in the intermediate locations, then gene flow would end between the Herring gulls and the lesser Black-backed gulls, and they would become two individual species.

Barbarian observes:
No. Natural sciences are based on the assumption of Uniformitarianism, which says that the rules by which this universe works, have always been the same.

The natural sciences are based on naturalism – the belief that all natural phenomena can be accounted for by scientific laws.

That is called “uniformitarianism.” Naturalism is the idea that nature is all there is. Science does not make such a claim.

the laws of nature thousands of years ago can’t be tested.

We can, for example, see what happened during ancient volcanic eruptions, by the remains of lava flows and ash falls, and we can see that the laws of science worked the same way billions of years ago. We can observe the physics at work in ancient supernovae explosions the light from which is only now arriving here. And every time it’s checked, we get confirmation.

But if the laws of nature have always been the same,then scientists should not believe in macro-evolution,because speciation has never been observed to go beyond the level of species.

Turns out that the evolution of higher taxa is no different than speciation. As you learned, even many creationists admit that new genera and families evolve. And there’s no barrier to higher speciation.

And of course there’s the genetic data, which our Pope has cited as demonstrating common descent of all living things:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

Barbarian observes:
But you may also take it as Catholic Doctors of the Church like St. Augustine took it, as being allegorical.

Augustine didn’t take it as being allegorical.

You’ve been misled about that, too…

"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).
(The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

And the Church teaches:

**Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. …

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator” (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). **
catholic.com/library/creation_and_genesis.asp

It doesn’t matter that scientists don’t make that claim. They do claim that the human body is a product of evolution.

Barbarian observes:
So does Pope Benedict XVI. That’s consistent with Catholic doctrine.

No,he doesn’t.

Well, let’s take a look…

Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, Report of the International Theological Commission.

It doesn’t seem that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that paragraph.
It isn’t found here.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

Yes, it is. Chapter 3, section 63

Barbarian observes:
Since the Church teaches that God does not have a physical body,

(Statement verifying this)
**
< 9. Two themes converge to shape the biblical perspective. In the first place, the whole of man is seen as created in the image of God. This perspective excludes interpretations which locate the imago Dei in one or another aspect of human nature (for example, his upright stature or his intellect) or in one of his qualities or functions (for example, his sexual nature or his domination of the earth). Avoiding both monism and dualism, the Bible presents a vision of the human being in which the spiritual is understood to be a dimension together with the physical, social and historical dimensions of man.

1. The central dogmas of the Christian faith imply that the body is an intrinsic part of the human person and thus participates in his being created in the image of God. The Christian doctrine of creation utterly excludes a metaphysical or cosmic dualism since it teaches that everything in the universe, spiritual and material, was created by God and thus stems from the perfect Good. Within the framework of the doctrine of the incarnation, the body also appears as an intrinsic part of the person. The Gospel of John affirms that “the Word became flesh (sarx),” in order to stress, against Docetism, that Jesus had a real physical body and not a phantom-body. Furthermore, Jesus redeems us through every act he performs in his body. His Body which is given up for us and His Blood which is poured out for us mean the gift of his Person for our salvation. Christ’s work of redemption is carried on in the Church, his mystical body, and is made visible and tangible through the sacraments. The effects of the sacraments, though in themselves primarily spiritual, are accomplished by means of perceptible material signs, which can only be received in and through the body. This shows that not only man’s mind but also his body is redeemed. The body becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit. Finally, that the body belongs essentially to the human person is inherent to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body at the end of time, which implies that man exists in eternity as a complete physical and spiritual person. >**

Of course, if you use the incarnation as an example of God having a body, you simply reinforce the obvious fact that God has no body. Jesus has a body only by virtue of becoming wholly man. As He says, God is a spirit. And He said that spirits have no body.

