Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Glark]

You read the Bible literally

Well, some parts I read literally; others I don’t. For example, I don’t read the book of Revelation too literally.

but you do not bother to read what the Work of God is telling you

Pray tell, little Buddha, what is the Word of God telling me?

And why do you call it the Word of God? You don’t believe in God.

 

[Glark]

But how exactly that falsifies the tree of life is beyond me, since when we look at the molecular data of all extant species that we have analyzed thus far, they do fit into that tree.

Perhaps you are referring to the molecular data that suggests a Creator used the same molecular building blocks to construct all living creatures.

 

[Glark]

I’m afraid that the level of knowledge exhibited in this thread regarding evolution by those who deny it means that a truly bizarre comment such as yours is quite likely to be taken seriously.

I’m beginning to think that when they changed the forum, they transfered my membership to the junior section…

Atheism 101 - deride all evo-infidles as ignoramuses.

 

[Glark]

A true man such as Adam has a human body with a human soul infused by God. A living human body without the soul is not a “true man” as mentioned in Humani Generis. Evolution tells us that there was a large population of these “untrue men” alongside Adam and Eve.
All living humans are true men because they have been given a soul and are descended from Adam and Eve as is required theologically. They are also descended from those “untrue men” living at the same time who did not have souls but did have compatible DNA – adding a soul does not change DNA

So Cain’s wife was not a true woman, but a false (untrue) woman?

Did this mean Cain’s kids inherited only half a soul each? If so, they were not true men, but half-true/half-false men (or for simplicity’s sake - true/false men).

Or did some of Cain’s kids inherit a soul each while others inherited no soul at all? Wouldn’t this create divisions and conflict within the family? For one thing, the true kids with souls would go to God schools and their false siblings with no souls would go to Godless schools. And only the true kids with souls would celebrate Xmas and get Xmas presents.

These are truly profound questions which deserve truly serious thought.

And why would Cain fear that the false men would kill him? I imagine they wouldn’t be aware of what was going on and so they would have no reason to attack Cain.

You may not agree with this interpretation, but there are other Catholics who do.

You’re dead right about that … but what great comedy! I commend all evo-Catholics on providing such excellent entertainment. It certainly rivals anything Scientologists have managed to come up with.

 

[rossum]

One can apply this to evolution, how was life supported when there was no food chain in place ?

The first life arose in a soup of non-living chemicals. Very early life lived on those chemicals: see “chemotroph”. Some deep sea bacteria still live that way.

Later some evolved to eat other living cells. Still later photosynthesis evolved so some bacteria/algae could make their own food.

rossum

 

[Glark]

A God that creates evolving life is no less “all-mighty” and worthy of our worship than a God that snaps His fingers.

I agree. But why would God describe the finger-snapping approach in his book if the opposite is the truth - billions of years of evolution?

And why would God come up with Scriptures that are impossible to reconcile with billions of years of creation … such as Mark 10:6 - “But from the beginning of creation, God created them male and female”
and Job 40:15 - “Behold behemoth, whom I made with thee, he eaterh grass like an ox”?

 

[rossum]

Pray tell, little Buddha,

You do me far too much honour. It will take many lifetimes before I attain Buddhahood.

what is the Word of God telling me?

That the universe is 13.5 billion years old. That the earth is 4.5 billion years old. That life on earth is about 3.8 billion years old. That Homo sapiens evolved from an earlier species of Hominid primate around 200,000 years ago in Africa. That a woodenly literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis will lead you into error.

And why do you call it the Word of God? You don’t believe in God.

I am arguing with you, and you do see it as the Work of God. If I were arguing with someone Jewish I would call it the Work of YHWH.

rossum

 

[Glark]

Dinosaurs ‘shrank’ regularly to become birds

It was a dwarf dinosaur … that wanted to fly and be free. Are you implying that little dwarf dinos have no right to be free?

 

[rossum]

So Cain’s wife was not a true woman, but a false (untrue) woman?

Either that or his sister. Genetics would indicate that it probably was not his sister.

Did this mean Cain’s kids inherited only half a soul each? If so, they were not true men, but half-true/half-false men (or for simplicity’s sake - true/false men).

