A
Al_Moritz
Guest
“The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." – Pope John Paul II
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
We have two parents. Two individuals.
“Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.”
Science is partly blind due to its methodology.
Peace,
Ed
“Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.”
Science is partly blind due to its methodology.
Peace,
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
Indeed we do, it is just that they were not alone on the Earth at the time and we are also descended from some of their contemporaries as well as from them.
You can have your Adam and Eve as well as science. You just need to be a little more subtle in interpreting Genesis.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Common design would reuse useful features when needed.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Not a problem.
OK. To an atheist beliefs such as; Christ rose from the dead, Real Presence and the existence of a God at all are ridiculous. We do not compromise on those because they laugh at us. I agree that scientific facts do not make Creation irrelevant. Creation is fundamental to our faith. Accepting evolution as a biological mechanism doesn’t change our belief in any of these things, or that God is source of life and has a plan of salvation for the human race.
Evolution does not make Creation irrelevant or unacceptable. What I see as a huge difficulty is that atheists push evolution as ‘proof’ the Bible is wrong and God does not exist. As a result many with a deep religious belief understandably, dismiss evolution altogether.
True, we don’t know how old the earth is and from a faith perspective, it doesn’t matter. I read a very interesting book once, (wish I could remember the name) written by a Jewish physicist. He talks of the creation of the world as being outside time. The age of the earth does matter to the geologist, the archaeologist, the historian and many more, because that is their area of expertise. A friend of mine refutes the Ice Age happened in spite of the evidence. Not because the evidence is flawed but because it challenges her interpretation of Genesis. Claiming the Ice Age never happened purely because it doesn’t fit with a literal interpretation of Genesis leaves the religious world open to ridicule, which I see as a problem.
It’s a theory. However, there are many hermaphrodites in nature. There are also people today who are hermaphrodites. In the past they would have been shunned. We know better today. Therefore, it’s not such a strange concept.
It’s not a case of we needed to have had a hermaphroditic ancestor. It’s did we or didn’t we. Again, a hermaphroditic ancestor ‘proves’ to an atheist God did not create us. To the believer, it is a biological process God may, or may not, have used in creation.
The seahorse is one example. There are many things in nature, and in the primitive world, that break with conventional 21st century western society concepts. There are also many things out there that go against the law of natural selection. Evolution is not as air tight as atheists would have us believe. However, that does mean it didn’t happen at all. We can’t deny possibilities simply because they don’t fit with what we want to believe. I’m not saying your doing that. I do think ID is promoted by at least some, who don’t like evolution because it doesn’t fit their model of belief.
Yes, but considering every possibility is so much fun! I love speculative and imaginative thought. I once read of a discussion between an Anglican minister and a Catholic priest. The Anglican minister asked why Mary didn’t appear to Protestants. The priest replied, ‘because you don’t have a Catholic imagination.’ Have you ever heard the saying, ‘if you stayed in bed all day the ceiling would fall in on you’ in response to trying to avoid something bad happening? On one occasion, I stayed in the house all day and yes, my ceiling fell in! I also saw a tv programme that told the story of a group of practical jokers who dyed a white cats fur pink, and then put it in the garden of a man who regularly came home from the pub drunk. I wonder if he gave up drink as a result? Watch out for that purple elephant!
D
donsnow
Guest
Hi, MindOverMatter2,
Because Descent of Species is belied by Common Descent. Furthermore, fossil skeletons are mostly incomplete and require educated guesswork, but still guesswork. That’s circumstantial evidence. And, emotionally, too many evolutionists want to kick God out of His Creation.
I go along with the theories of evolution which recognize our Creator.
That’s why.
By the way, it was two Greek philosophers circa fourth century BC who first speculated that all things had their origin in a pool of slime. So, your pool of chemicals is based upon pagan speculation, not observable science.
God loves you,
Don
B
buffalo
Guest
The odds are against it.
B
buffalo
Guest
A while ago I posted on the idea that we should look at genes like keys on a piano. The number of tunes that can be cranked out is astounding. Sometimes a single key is played or in combinations. Some are rarely played but still can produce beautiful music.
