Overwhelming evidence…?
I, as any sane person would, believe in micro-evolution (adaptation within given genes and within species) but certainly not macro-evolution (species-change) Why are there absolutely no trasitional forms in the fossil record? And why do they base their evolutionary dates on pseudo-science, such as Carbon-14 dating, which has already been proven false. (i.e., a living sea turtle was shown, by Carbon-14, to be 2 million years old. Certainly not true!) And plus, macro-evolution violates the first three laws of thermodynamics (two, if it’s theistic).Yes!!! Woo-hoo! Do you know for sure, or have any Pope-quotes? Or magisterium, for that matter. What do you personally believe?
Pius XII on evolution:
We must all remember, that scientist are fallible, and none were at the Beginning of Time, so…
Actually most scientific theories on the beginning of time and the universe are based in the work of one Catholic Priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaitre, science advisor to Pope Pius XII. While he definitevely believed in a Creator he do not believe in a Young Earth.
What does it means, that were people before Adam?
Beware when reading Genesis that the language is very symbolic. Is more a pophetic book in my opinion that a historic book. The Author used some amazing insights that only now science is proving but also used regional myths of Mesopothamia to make a point. The long genealogies are part of the common stories of the region. That one of the reason Catholic biblical studies are so complex. They need a knowledge of the context of the story. Bible literalism is not always the best way to read the Bible. Right now I’m reading some amazing essay on the Nephilim for example that carries the Bible text way beyond the literal meaning.
How do you know that it is symbolic? I believe in literal Nephilim. I don’t see why we can’t. It’s in very matter-of-fact literal language. They found fossilized bones of some 9-10 ft. tall people in the mountains of one region (sorry, I can’t remember the reference). I believe the Book of Enoch’s account of the Nephilim and the angelic rebellion by Azazel and the other renegade angels, is basically historically accurate, not canon though. And what do we disbelieve next: Goliath? The Giant-King of the Amorites? The miracles of the Bible? The Ressurection?
Since you’re soon to enter the Catholic Church (congratulations!), you may want to pick up a copy of this excellent text, written by a cell biologist who’s a committed Catholic:Overwhelming evidence…?
Thanks, Don, but can’t I remain a Creationist Catholic?
The Church allows a lot of latitude in certain matters of biblical interpretation, as long as proper doctrinal boundaries are recognized and maintained. However, a Catholic is always bound by the truth, wherever it is found. So, to answer your question, you’re free to remain a creationist if it is in fact the truth, and if it is not, then you’re obliged to reject it as false. If you haven’t yet read the books I cited, they contain much valuable information that may very well alter your understanding of creationism’s status as “truth.”
quite a few transition fossils have been foundOverwhelming evidence…?
proof please
proof please
Have you read, “The Language of God” by Francis C. Collins
here is what is really needed to prove macro evolution, but of course the evolutionist will find some way of wigling out of this or denial of a reality checkOverwhelming evidence…?
this is satire, right?
I cant see how the evidence for evolution is overwhelming! The only overwhelming thing is the polemic behind it. I don’t understand how people cannot distinguish between ‘experimental’ and ‘historical’ science. How can people believe everything ‘scientists’ label as a so called proven fact? Alone the word science, as you surely all know, comes from the word ‘knowledge’. So this is where you have to ask yourself, what is it that I know and what is it that I believe. You can know that the law of gravity works as you can test and repeat it any time you want. You can not know that a fossil found in a certain geological strata is 70 million years old because the dating methods are highly inaccurate and in most cases simply arbitrary. I deal with dating methods every day (Archaeology) and it is not a secret that none of the atheist archaeologists and palaeontologists from the universities I know believe them to be true. It’s more like a vague guide line and not the gospel. For me it is simply a joke most of all because of the C14 tests done on living creatures which come up with an age of thousands of years and because of tests done with rock samples which show a discrepancy sometimes up to 150 million years. There are numerous assumptions that you have to take as true before you can even determine the parameters for the dating method. I personally know professors (atheists) who don’t bother with this anymore but simply go according to the geological column- a fossil is X years old because the geological layer is X years old and the layer (if itself undateable ) is X years old because the fossil found in the rock is X years old.