**It must, however, be noticed that in the Bible locutions of this kind ascribe human characteristics to God only in a vague, indefinite way. He is never positively declared to have a body or a nature the same as man’s; and human defects and vices are never even figuratively attributed to Him. The metaphorical, symbolical character of this language is usually obvious. …The limitations of our conceptual capacity oblige us to represent God to ourselves in ideas that have been originally drawn from our knowledge of self and the objective world. The Scriptures themselves amply warn us against the mistake of interpreting their figurative language in too literal a sense. They teach that God is spiritual, omniscient, invisible, omnipresent, ineffable. Insistence upon the literal interpretation of the metaphorical led to the error of the Anthropomorphites. **
Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[Brian_Millar]

Well, so far we are onto 33 pages of posts on this thread, so far I’ve seen a great deal of new information presented in favor of creation over evolution. I have yet to see a shred of new factual, rock solid evidence from the evolutionists side of this issue, at best the only argument stated from that side of this is within the literal or figurative nature of scripture.

I gotta ask all that are participating on this one, has there been a single person that originally believed in creation, now believes in evolution, and vice versa? I don’t think it has happened in one single case, correct me if I’m wrong here.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Odd that I can’t find any evidence at all for creationism. (remember evidence for creation is evidence against creationism)

But there is voluminous material showing creation of new taxa by evolution.

Perhaps it might be good for you to post the best evidence you think was presented on this thread for creationism.

I don’t see anything like that.

 

[anthony022071]

Sure. Some rare cases happen so rapidly that we can see it in a human life time, like the evolution of O. gigas from O. lamarckania.

That is not evidence for macro-evolution. That is an example of polyploidism.

Gradual speciation is harder to document, because it’s difficult to show precisely when the change took place in a very gradual process. The apple maggot fly didn’t exist when Europeans came to America, because there were no apples here.

There was the hawthorn maggot fly, however, that lived on hawthorns, a relative of apples. Not long after apple trees became established, some of the hawthorn flies were able to live on apple fruit. It was not an easy thing, because apples develop at a different time, and the reproductive cycle of hawthorne flies does not match the availability of apples.

Tell me what this has to do with macro-evolution. A species that adapts to a new source of food does not make for macro-evolution.
Whether they are called apple or hawthorn maggot flies,they are still flies.

Over time,some of them evolved a different reproductive timing to take advantage of apples. Now, because of the timing, they rarely interbreed in nature; hybridization is successful only about 5% of the time… They are an incipient species.

So there is only partial and temporal reproductive isolation reason,not total genetic isolation. The apple maggot flies will always continue to be flies.

It is a case of speciation within a species,not speciation above the species level.

That is called “uniformitarianism.”
Naturalism is the idea that nature is all there is. Science does not make such a claim.

No,naturalism is the belief that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena on nature.

Some scientists do claim that nature is all there is. That belief is called scientific pantheism. Einstein advocated a comsic religiosity.

Turns out that the evolution of higher taxa is no different than speciation. As you learned, even many creationists admit that new genera and families evolve.

Creationists generally don’t believe in macro-evolution.

And there’s no barrier to higher speciation.

There is. The barrier occurs at the moment of reproduction.

You’ve been misled about that, too…

"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).
(The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

He is not saying that Genesis is allegory. The use of symbolic language by itself does not amount to an allegory. An allegory uses only symbolic characters and actions to represent ideas or a moral. But the Church believes that Genesis records real events and real persons. The creation of the world and its life forms by God are real events,and the creation of a man and a woman by God is a real event.

Augustine did not know what the days of creation represented.

< “What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!” (The City of God 11:6) >

He did,however,believe in a young Earth.

< “Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been… They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.” (Augustine, “Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past,” The City of God 12(10) AD 419). >

And the Church teaches:

**Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. …

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37).
catholic.com/library/creation_and_genesis.asp**

What is your point? I never said I believed that the world was created in six 24 hour days. The events recorded in Genesis are actual events,whether or not they are expressed symbolically. Real events are not limited to literalism.

 

[edwest2]

The “point” of all this is simple:

There is an artificial power struggle going on. Science is to be separate from religion. God knows (no pun intended) why a monk like Gregor Mendel did biology. Why would a monk do that?

If you are familiar with the writing of Stephen Jay Gould, the answer is there. He proposed the idea that religion and science are non-overlapping. In contrast, Pope Benedict tells us the two are complementary. But that does not satisfy the evolutionists whose greatest fear is that God will return to the public school. This will have catastrophic but purposely undefined consequences for the entire country. Hogwash.

