Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Glark]

You beat me to it! Worse, your (hilarious) post demonstrates that you have no respect for science. You are just a backward, ignorant evo-infidel.

Father Darwin, forgive him; he knows not what he does.

T-rex tasted like chicken, except bigger. Er, yeah.

 

[Glark]

Can you explain precisely what that means? I fail to see why you declare that God can’t do that via a process we would identify as evolution. Are you placing a constraint on God?

I think “kinds” might refer to nested hierarchies.

Besides that, it makes no sense that God would mention that He created creatures “according to their kinds” if the original “kinds” evolved into creatures NOT “according to their (original) kinds”.

 

[Rau]

“Might refer”? A supposition as to meaning of that phrase seems a fragile basis on which to take such a strident position.

 

[Glark]

China has the year of the dragon in which they still celebrate courage.

It is alledged that a young maiden was about to be sacrificed by pagans to a dragon they worshipped, when along came Saint George, who saved her by slaying said dragon. This is alledged to have happened reasonably recently, as this fella George was a Christian. (Saint George is the Patron Saint of England.)

 

[Glark]

It takes courage to slay Darwin’s theory of evolution .

They say there’s a fine line between courage and stupidity. Only a fool would try and slay Darwin’s theory - it is “an established scientific fact”.

 

[Glark]

“And when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go forth, and seduce the nations, which are over the four quarters of the earth … the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.” - Rev 20:7.

 

[Glark]

KFC? No, KFD.

I can’t stand people making fun of Darwinism.

 

[Glark]

Well, if God would require us to disbelieve the ever-growing mountain of evidence and predictive power of evolution, He’d have to be some kind of trickster, wouldn’t he?

The most fundamentlal prediction of Darwin’s theory has failed miserablely - gradualism in the fossil record … so much so that dreamers like Gould and Eldredge resorted to a absurd version of spontaneuos generation in an effort to “explain” this embarrassing discrepancy.

 

[Glark]

Joe, be careful whom you get to explain ToE. Evolutionary scientists are not always objective in this matter., which means they don’t always deliver the truth.

 

[Glark]

Thank you for the book titles

You should read both sides of the story. I recommend you study what creationist scientists have to say - Answers in Genesis is a good place to start. There are several others. There’s also Catholic creation sites, such as kolbecentre.org. Anti-evolution online forums can also be good places to learn.

 

[rossum]

If you actually read the Bible, you would understand.

I doubt it. There are Christians, and Catholics, on both sides of this discussion, as this thread shows. All of those Christians and Catholics have read their Bibles.

If they had died out millions of years ago, they wouldn’t have accurate depictions carved on ancient buildings and painted on pottery all over the world. There is only so much the bones alone could tell them.

There are no “accurate” ancient portrayals of non-avian dinosaurs anywhere. The Ica stones are modern forgeries and various claimed depictions, like the Cambodian ‘stegosaurus’, are inaccurate – the Cambodian carving’s head is far too large for a Stegosaurus; it is more like a species of Rhino.

No Western dragon is “accurate” because dragons are hexapod with six limbs, while all dinosaurs are tetrapods with four limbs.

Finally, even if a living non-avian dinosaur were found, in the style of Conan Doyle’s “Lost World”, it would not affect evolution. Sharks have been around a lot longer than dinosaurs and they present no challenge to evolution. Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct a long time before the dinosaurs, yet when living Coelacanths were found there was no impact on evolution. A small error was corrected, they weren’t actually extinct, just difficult to find. There was no impact on evolution.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It is alledged that a young maiden was about to be sacrificed by pagans to a dragon they worshipped, when along came Saint George, who saved her by slaying said dragon. This is alledged to have happened reasonably recently, as this fella George was a Christian. (Saint George is the Patron Saint of England.)

Unfortunately, Saint George has been demoted to “not really a saint but we’ll keep him because some people like him” along with a lot of the other legendary and semi-legendary early saints.

On a side note, one of the other saints demoted was the Buddha (see Barlaam and Josaphat). A pity, keeping him as a saint might have been good for inter-religious relations.

rossum

 

[stavros388]

There is no “embarrassing discrepancy” in science as theories are readily modified to better fit the evidence. And by “spontaneous generation”, I believe that you mean punctuated equilibrium, where change appears to have occured more rapidly. However, it is hardly spontaneous and is only more “rapid” in evolutionary terms, evolution requiring much time and many generations.

The most fundamentlal prediction of Darwin’s theory has failed miserablely - gradualism in the fossil record … so much so that dreamers like Gould and Eldredge resorted to a absurd version of spontaneuos generation in an effort to “explain” this embarrassing discrepancy.

 

[stavros388]

There are some wonderful anti-vaccination and flat earth websites out there, too, while you’re at it!

But seriously, you really shouldn’t discourage Joe from reading science books. You did recommend that he read “both sides of the story”, but your posts cause me to doubt that you have taken your own advice. One side, the side of overwhelming consensus across multiple scientific disciplines, should probably be given a fair shake, too, when endeavouring to learn about something in the domain of science.

You should read both sides of the story. I recommend you study what creationist scientists have to say - Answers in Genesis is a good place to start. There are several others. There’s also Catholic creation sites, such as kolbecentre.org. Anti-evolution online forums can also be good places to learn.

 

[Gorgias]

RoseofMary1:

Here is a point to ponder: Every ancient culture has dragon lore. The word dinosaur was only invented in 1890. But, for evolution to be true, dragons/dinosaurs had to become extinct millions of years ago…

The book of Job details huge creatures called “Behemoth” and a “Leviathan”, which sound very much like a dinosaur and a dragon respectively (Job 40:10-41:25).

Or, more plausibly, a hippo and a croc, respectively.

It seems very odd that these creatures are written about as if they were in existence at the same time as Job, if one had been extinct for millions of years and the other never existed at all.

It’s only odd if you conclude – on the basis of very sketchy interpretation – that Job is talking about ‘dinosaurs’ and ‘dragons’. Otherwise, it’s a very natural description of very naturally existing animals.

 

[Gorgias]

You should read both sides of the story. I recommend you study what creationist scientists have to say - Answers in Genesis is a good place to start.

Answers in Genesis is a horrible place for a Catholic to start their learning! From their site:

For Roman Catholics around the world, the pope is recognized not only as the leader of the church, but also as the primary voice of authority in the church.

This stands in stark contrast to our position here at AiG. We teach, without apology, that … [the fact] that the pope has been elevated, in the eyes of so many, to a position of such tremendous authority is actually an affront to the true authority of Jesus Christ that is expressed in His Word.

You’re free, of course, to seek religious truth wherever you think it is to be found. However, to claim to be Catholic and then turn to an anti-Catholic website for theological answers? Hmm…

 

[Rau]

From the AiG website: “that the pope has been elevated, in the eyes of so many, to a position of such tremendous authority is actually an affront to the true authority of Jesus Christ that is expressed in His Word.”

Certainly would make you wonder what Christ meant when He (the Word) said to St Petrer “those who hear you hear me”.

 

[RoseofMary1]

Science can show how, it has no business claiming to know why. The why is in the Bible.

 

[RoseofMary1]

Yes, there are accurate depictions of brontosauruses on ancient Egyptian potter and on other ancient pottery. There are carvings of Triceratops on ancient ruins.

 

[stavros388]

Yes, there are accurate depictions of brontosauruses on ancient Egyptian potter and on other ancient pottery. There are carvings of Triceratops on ancient ruins.

All are debunked as frauds or are ambiguous enough to be inconclusive.