Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[rossum]

Lucy.

Her feet were missing.

True.

It is also true that we have more skeletons of the same species (Australopithecus afarensis) with feet. We do not have Lucy’s feet, but we do have feet from the same species as well as footprints. Your creationist sources are lying to you by omission.

Why do you believe sources that lie to you?

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

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.

How do they know he’s fat if he doesn’t even exist yet ?

 

[Glark]

Anyone saying “Oh look at carbon dating problems, see how that falsifies evolution” understands neither carbon dating or the kinds of dating used on fossils.

Since you so scientific’n’all, you’ll be able to provide the evidence that I said that …

 

[Glark]

Your use of the word “proves” shows that you need to learn more about how science works.

“the theory of evolution is not completely provable” - Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Glark]

Then he shouldn’t have written six days of creation into his book.

 

[Glark]

The first life arose in a soup of non-living chemicals.

Fair enuf, as long as you don’t think it will ever be scientifically explicable.

 

[Glark]

The next Buddha on earth will be called Maitreya.

I was told that the next Buddha on earth will be called Glark.

 

[Glark]

It is an error to use religious belief to determine science.

I agree with you, Grasshopper.

You are making the same error all over again.

I don’t agree with you, Grasshopper.

“The scriptures tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

Job 26:7 - “(God) hangs the earth on nothing.”

Isaiah 40:22 - “(God) sits above the circle of the earth”.

In other words, the Bible contains some scientific facts.

 

[Glark]

Your creationist sources are lying to you by omission. Why do you believe sources that lie to you?

I have come across a few quotes used by some creation sites that have been taken out of context.

Secular scientists are always honest? LOL!!

 

[Techno2000]

rossum:

The next Buddha on earth will be called Maitreya.

I was told that the next Buddha on earth will be called Glark.

Glark, stop acting like Neanderthal

 

[Glark]

Techno2000:
All I know is, the dog nextdoor (Chicko) told me that Glark will be the next Buddha on earth. I believe him, coz I have never known Chicko to be wrong.

And I have been putting on a lot of weight lately, not to mention feeling rather wise and enlightened.

 

[rossum]

How do they know he’s fat if he doesn’t even exist yet ?

Unenlightened people are reborn again and again and again. When they are near to enlightenment, but have not actually reached it, they are called Bodhisattvas. Hotei was one of the lives of the Bodhisattva Maitreya who will eventually be reborn for the last time, attain enlightenment and become the Buddha Maitreya. Then he will die and not be reborn again.

Hotei was a Chinese monk who was considered to be one of the lives of the future-Buddha Maitreya. Apparently he was fat.

rossum

 

[rossum]

“the theory of evolution is not completely provable” - Pope Benedict XVI.

The Pope is right, no scientific theory is “provable”. The common error is in asking for “proof”, rather than asking for “evidence”. The Pope avoids this error; many creationists do not.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. If you want to replace the theory of evolution with something else, then your replacement will have to explain all the existing evidence for evolution as well as, or better than, the current theory.

Einstein’s theory of Gravity explained all the evidence for Newton’s theory of gravity, as well as explaining things that Newton’s theory could not, like the precession of the orbit of Mercury and Eddington’s observations in 1919.

Science advances by replacing good theories with better theories. Hence no scientific theory is ever final, or “proved”. There is always the possibility of a better theory coming along later.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Job 26:7 - “(God) hangs the earth on nothing.”

Isaiah 40:22 - “(God) sits above the circle of the earth”.

In other words, the Bible contains some scientific facts.

That “circle” is a scientific error. A circle (Hebrew: ma’agal) is a flat two-dimensional object. Hebrew had a different word for “ball, sphere” (cadoor) which was not used. Isaiah is repeating the common ANE assumption of a flat earth here. See also “four corners”. There was disagreement between people who thought the earth was a flat circle and those who thought it was a flat square. The different Bible writers reflected both viewpoints.

Indian scripture also contains some scientific facts: stars are actually very distant suns and have their own sets of planets. More distant planets, like Jupiter and Saturn are mentioned, which the Bible does not. Does that make you want to convert to Hinduism?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Glark, stop acting like Neanderthal

Hey! Some of my best friends are 4% Neanderthal.

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Who’s saying that? The position here contrary to yours is merely that six-day creation isn’t literal, not that God isn’t involved in creation

From Finding Darwin’s God, by Dr. Kenneth Miller:

“random, undirected process of mutation had produced the ‘right’ kind of variation for natural selection to act upon” (p. 51)
“a random, undirected process like evolution” (p. 102)
“blind, random, undirected evolution [could] have produced such an intricate set of structures and organs, so brilliantly dedicated to a single purpose” (p. 137)
“the random, undirected processes of mutation and natural selection” (p. 145)
“Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected” (p. 244)

A couple of thoughts:

• I’m talking about your scorn for Catholics here who are willing to believe in God and treat evolution seriously and as science. Sure, there are scientists who believe differently. Does Dr Miller speak for the Catholic Church? Is he a theologian, a Catholic, or a biologist? (Hint: it’s the latter)
• Your quote looks suspiciously like it’s been lifted from Casey Luskin’s critique of Miller’s book (or worse, a copy of Luskin’s critique lifted without attribution on an Amazon conversation page). Have you read Miller’s book? Can you provide us the context of these quotes? (Without context, we can’t tell if he’s espousing these views or merely reporting that others hold these views.) Given the lack of context, these quotes are pretty worthless…

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

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…

He doesn’t. You just assume that’s what the text implies.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Indian scripture also contains some scientific facts: stars are actually very distant suns and have their own sets of planets. More distant planets, like Jupiter and Saturn are mentioned, which the Bible does not. Does that make you want to convert to Hinduism?

Which Indian scripture contains these facts?

 

[Gorgias]

Indian scripture also contains some scientific facts: stars are actually very distant suns and have their own sets of planets. More distant planets, like Jupiter and Saturn are mentioned, which the Bible does not.

Actually, Saturn and Jupiter are referenced in the Bible. The Babylonian / Sumerian deities Ninurtu (Nimrod) and Marduk were associated with those planets, respectively, and they show up in Scripture.

 

[Hereiam]

Really? If one believes scripture to be inspired by God, claiming what it should or should not contain is presumptuous, and presumption is contrary to the first commandment, causing great consternation for both Judas the Iscariot and St… Peter.