As a Catholic, science must be looked at from the standpoint of evidence, but as Pope Benedict pointed out, we cannot send all previous generations to the laboratory.

I hope I’ve made it clear that science has provided some information but God has provided the rest. No Catholic should ever be confused about that.

And for the fearful, I just want to make it clear I’m not interested in forcing anyone to believe what I believe.

God bless,
Ed

 

[anthony022071]

Well, let’s take a look…

Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, Report of the International Theological Commission.

Notice how the paragraph begins with the words “According to the widely accepted scientific account,…”,and the rest of the paragraph summarizes the scientific account. That is not an endorsement for the theory of evolution. The Commission was only stating what scientists believe,not what they themselves believe.

The following paragraph says:

< 64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. >

Now tell me what theories of evolution are not materialist and neo-Darwinian.

Barbarian observes:
Since the Church teaches that God does not have a physical body,

You left out the rest of your claim,that < the “image” is not in physical likeness, but in our minds and souls. >

(Statement verifying this)

Those paragraphs don’t verify your claim that the image is not in physical likeness. They say that the whole of man is made in God’s image.

Of course, if you use the incarnation as an example of God having a body, you simply reinforce the obvious fact that God has no body. Jesus has a body only by virtue of becoming wholly man. As He says, God is a spirit. And He said that spirits have no body.

When Jesus was resurrected he appeared to the apostles in his bodily form,and he ascended to heaven in his bodily form. He is still true God and true man in heaven. St. Paul said that the resurrected will have spiritual bodies.

Anyway,I did not use those paragraphs to show that God had a body,but to point out that even the body of man is created in God’s image. The Catholic Church does not teach the Platonic belief that the soul and body are distinct orders of reality or that the soul is immortal apart from the body.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Sure. Some rare cases happen so rapidly that we can see it in a human life time, like the evolution of O. gigas from O. lamarckania.

That is not evidence for macro-evolution.

Yep. That’s what macroevolution is. Microevolution is variation within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa.

That is an example of polyploidism.

Yep. Polyploidy is an example of very rapid macroevolution.

Barbarian observes:
Gradual speciation is harder to document, because it’s difficult to show precisely when the change took place in a very gradual process. The apple maggot fly didn’t exist when Europeans came to America, because there were no apples here.

There was the hawthorn maggot fly, however, that lived on hawthorns, a relative of apples. Not long after apple trees became established, some of the hawthorn flies were able to live on apple fruit. It was not an easy thing, because apples develop at a different time, and the reproductive cycle of hawthorne flies does not match the availability of apples.

Tell me what this has to do with macro-evolution.

Reproductive isolation is macroevolution. When two populations no longer freely interbreed, they will increasingly diverge, and eventually be unable to interbreed.

A species that adapts to a new source of food does not make for macro-evolution.
Whether they are called apple or hawthorn maggot flies,they are still flies.

Whether they are humans or chimpanzees, they are still hominoids.

Barbarian observes:
Over time,some of them evolved a different reproductive timing to take advantage of apples. Now, because of the timing, they rarely interbreed in nature; hybridization is successful only about 5% of the time… They are an incipient species.

So there is only partial and temporal reproductive isolation reason,not total genetic isolation.

Not quite yet. Of course we do have others, like the drosophila population noted by Dobzhanski to have evolved into two reproductively isolated species. Most speciation is gradual over thousands of years. The apple/hawthorn flies are just an example of more rapid speciation.

The apple maggot flies will always continue to be flies.[/quo

It is a case of speciation within a species,not speciation above the species level.

And chimps and humans will always continue to be primates.

Barbarian observes:
That is called “uniformitarianism.”
Naturalism is the idea that nature is all there is. Science does not make such a claim.

No,naturalism is the belief that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena on nature.

You’ve conflated ontological naturalism with methodological naturalism. You might want to learn the difference.

Some scientists do claim that nature is all there is. That belief is called scientific pantheism. Einstein advocated a comsic religiosity.

No, Einstein was a deist, who professed belief in the God of Spinoza.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out that the evolution of higher taxa is no different than speciation. As you learned, even many creationists admit that new genera and families evolve.

