Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Res ipsa loquitur. You just fail to understand that Catholics cannot have personal interpretations of Scripture, and that there are 2 more legs to that stool
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
cathapolo said:
Where is the missing link? Still missing in action. Hence we can see why it is actually easier to believe in fairy-tales than to believe in evolution.
Click to expand...
Erm… The missing link is… wait for it… missing! When we find a link, it is no longer a missing link but a found link. We have many found links.

Where is Adam’s skeleton? Missing. Where is Seth’s skeleton? Missing. Where are all the skeletons of David’s named ancestors? Missing. Hence we can see it is not necessary to have every missing link to build a tree of descent.

Isn’t there a saying about people in glass houses? Better go and look for the remains of those Biblical patriarchs I suggest.

rossum
 
Uriel1 said:
You said, “You’re ignoring the last challenge to show anyone who claimed that evolution denies God and I expect nothing less than you to completely ignore this as well. The silence will be telling.”

Hope1960 has just quoted, “While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.”

“Atheistic evolution” is precisely what is being claimed by several posters on this site (a metaphysical claim with no scientific proof)
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Click to expand...
That’s a deflection. I know you are not going to answer the question by furnishing an example of someone using evolution on this forum to deny God because there simply aren’t any. So your choices are to admit that you are wrong (fat chance), ignore the question in the hope it will go away (a common method) or give an answer to a question that hasn’t been asked.

In the first instance there is no such thing as ‘atheistic evolution’. Just as there is no atheist quantum theory or atheist gravity. Science is science. It stands alone. It cares not about one’s personal beliefs. As such, your comment is nonsensensical in extremis.

But I’ll tell you what. I’ll bend over backwards and assume that what you actually mean, despite the clumsy and risible phraseology, is that people on this forum are using evolution to deny God.

Which, gee, brings us nicely back to the request: Either put up or retract. That is, furnish a single post where someone is using evolution in this folrum to deny God and back up what you claim or issue a retraction.

And while your are searching for that, don’t forget you claimed that people are calling theories ‘facts’. So whenever you find a post that does that then let us all know.
 
Last edited:
there have been several protohuman possibilities:

7438b982f4a619dd8a0a490a31608279dd510d75.png


see also
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Not at all. Catholics just do NOT interpret Scripture without the other 2 legs of the 3 legged theological stool, but Buddhists like @rossum do do “sola scriptura”, thus misinterpreting Scripture.
Click to expand...
Please read what I post. I referenced Humani Generis, which shows that I was not doing Sola Scriprtura. I also incorporated evolution in my earlier post. Are you telling me that evolution is part of Sola Scriptura?

You have criticised me for incorporating things, like evolution, from outside the Bible and now you are criticising me for not incorporating anything from outside the Bible. By all means criticise me, but you will be a lot more effective if your criticisms are consistent with each other.

rossum
 
Uriel1 said:
Ad hominem, my granny. On a Catholic site we have many dangerous trolls.
Click to expand...
Whoa. Back the truck up mate. ‘WE have many dangerous trolls’?

You’ve been on here for quite a short time. You haven’t earned the right to speak for the forum. Whereas rossum has been on here for more YEARS than you have weeks. How about you pull your head in and show some respect for one of the long standing members of this forum.

You may not agree with what he says but you are completely out of order throwing those sort of accusations around. He’s way too polite to call you up on this but I am not.

Most decent people would consider an apology in order.
 
Last edited:
You said, ‘God said “Let the earth bring forth…” to create animals. Hence, animals are dust/earth/clay, having been brought forth from the earth. God then uses evolution to shape one of those animals to form a human body. The process is dust → animal → human body.’

You took Sacred Scripture and inserted something without reference to 1. the tradition, and 2. the magisterium

Res ipsa loquitur.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Please, what a dishonest statement !

We are talking about a major jump in species. If you want to claim that there is a link, provide the evidence. The reality is there is no such evidence. Some reality please.
 
Uriel1 said:
Res ipsa loquitur. You just fail to understand that Catholics cannot have personal interpretations of Scripture,…
Click to expand...
That is false. Catholics cannot have personal interpretations of Scripture that are at odds with the Church’s teaching, but they certainly can have personal interpretations that do not contradict Church teaching. Have you never been to a bible study? One of the questions most often asked in these groups is “What does this passage mean to you?”
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
You took Sacred Scripture and inserted something without reference to 1. the tradition, and 2. the magisterium
Click to expand...
I used an implicit reference to the Magisterium:
“… the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”

Humani Generis 36
Click to expand...
Those animals which the earth “brought forth” are the “pre-existent and living matter” to which Humani Generis refers. Your failure to recognise the reference is your problem, not mine.

As I said before, your interpretation differs from mine; that does not necessarily mean that my interpretation is wrong, merely that it is different.

rossum
 
Try not to change the sense of the quote by leaving a piece out; what I said was, “Res ipsa loquitur. You just fail to understand that Catholics cannot have personal interpretations of Scripture, and that there are 2 more legs to that stool”
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
…two of three legs, but you wrecked the tradition.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Try not to change the sense of the quote by leaving a piece out; what I said was, “Res ipsa loquitur. You just fail to understand that Catholics cannot have personal interpretations of Scripture, and that there are 2 more legs to that stool”
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Click to expand...
The statement by rossum does not violate any of the three legs of that stool. There is “tradition” and there is “Tradition” (with a capital ‘T’). Not all traditional practices and beliefs are in the unchangeable deposit of faith.
 
Last edited:
There is no suggestion in Scripture that God changed an animal species into Adam.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
There is no suggestion in Scripture that God changed an animal species into Adam.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Click to expand...
There is also no suggestion in Scripture that the half-life of radium is 1600 years. That does not mean we are forbidden to believe it.
 
Uriel1 said:
There is no suggestion in Scripture that God changed an animal species into Adam.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Click to expand...
You should concentrate more on science. Which is what this thread is about. And less on theology (which you seem to be as confused about as science).

How is that search coming on?
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
There is no suggestion in Scripture that God changed an animal species into Adam.
Click to expand...
Let is start with three propositions:
  • God wrote/inspired the Bible.
  • God made the world/universe.
  • God is not deceptive.
Hence, evidence from the world carries just as much authority as evidence from the Bible. Yes, men are guilty of misinterpreting both, but the correct interpretations of both must agree.

As with Galileo, those who interpreted the Bible to show the sun went round the earth were wrong; they were corrected by those who observed that the earth went round the sun. The World corrected a wrong interpretation of the Word.

The suggestion that God changed animal species into Adam does not come from the Word, but from the World. As my three propositions show, the World has equal authority since it is equally from God. In this case the World is showing the correct way to interpret the Word, just as with heliocentrism.

Reading Humani Generis shows that the Catholic Church does not object to man’s physical body evolving from animals. The Church has learned the lesson of the Galileo affair; have you?

rossum
 
You have previously stated that you made yourself.

And you don’t believe in a creator God (if you are a classical Buddhist)

And you misunderstand the Galileo affair. Scripture never said the earth was made to at the centre - if you think it did then tell us where it says so; that position of Geocentrism was one arrived at by scientists of the era, and one which can still be Mathematically proven
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top