T
Techno2000
Guest
And no transitional fossils.
- Status
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Google is your friend:
But I should simplify. Every thing that lives or have lived is a transitional form, so long as it successfully reproduces. It is only over great times that species normally evolve enough for us to look at records and say-- okay. . . I definitely have to say these are distinct species.
I mean, it should be painfully obvious from geologic records that the species alive are entirely different than those alive during the time of dinosaurs. So what happened?
a) God keeps wiping entire species off the planet and replacing them with completely designed new species, but didn’t feel like telling us about it.
b) Some of those species changed over time, which is why (for example) birds have a lot of bodily similarities to dinosaurs.
(a) not only doesn’t make sense, even the Bible does not put it this way. You’d think if the Bible was a science textbook dictated by a God who wanted us to know the history of life, it would mention dinosaurs.
But the Bible is a particularly poor source of scientific knowledge, for the precise fact that it was never meant to be that.
But I should simplify. Every thing that lives or have lived is a transitional form, so long as it successfully reproduces. It is only over great times that species normally evolve enough for us to look at records and say-- okay. . . I definitely have to say these are distinct species.
I mean, it should be painfully obvious from geologic records that the species alive are entirely different than those alive during the time of dinosaurs. So what happened?
a) God keeps wiping entire species off the planet and replacing them with completely designed new species, but didn’t feel like telling us about it.
b) Some of those species changed over time, which is why (for example) birds have a lot of bodily similarities to dinosaurs.
(a) not only doesn’t make sense, even the Bible does not put it this way. You’d think if the Bible was a science textbook dictated by a God who wanted us to know the history of life, it would mention dinosaurs.
But the Bible is a particularly poor source of scientific knowledge, for the precise fact that it was never meant to be that.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
I suppose it depends on whose reason you are referring too. According to my reason, macro-evolution is not reasonable though maybe it is to you. Similarly, according to my reason, I do not find it reasonable that the word of a human being is more trustworthy than the word of God, i.e, the Bible. Accordingly, I find it to be absolutely in accord with human reason to believe without question or doubt the word of God. In regards to the biological origin of species, it is not against reason to believe that God himself immediately created and formed every plant and animal species that exists now or has ever existed because we know, understand, and believe that this is not impossible to God and the Genesis 1 creation narrative which is the word of God can be reasonably interpreting as such as well as conforming to our actual present observations of the propagation of species. According to my reason, such a belief and interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives and other creation texts of Holy Scripture is not a denial of reason whatsoever but it is in perfect harmony with human reason and with the word of God which is the divine reason and infinitely more certain than any human reason.Techno2000:
And how much greater their awe would be if they knew who did it all.
Again, one of the great scandals Christianity faces from the Fundamentalist viewpoint that requires denial of reason in regards to evolution is that it pits a person between that known by reason and that known by faith. And in an era when people by large have not been told how reason is open to God’s existence and faith is diminished to believing despite of no evidence as opposed to believing because of the word of another, the results are heartbreaking. The false requirement to deny evolution creates a barrier to a relationship with God.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Is it claimed that God dictated every word of the Bible to its writers?
I’m not Catholic, so I don’t actually know your position on this. But it seems to me than most of the Biblical writings were an attempt for normal people to record for posterity their experiences and interactions with God to the best of their abilities.
That’s why there’s very little advanced science in the Bible-- Biblical writers didn’t have access to advanced science, including the theory of evolution, and it wasn’t God’s plan to spell out every detail of Creation in a dictated encyclopedia.
I’m not Catholic, so I don’t actually know your position on this. But it seems to me than most of the Biblical writings were an attempt for normal people to record for posterity their experiences and interactions with God to the best of their abilities.
That’s why there’s very little advanced science in the Bible-- Biblical writers didn’t have access to advanced science, including the theory of evolution, and it wasn’t God’s plan to spell out every detail of Creation in a dictated encyclopedia.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
From the Catechism:
"105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70
"106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
"107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72
"105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70
"106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
"107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72
B
benjamin1973
Guest
- Thank you for that clarification. That is, in fact, quite edifying.
- “Inspiration” is not “dictation.”
- Teaching the truth, and teaching the entire scientific truth are not the same.
Need proof? The Bible didn’t make the technology that lets people express their distrust in. . . technology. Oh, the irony, it burrrns!
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
What is evolution good for? Name one thing. Our supposed hominin/hominid ancestors shows a very strongly marked deviation from God created to a “blind watchmaker” created - accidentally. This is an affront to reason. Example: Neanderthals. For a long time, the drawings showed these brutish almost humans that those in the scientific community were convinced were just a transitional group of sort-of humans who had nothing to do with ‘modern humans’ to “some of us have Neanderthal DNA.” And what defines different birds? Even though Bird A looks like or almost exactly like Bird B, if they can’t interbreed, they are two different birds.