Creationists generally don’t believe in macro-evolution.

The ICR, for example, did what you did; they just redefined “macroevolution” to exclude any sort of evolution that they felt they couldn’t deny.

Barbarian observes:
And there’s no barrier to higher speciation.

There is. The barrier occurs at the moment of reproduction.

Sounds interesting. Show us.

Denial that St. Augustine saw Genesis as literal:

You’ve been misled about that, too…
**
“Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them” (ibid., 4:27).
(The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).**

He is not saying that Genesis is allegory. The use of symbolic language by itself does not amount to an allegory. An allegory uses only symbolic characters and actions to represent ideas or a moral. But the Church believes that Genesis records real events and real persons. The creation of the world and its life forms by God are real events,and the creation of a man and a woman by God is a real event.

Your error is in assuming that allegory, as Augustine asserted it, cannot be about real persons or events.

He did,however,believe in a young Earth.

Indeed, he thought creation was instantaneous. Wrong about that, but he clearly did not regard the six days of creation as literally true.

**Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. …

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37).**
catholic.com/library/crea…nd_genesis.asp

Real events are not limited to literalism.

Indeed, in this case they are represented allegorically.

 

[anthony022071]

And then there are ring species:

A classic example of ring species is the Larus gulls circumpolar species “ring”. The range of these gulls forms a ring around the North Pole. lineages meet.
Wikipedia.

If several populations were to go extinct in the intermediate locations, then gene flow would end between the Herring gulls and the lesser Black-backed gulls, and they would become two individual species.

That is just speculation. There is no reason to think that the herring gulls and the black-backed gulls would become much more differentiated than they already are. They would,in any case,continue to be gulls. If the gene flow between the two populations ended,it might lead to a population bottleneck. And if there is reduced genetic variation,there will be reduced chances of further speciation.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well, let’s take a look…

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, Report of the International Theological Commission.

Notice how the paragraph begins with the words “According to the widely accepted scientific account,…”,and the rest of the paragraph summarizes the scientific account.

You left out the key statement:
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

That is not an endorsement for the theory of evolution.

The Pope’s assertion that it is “virtually certain” is as strong an endorsement as it is possible to make for a scientific theory.

The Commission was only stating what scientists believe,not what they themselves believe.

That’s not what he said. He doesn’t say scientists think it’s virtually certain; he’s asserting that it’s virtually certain.

The following paragraph says:

**< 64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. >
**

Now tell me what theories of evolution are not materialist and neo-Darwinian.

Notice that the Pope doesn’t deny neo-Darwinian theory, only any such theories that explicitly deny divine providence. I don’t know of any like that, but the one currently accepted by scientists certainly does not. Can’t, in fact, since no scientific theory can make an assertion like that.

Barbarian observes:
Since the Church teaches that God does not have a physical body,

You left out the rest of your claim,that < the “image” is not in physical likeness, but in our minds and souls. >

Well, let’s take a look at what the Church says…

**A sect of Christians that arose in the fourth century in Syria and extended into Scythia, sometimes called Audians, from their founder, Audius. Taking the text of Genesis, i, 27, literally, Audius held that God has a human form. The error was so gross, and, to use St. Jerome’s expression (Epist. vi, Ad Pammachium), so absolutely senseless, that it showed no vitality. Towards the end of the century it appeared among some bodies of African Christians. The Fathers who wrote against it dismiss it almost contemptuously. In the time of Cyril of Alexandria, there were some anthropomorphites among the Egyptian monks. He composed a short refutation of their error, which he attributed to extreme ignorance. (Adv. Anthrop. in P.G., LXXVI.) Concerning the charges of anthropomorphism preferred against Melito, Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius, see the respective articles. The error was revived in northern Italy during the tenth century, but was effectually suppressed by the bishops, notably by the learned Ratherius, Bishop of Verona. **
Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/01558c.htm

Barbarian observes:
Of course, if you use the incarnation as an example of God having a body, you simply reinforce the obvious fact that God has no body. Jesus has a body only by virtue of becoming wholly man. As He says, God is a spirit. And He said that spirits have no body.