**Now someone else has picked up on this idea.
**
More support for IDvolution. http://parishes.catholicexchange.com/annunciation/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif
Study gives clue as to how notes are played on the genetic piano
The NOVA U.S. public television program described epigenetics as “The Ghost In Your Genes.” It is the study of changes in gene expression that occur without changes in DNA sequence. Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce. Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used. “It corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music,” said Kohzoh Mitsuya, Ph.D., postdoctoral fellow in the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio.
**Now someone else has picked up on this idea.
**
More support for IDvolution. http://parishes.catholicexchange.com/annunciation/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif
Study gives clue as to how notes are played on the genetic piano
The NOVA U.S. public television program described epigenetics as “The Ghost In Your Genes.” It is the study of changes in gene expression that occur without changes in DNA sequence. Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce. Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used. “It corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music,” said Kohzoh Mitsuya, Ph.D., postdoctoral fellow in the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio.
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you, buffalo. Great stuff.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
Well, you have videos that show traits we normally attribute to humans appearing in apes.
I am uncertain that really proves anything.
No one has made the claim that there are no common traits.
Adam and Eve being ‘obviously’ false is a false dichotomy.
One does not disprove the other.
I am sure these videos make it appear ‘obvious’ but asking just a few questions shatters that perception very quickly.
N
Neildown
Guest
True, but just to further this debate - That is because we would be heretics if we believed otherwise on those issues. If we are laughed at for what we believe in anyway, why should it matter if we look silly for believing in Creation?
Exactly. Because so many secular scientists pose this scientific hypothesis as a proof I find it quite difficult to believe in everything I hear from the atheist side. Considering they put so much faith in science and its conclusions despite the fact that science cannot technically “prove” anything it is very difficult to discern what is more or less reliable. I, however, do not dismiss evolution in its general sense. Micro-evolution, I’m quite sure, played a big role in earth’s history. Macro-evolution - not so much.
True, true. Hmmm, created outside of time? Sounds like an interesting concept - I think I heard of that before. Yes, I see. I think that is more of ‘not looking at it from every angle’ though. Geological events are quite capable of happening within relatively short periods of time. The Ice Age we have good evidence of existing at some point, but it is still debatable how long it lasted and when it may have began. It could have been a lot shorter or a lot longer than we imagine. Yeah I agree.
Yes, but most of them are not mammals. Yes, those are the ones that scare me. True, they were. Yes - sort of. Not a strange concept - but still a strange thing to do to one’s self.
Ahh, but that sounds much like compromise to me - referring back to my first argument. Plus, if we go for having hermaphroditic ancestors then we are going on a path which allows atheists to content themselves with their theories and us with ours - causing a whole other branch of arguments to arise which would be just as chaotic as the evolution debate. I naturally prefer the one where Catholics are right, atheists are wrong - end of discussion.
True. True. Oh, I know that already xD. Yes, but the odds - the odds are so miniscule. Hmmm. I’m kind of new to the concept of ID as it is being shown on this site, so I wouldn’t know much about that.
[couldn’t post more than 6000 characters xD. Will respond to the last bit with another post, lol.]
N
Neildown
Guest
Very true
, I must agree. Lol! Very good point - I wasn’t expecting such an answer. However, there is still a big difference between the odds of having a pink cat in your yard and having originated from apes which evolved from a base-form of matter. Even the odds of the purple elephant look promising compared to those.
C
chagen44
Guest
I have been looking into this topic for a while now, and have decided that the young earth position is true. Now understand, I have a BS in Microbiology and an MD degree and have been a practicing and board certified Emergency physician for 29 years: I am well versed in science and did not check my intellect at the door when I studied this issue! I base my opinion on several sources such as Anwers in Genesis, Creation Science Evangelism, and the Intitute of Creation Science.
Y’all (I live in Alabama), you can’t have it both ways, either the Bible is TRUE or it is not. You can’t tell kids that the very first book of the Bible is just a made up story and expect them to believe in the Resurrection account later. If they can pick and choose what to believe they will leave the faith in droves, like they are right now! Evolution is a theory to destroy faith and truly is a religion in it’s own right. I don’t worship at that alter any longer. I am a devout Cathlic (Baptist convert) and despite the various popes who have spoken out about evolution being compatble with Catholicism, I have not heard any ex-cathedra pronouncements on the subject. Correct me on this if I am wrong.