AIUI souls are not inherited, but directly given by God. If all Adam and Eve’s descendants were given souls then God would give them a whole soul, not a part soul. Is there anyone alive today with a part soul? Everyone alive today receives their soul in the same way as Adam and Eve’s descendants did back then: direct action by God. With souls we are not talking about genetics or inheritance, but the direct action of God at each and every conception.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

You do me far too much honour. It will take many lifetimes before I attain Buddhahood.

This is a serious Question rossum… I thought Buddha was a little skinny guy that practise asceticism, why do I see statues of big fat Buddhas ?

 

[Glark]

Your answers show that you are basically acting like a troll as you refuse to apologize or even acknowledge anything you did was wrong and I will not be discussing this issue with you anymore until you repent. You have consistently proven to be uncharitable, and slandering to others who do not share your views on Evolution.I think it is you who is interacting with your own strawman. And you are being overly dismissive of anything anyone says which is obvious to anyone who reads what you have written.

I think you must be confusing me with someone else.

 

[Glark]

So, the most important ones got destroyed…ok.And that means Darwin’s theory of evolution has no leg to stand on.

As long as there are atheists, the belief that all life on earth evolved from tiny widdle bugs and that dinos turned into chickens will remain. A belief doesn’t depend on evidence. Neither does junk science.

 

[Glark]

Fisherman Carl says: “His attitude only serves to push people away from his position, even if it is some day found to be right.”

I apologise for my attitude. I have been known to be cordial … if pushed. It would probably be a good idea if I went back on the pills those nice psychiatrists told me to take after the shock treatments.

 

[Glark]

So, the most important ones got destroyed…ok.And that means Darwin’s theory of evolution has no leg to stand on.
Ahh… Then we can settle this argument easily. You produce the two most important creationist fossils: Adam’s bones and Eve’s bones and creation wins.

Oh… You can’t produce them.

They got destroyed?

How unfortunate. And that means creationism has no leg to stand on.

It’s a fallacy to compare relgious belief with science.
Religious belief doesn’t stand or fall on empirical evidence - science does.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Dinosaurs ‘shrank’ regularly to become birds

It was a dwarf dinosaur … that wanted to fly and be free. Are you implying that little dwarf dinos have no right to be free?

I will ponder this.

 

[Glark]

Carbon dating is only reliable up to a few thousand years, and isn’t used for dating fossils like Lucy.

Lucy.
Her feet were missing.
Some humans footprints were found nearby.
Scientists assumed the footprints were made by Lucy.
Now Lucy has human feet and therefore qualifies as a missing link.
Junk science.

 

[rossum]

This is a serious Question rossum… I thought Buddha was a little skinny guy that practise asceticism, why do I see statues of big fat Buddhas ?

Buddha is a title, it means “The Enlightened One”. Different people can become Buddhas. The historical Buddha was a man called Siddhartha Gautama Shakya. The next Buddha on earth will be called Maitreya. Maitreya is not yet a Buddha, so when he is born on earth he does not attain full enlightenment. He is close, but has not yet reached the goal.

The ‘Fat Buddha’ is a Chinese version of the Bodhisattva Maitreya, who is called Budai (Chinese) and Hotei (Japanese). He is not a Buddha, but a Bodhisattva. He will only become a Buddha after Buddhism has disappeared, and will re-establish the religion, as Shakyamuni Buddha re-established it.

rossum

 

[Glark]

Have you ever actually thought about reading what actual paleontologists and taxonomists believe, rather than reading what a Creationist lawyer thinks?

I’m not qualified to interpret scienfiic papers. I only know the basics. So I rely on the opinions of others - like we all do at some stage.

When it comes to Origins science, I don’t trust what the scientific establishment says - it is a propaganda machine for the doctrines of demons.

 

[rossum]

It’s a fallacy to compare relgious belief with science.

Religious belief doesn’t stand or fall on empirical evidence - science does.

It is an error to use religious belief to determine science. The Catholic Church learned that around the time of Galileo, and has remembered the lesson ever since. Some Protestant churches forgot the lesson, or never learned in in the first place. You are making the same error all over again: “The scriptures tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

rossum

 

[Glark]

Well,Jewish tradition states that Adam’s skull was buried in Golgotha (place of the skull)which is the same spot Jesus’s cross was stuck in the ground.

I didn’t know that. Fascinating.