E
edwest211
Guest
But we are not talking about technology that goes back thousands of years to modern/current technology, we are talking about the true origin and identities of human beings. Evolutionary psychology would have us believe that a) our brains self-upgraded, b) we got smarter - for no particular reason, and even c) we invented religion/belief systems regarding gods/God.
R
Richca
Guest
The Bible is called the word of God because we believe that God is the principle author of the entire Bible and all of its parts. There is not a single part of the Bible be it a word, letter, or dot that cannot be considered inspired or have God as the principle author of it. The whole complete Bible is inspired by God and has God as its principle author. We do not believe that some parts of the Bible are inspired and other parts not. Jesus said:
“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Matt. 5: 17-18, RSV-CE)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place” (Matt. 5: 17-18, NAB)
“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Matt. 5: 17-18, RSV-CE)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place” (Matt. 5: 17-18, NAB)
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
What is deliberate ignorance of evolutionary science good for? When we had these discussions in the past, I provided links to a lot of articles and observations which strongly support the theory of evolution. You clearly haven’t read any of them.
Sticking your head in the sand doesn’t make the facts of the world disappear. It just makes you unable to see them.
But my problem with that is that God made the world, and the facts of the world should be seen as evidence for God’s will and a testament to His glory. Sticking your head in the sand against that isn’t evidence of faith-- it’s evidence of a lack of it.
Sticking your head in the sand doesn’t make the facts of the world disappear. It just makes you unable to see them.
But my problem with that is that God made the world, and the facts of the world should be seen as evidence for God’s will and a testament to His glory. Sticking your head in the sand against that isn’t evidence of faith-- it’s evidence of a lack of it.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Evolution wouldn’t have us believe any of those things at all. You’re making stuff up, and in a particularly ignorant fashion.
E
edwest211
Guest
Interesting that you do not answer my questions but question my faith. That is what these discussions are really about, not science. By the way, I study science almost daily. I keep up with the latest advances. Just a bit of advice: cobalt.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Did the Bible claim that it was laying out the complete biological history of species on Earth? Did it claim that every passage was to be taken literally, as opposed to figuratively? Did it claim to be the ultimate compendium of scientific understanding?
No. It’s primarily a record of human interactions with God, of God’s contract with us, a warning of the consequences of breaking that contract, and so on. It’s clearly not meant to express all possible truth that we can learn.
No. It’s primarily a record of human interactions with God, of God’s contract with us, a warning of the consequences of breaking that contract, and so on. It’s clearly not meant to express all possible truth that we can learn.
E
edwest211
Guest
Just google “evolutionary psychology” I’m not making up anything. Our minds and beliefs were designed for only one purpose: successful breeding.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
You asked only two questions.
The first is “What is evolution good for?” I’ve explained this to you ad nauseam in the past.
The second is “And what defines different birds?” You’ve answered this question yourself, so I assume it to be rhetorical.
The first is “What is evolution good for?” I’ve explained this to you ad nauseam in the past.
The second is “And what defines different birds?” You’ve answered this question yourself, so I assume it to be rhetorical.
E
edwest211
Guest
That’s not accurate.
"4. Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs God has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the natural light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian religion. For man can, whether from prejudice or passion or bad faith, refuse and resist not only the evidence of the external proofs that are available, but also the impulses of actual grace.
"5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
"6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
“7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man’s life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.”
"4. Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs God has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the natural light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian religion. For man can, whether from prejudice or passion or bad faith, refuse and resist not only the evidence of the external proofs that are available, but also the impulses of actual grace.
"5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
"6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
“7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man’s life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.”
- Humani Generis
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Evolutionary psychology is not Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. If you want to talk about the philosophy of mind, then that should probably be in a different thread. Overall, I think you’ll find I’m much more in agreement with your position in that regard than I am to your general ignorance of the scientific evidence of evolution.
E
edwest211
Guest
Ignorance? You don’t know what I know.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
I have pretty good evidence that you haven’t studied much evolutionary science. You’ve presented me with such, right here in CF.
E
edwest211
Guest
There is no science in evolution. It has no scientific value whatsoever. As a philosophy, it has one use: to promote atheism. Examples: We are nothing but animals and after death, there is nothing. We will be food for worms. That’s all.
Then, since I’ve read and written science fiction - man will become god just as Satan told Eve. Which, of course, is false.
Then, since I’ve read and written science fiction - man will become god just as Satan told Eve. Which, of course, is false.
- Status