Y’all (I live in Alabama), you can’t have it both ways, either the Bible is TRUE or it is not. You can’t tell kids that the very first book of the Bible is just a made up story and expect them to believe in the Resurrection account later. If they can pick and choose what to believe they will leave the faith in droves, like they are right now! Evolution is a theory to destroy faith and truly is a religion in it’s own right. I don’t worship at that alter any longer. I am a devout Cathlic (Baptist convert) and despite the various popes who have spoken out about evolution being compatble with Catholicism, I have not heard any ex-cathedra pronouncements on the subject. Correct me on this if I am wrong.
M
minkymurph
Guest
It doesn’t. What makes us look silly is a flat refusal to even consider evidence that has been established through application of scientific methodology because it doesn’t fit our interpretation of the Genesis account.
I can understand why you say it sounds like a compromise. However, Atheists would refute entirely the way people such as myself understand evolution. My understanding of evolution is not that we came from apes. Apes were always meant to be apes and humans, humans. It’s like branches of a tree. Just as each branch was destined to be a distinct branch, apes were always going to become apes, and humans, humans. Everything is nature is more or less made of the same elements; Carbon Hydrogen and Oxygen. These are the basic building blocks for all forms of life. As time went on, more and more life forms came from these basic building blocks.
You are absolutely right about a whole branch of other arguments. Which is why atheists cannot content themselves with their theories. Evolution does not prove God does not exist or is not intimately involved with his creation. It does not give us a moral conscience, or enable us to make moral decisions. It does not inspire us, enrich our lives, enable us to enrich the lives of others, make us more empathetic … the list is endless. Faith does these things. Evolution is a drop in the ocean.
I would like to add that I did not come to accept evolution as a consequence of science, but as a consequence of greater understanding of scripture when I became Catholic.
B
buffalo
Guest
Sounds a lot like IDvolution.
M
minkymurph
Guest
It does?
I can remember Richard Dawkins getting terribly irate on a radio show because someone said said to him we came from apes. He said something like, ‘of course we didn’t you stupid woman.’
Perhaps ID and evolution aren’t so far apart.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Well, statistics can be used to prove just about anything because they are so open to manipulation and don’t take complexities into account. So lets have a bit of fun with them.Very true
Let’s compare the mathematical probability of a pink cat appearing in your garden, with the probability of originating from apes and see what we come up with.
Sometimes I think I need to get out more! :ballspin:
M
minkymurph
Guest
In relation to my post above, the best I could come up with is:
According to ID the probability of humans evolving from apes is 1 followed by 130 zeros.
However, as it’s a common misconception in the ID world evolutionists think humans came from apes, this statistic is flawed. That’s statistics for you!
The best I could come up with in relation to pink cats is:
The mathematical probability of a cat doing exactly as it pleases is 305/366.
I got bored after researching this after approximately 4 minutes. :yawn:
Therefore, you could argue I have not examined all the evidence which renders my research invalid.
According to ID the probability of humans evolving from apes is 1 followed by 130 zeros.
However, as it’s a common misconception in the ID world evolutionists think humans came from apes, this statistic is flawed. That’s statistics for you!
The best I could come up with in relation to pink cats is:
The mathematical probability of a cat doing exactly as it pleases is 305/366.
I got bored after researching this after approximately 4 minutes. :yawn:
Therefore, you could argue I have not examined all the evidence which renders my research invalid.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
M
minkymurph
Guest
Just like to clarify what I said here. I’m not defending Richard Dawkins.
No matter what anyone thinks of Richard Dawkins as a person, he is an intelligent man and an expert in his field. That does not make him right. But to take him on in an argument about evolution, I would say you would need to understand his concept of it. To me, this is were ID falls down as time and time again I hear ID’ers argue ‘we did not come from apes.’ This argument is an indication they don’t understand it which plays into the hands of people such as Richard Dawkins; prompting them to be insulting and dismissive of anyone who believes in God.
The theory of evolution does not propose humans came from apes. It is necessary to have a good understanding of evolution to engage in meaningful discussion with evolutionists.
There are much better arguments for the existence of God and His intimate involvement with creation than ID. I remember a scenario I was given as a student. The question I had to answer was, ‘You are in discussion with an atheist who does not believe the Bible. What arguments could you present for the existence of God without using a Bible?’
Any takers?
- Status