The assertion that the “image” of God is a physical one, is a serious error, one that has been decisively refuted by the Church.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Odd that I can’t find any evidence at all for creationism. (remember evidence for creation is evidence against creationism)

But there is voluminous material showing creation of new taxa by evolution.

Perhaps it might be good for you to post the best evidence you think was presented on this thread for creationism.

I don’t see anything like that.

Ok, final statement before I unsubscribe to this thread, and if you want to read the previous posts for the facts, read them for yourself and do not waste my time looking them up for you, I just posted a quote of evidence that you completely ignored just as an example.

Point 1: The dominating parties that are pushing this “theory” as fact will not read the facts presented on this thread or any for that matter, they completely ignore them and when you post a question that they are supposed to respond to, it is completely ignored.

Point 2: Evolution is a “thoery” Theory by definition means unproven and should be taken into the context of just that, unproven which goes into the realm of speculation. Evolutionists dismiss this term all together and insist upon it being fact. It is not the science of evolution, it’s the theory of it.

Point 3: Most of us had evolution crammed down our throats all of our lives with absolutely no option to cover and counter it with. I will take scripture over theory any day, I just read it in black and white, God did this, he made sure we have access to what he did through his word and I do not question him or it.

Point 4: There will never be a conversion within these boards, within the discussion on this topic to convince one side their point of view supercedes the other. This very topic should become part of the TOS to never address since it only creates dissention in absolutely all cases.

Point 5: The Catholic church does not endorse evolution, it does not back it, it remains nuetral about the matter at best.

Moderators, I created this thread in an attempt to make your job easier, to get all of this nonsense out up front and out of our way. I failed in that regard, learning that it’s impossible for people to be able to discuss this topic, again, reference point 4 in this regard. Please close this thread, it is absolutely going nowhere.

Yours in Christ and our Blessed Mother Mary, All of you,

Brian

 

[The_Barbarian]

**And then there are ring species:

A classic example of ring species is the Larus gulls circumpolar species “ring”. The range of these gulls forms a ring around the North Pole. lineages meet.**
Wikipedia.

Barbarian observes:
If several populations were to go extinct in the intermediate locations, then gene flow would end between the Herring gulls and the lesser Black-backed gulls, and they would become two individual species.

That is just speculation./'quote]

No, it’s an observed fact. The gulls at the extremities of this species cannot reproduce with each other. The only way for gene transfer to occur is by intermediate populations. If they were to die out, these would become two separate species.

There is no reason to think that the herring gulls and the black-backed gulls would become much more differentiated than they already are.

That’s also an observed fact. Some thousands of years ago, a number of kaibab squirrels got isolated on one side of the Grand Canyon away from the rest of the population. The two populations increasingly evolved away from each other, and are now incipient species, or perhaps have already become separate species.

They would,in any case,continue to be gulls.

Sort of like humans are still primates. The point is that macroevolution would produce two species where the was formerly one.

If the gene flow between the two populations ended,it might lead to a population bottleneck. And if there is reduced genetic variation,there will be reduced chances of further speciation.

No, that’s an error. Founder effect greatly increases the likelihood of speciation, since it will almost always involve a different allele frequency than a larger population.

**As a result of the loss of genetic variation, the new population may be distinctively different, both genetically and phenotypically, from the parent population from which it is derived. In extreme cases, the founder effect is thought to lead to the speciation and subsequent evolution of new species. **
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian -

There is NO scientific theory of evolution that allows for the action of divine providence. None.

By the way, I’m not trying to give you a hard time.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Deconi]

Ok, final statement before I unsubscribe to this thread, and if you want to read the previous posts for the facts, read them for yourself and do not waste my time looking them up for you, I just posted a quote of evidence that you completely ignored just as an example.

Point 1: The dominating parties that are pushing this “theory” as fact will not read the facts presented on this thread or any for that matter, they completely ignore them and when you post a question that they are supposed to respond to, it is completely ignored.

Point 2: Evolution is a “thoery” Theory by definition means unproven and should be taken into the context of just that, unproven which goes into the realm of speculation. Evolutionists dismiss this term all together and insist upon it being fact. It is not the science of evolution, it’s the theory of it.

