N
nicholasG
Guest
Please show me.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
No. He did not admit to macro-evolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
This will take some posts. Are you all in and openminded?
B
billsherman
Guest
But it doesn’t. Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father - God was - so tracing Joseph’s lineage back to David has nothing to do with Jesus.
If faith is so weak that it is shattered by mistakes in scripture (which absolutely exist!), or by science proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Genesis is not a reliable measuring stick by which to date the age of the Earth, that faith is built on sand.
Scripture is inerrant ONLY in areas of faith and morals. It can be, and sometimes is, flat out wrong about other things. THAT’S OK! That shouldn’t be a problem.
It is, in fact, deeply anti-intellectual for people to deny reason and evidence in order to maintain a literalistic reading of scripture - for which there is NO evidence it was ever intended to be read that way.
If faith is so weak that it is shattered by mistakes in scripture (which absolutely exist!), or by science proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Genesis is not a reliable measuring stick by which to date the age of the Earth, that faith is built on sand.
Scripture is inerrant ONLY in areas of faith and morals. It can be, and sometimes is, flat out wrong about other things. THAT’S OK! That shouldn’t be a problem.
It is, in fact, deeply anti-intellectual for people to deny reason and evidence in order to maintain a literalistic reading of scripture - for which there is NO evidence it was ever intended to be read that way.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
Finally you answer. Thank you. Now can you show where he denied macro evolution in his speech that I linked to?
O
old_man_chris
Guest
I don’t think it’s wise to treat the Bible as a literal scientific document, because it isn’t that and never was. You can’t throw out evolution and keep much of anything to do with modern biology. Science is a superb mechanism for uncovering the material world, the best that has ever existed. Look how far we’ve come technologically since the scientific revolution began 500 years ago. The results can’t be denied, especially as we sit here typing into computers connected to the internet!
To the best of our knowledge, the Earth is something like 5 billion years old, and life has existed on it for something like 3 billion years. Modern humans have been around for 300,000 years (to my recollection, don’t hang me for being out by a few million years here and there!). Something happened though, something that took the consciousness of humans far beyond anything seen in the animal kingdom. Far beyond. I feel Genesis is a description of that human experience, of ‘waking up’ and realizing our own mortality. That Divine Spark, as it were, is still barely understood. Evolution itself is still far from being fully understood, but it’s one of the greatest theories ever discovered by humans. It is indispensable to understanding the natural world, including us. It explains the past, present and accurately predict future developments, it’s a killer theory. Literal interpretations of Genesis can’t stand before it, but they really don’t need to because that is not what they are. It’s like taking a squirt gun to a tank battle. Worse, it’s destructive to the Faith itself, because it’s easy to show that the world is not 5000 years old, and as a result destroys the credibility of the teachings. It’s a rod for your own back.
The Bible is more than simple analogy, far more, but a scientific document it is not. It was written by humans, with Divine Inspiration, to describe the human condition, and what is necessary to make it bearable and bring us to Heaven. Literal interpretations rob us of that richness.
God Bless.
To the best of our knowledge, the Earth is something like 5 billion years old, and life has existed on it for something like 3 billion years. Modern humans have been around for 300,000 years (to my recollection, don’t hang me for being out by a few million years here and there!). Something happened though, something that took the consciousness of humans far beyond anything seen in the animal kingdom. Far beyond. I feel Genesis is a description of that human experience, of ‘waking up’ and realizing our own mortality. That Divine Spark, as it were, is still barely understood. Evolution itself is still far from being fully understood, but it’s one of the greatest theories ever discovered by humans. It is indispensable to understanding the natural world, including us. It explains the past, present and accurately predict future developments, it’s a killer theory. Literal interpretations of Genesis can’t stand before it, but they really don’t need to because that is not what they are. It’s like taking a squirt gun to a tank battle. Worse, it’s destructive to the Faith itself, because it’s easy to show that the world is not 5000 years old, and as a result destroys the credibility of the teachings. It’s a rod for your own back.
The Bible is more than simple analogy, far more, but a scientific document it is not. It was written by humans, with Divine Inspiration, to describe the human condition, and what is necessary to make it bearable and bring us to Heaven. Literal interpretations rob us of that richness.
God Bless.
N
nicholasG
Guest
Always. Just don’t give me websites, give me TOP EVO NAMES. Anyone can build a website and make it look official.
B
buffalo
Guest
When PJPII gave his speech the science was just starting to develop with regard to cell complexity. He falls back to Humani Generis and the cautions laid out there. He said the theory was more than a hypotheses. Yet it still remains a theory. He did not call out the distinction of micro and macro as PBXVI did (did you read all the posts PBXVI on evo). Still he was cautious in his statements. Remember who his audience was, the PAB. He encouraged further research. And guess what the fruits of that research is? The collapse of the modern synthesis. It would be very interesting to see what his comments would be in 2020…
B
buffalo
Guest
Already closed minded… But let’s move on. What is your biggest biological evolutionary belief. In other words what is the clincher for you?
S
StudentMI
Guest
Wait I thought not everything a Pope says is official teaching?
B
buffalo
Guest
Oh boy. Entirely wrong… You name is studentMI - what school?
S
StudentMI
Guest
School of none of your business, my friend.
B
buffalo
Guest
OK. I assume it is not Catholic and you have little exposure to Catholic teaching by your comment on the Pope.
B
buffalo
Guest
Just to clear up your post. Are you saying everything a Pope opines on is or is not official teaching?
S
StudentMI
Guest
More like I’m just quoting your position. Pope Francis has made comments supporting evolution and the big bang. But according to you that’s not official teaching so it should be disregarded.
N
nicholasG
Guest
Not closed minded. You said “top evo’s.”
What are there names? I’m assuming you didn’t make that up.
B
buffalo
Guest
Everything a Pope states should be considered. He is only infallible when he pronounces ex-cathedra on faith and morals in communion with the Bishops. Popes can be and have been wrong on other things.
B
buffalo
Guest
We will get to that later. What is the top clincher for you on evolution?
S
StudentMI
Guest
Correct. But according to you Pope Benedict speaking on micro evolution is dang near authoritative because… because why, exactly?
B
buffalo
Guest
You were building a case and included his name in your claim and I showed it to be wrong.
Admittedly, I liked his comments on it and science fiction.
Last edited:
- Status