Point 3: Most of us had evolution crammed down our throats all of our lives with absolutely no option to cover and counter it with. I will take scripture over theory any day, I just read it in black and white, God did this, he made sure we have access to what he did through his word and I do not question him or it.

Point 4: There will never be a conversion within these boards, within the discussion on this topic to convince one side their point of view supercedes the other. This very topic should become part of the TOS to never address since it only creates dissention in absolutely all cases.

Point 5: The Catholic church does not endorse evolution, it does not back it, it remains nuetral about the matter at best.

Moderators, I created this thread in an attempt to make your job easier, to get all of this nonsense out up front and out of our way. I failed in that regard, learning that it’s impossible for people to be able to discuss this topic, again, reference point 4 in this regard. Please close this thread, it is absolutely going nowhere.

Yours in Christ and our Blessed Mother Mary, All of you,

Brian

Without this thread, and the multitude like, there are many who would not have learned otherwise. Evolution theorists have learned much, just as Sciptural adherents (may) have discovered that their ‘suspicions’ and nagging confusions about where the ‘science’ fits into Holy Writ have solid support or have been adequately explained.

Well done.

 

[edwest2]

What ???

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Ok, final statement before I unsubscribe to this thread, and if you want to read the previous posts for the facts, read them for yourself and do not waste my time looking them up for you, I just posted a quote of evidence that you completely ignored just as an example.

Evidence is checkable facts. Not opinions. Do you have any of those?

Point 1: The dominating parties that are pushing this “theory” as fact will not read the facts presented on this thread or any for that matter, they completely ignore them and when you post a question that they are supposed to respond to, it is completely ignored.

I just asked for your best evidence for creationism, and you again declined to offer any.

Point 2: Evolution is a “thoery” Theory by definition means unproven and should be taken into the context of just that,

“Theory” is as strong as you get in science. A theory is a well-tested idea or group of ideas, supported by evidence. Theories are stronger than laws, because laws only predict phenomena, while theories predict and explain.

Of course, since science is inductive, nothing is ever proven by science. We merely gather enough evidence to eventually make it foolish to deny.

Point 3: Most of us had evolution crammed down our throats all of our lives with absolutely no option to cover and counter it with.

A lack of evidence, as you have seen, is a definite handicap, yes.

I will take scripture over theory any day,

In this case, as the Church notes, you don’t have to chose between evidence and Scripture. The evidence for evolution (as Pope Benedict notes) is consistent with our faith.

There will never be a conversion within these boards, within the discussion on this topic to convince one side their point of view supercedes the other.

Nor should we expect such a thing. We can only lay out the facts, and let reasonable people think about it. In general, it is the lurkers who consider the points made in discussion, and decide what they think is best demonstrated.

This very topic should become part of the TOS to never address since it only creates dissention in absolutely all cases.

Disagreement is, within the boundaries of our faith, a good and healthy thing. Certainly, one would benefit to learn the basis for creationism and science within the context of Catholic faith.

The Catholic church does not endorse evolution, it does not back it,

And it shouldn’t. The Church is not about validating scientific theories. The Pope was expressing an opinion as a scholar when he said that common descent was virtually certain. It is not, nor should it be, Catholic doctrine.

Perhaps, even if a thread appears to be going badly for some particular point of view, there is much to be learned from it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

There is NO scientific theory of evolution that allows for the action of divine providence. None.

Darwin’s did. Indeed, Darwin attributed the origin of life to God. And no subsequent revision of Darwin’s theory denies divine providence.

By the way, I’m not trying to give you a hard time.

Then you succeeded. In this case you served up a high slow curve for me. One of the easiest objections to refute is the notion that Darwinism denies God’s providence.

 

[edwest2]

No way this applies to the real world. No one cares about what Darwin believes. This is right out of the atheist (not you) playbook. Evolution means no God. That’s what this debate is always about.

Go to any atheist or Dawkins worship site if you want confirmation. Man is just a biological device to them. God? You’ve got to be kidding.

And why would any scientist who has the facts about evolution care one bit what the Church thinks about this subject? Why? Care to tell everyone here? Because it has to do with pushing an ideology.

Peace,
Ed