Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Which Indian scripture contains these facts?
Chapter 10 of the Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra describes the Bodhisattva Vimalakirti sending to a distant planet round a distant sun for a bowl of special rice with which he feeds 80,000 people.
The Licchavi Vimalakirti addressed that incarnated bodhisattva: “Noble son, go in the direction of the zenith and when you have crossed as many buddha-fields as there are sands in forty-two Ganges rivers, you will reach a universe called Sarvagandhasugandha, where you will find the Tathagata Sugandhakuta taking his meal.”
In this context, “buddha-field” is a star and its planets. “Universe” is probably a stellar cluster, or possibly a galaxy. Both the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds are visible from southern India, and sailors would have gone even further south at times.

There are similar references in Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavata Purana.

You might want to take this part of the conversation to the "Non-Catholic religions forum if you want to continue it.

rossum
 
40.png
Techno2000:
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
Ok , thanks…
 
This would be a rather western materialistic interpretation. If it has any meaning at all, what is spoken of is that which truly satisfies. The ontological reality, to which some religious truths point, was made man, to be known by all, and not just the very, very few, in eternity. There is no reincarnation, by the way. We are all, each with our own personal individuality and God-given graces, incarnations of one mankind, fallen in Adam, saved and redeemed in Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
This would be a rather western materialistic interpretation. If it has any meaning at all, what is spoken of is that which truly satisfies. The ontological reality, to which some religious truths point, was made man, to be known by all, and not just the very, very few, in eternity. There is no reincarnation, by the way. We are all, each with our own personal individuality and God-given graces, incarnations of one mankind, fallen in Adam, saved and redeemed in Jesus Christ.
He"s going to tell you that Buddhist don’t believe in reincarnation, because they don’t believe in a soul.
 
Last edited:
Then we can ask what does it mean to be a first cause in existence in this series. It must be uncaused since it would not be the first cause if it requires a cause. Therefore its essence must be its existence. That is its essence is to exist. And from which it can pass existence on to the secondary causes in the sequence which ultimately causes a person to exist at any moment.
The problem here is that none of this may be a requirement of a “before the universe” epoch. We simply cannot say that causality applies, or that the concept itself makes any sense. For instance, in geometry, you can have a “compact manifold” which is a finite structure, and yet without boundary. Such things seem impossible in our every day experience, which informed scientific and philosophical inquiry until quite recently in human history.

Causation is a property of our current observable universe. It’s far too earlier to declare that it is a property of any other hypothetical universe, or even of other regions of our universe (if there is a difference between the two). Since the question is unanswerable, and since I’m not bound to what medieval philosophers dreamed up, I don’t see any need to make any assumption. The question is currently unanswerable, perhaps even forever unanswerable.
 
40.png
niceatheist:
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 …
Why would anyone bring up carbon dating in a discussion on evolution? A discussion on archaeology, to be sure, but since carbon dating only is reliable up to around 50,000 years, and modern humans appeared nearly three times as far back in history, it wouldn’t really be of any use in learning anything about the fossil record.
 
40.png
niceatheist:
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.
And yet you’ll apparently trust what a lawyer thinks.
 
40.png
niceatheist:
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.
You don’t need the feet to determine bipedality. The spine is what you need. Lucy was a biped.
 
40.png
niceatheist:
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.
The molecular data shows a lot more than that. It shows that all organisms alive on the planet that have been analyzed fit into a hierarchy; the tree of life as it were. Even where there is horizontal gene transfer, that hasn’t disproven evolution, it has actually allowed scientists to determine with a good deal more resolution particular branches of the tree.

If God didn’t use evolution, then He made it look like he did.
 
40.png
niceatheist:
If God didn’t use evolution, then He made it look like he did.
He must have flipped the off switch a while back because nothing is evolving right now.
Evolution never stops:


The reality is that all evolution is, at the very core, is change in the genetic makeup of a population over time; or more technically, change in allele frequency in a population over time.
 
He didn’t make it look like that.
We unfortunately, in our self-centred, body-centred, perspective see things upside down.

As Rossum stated so clearly above:
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
And, the Theory of Evolution fails in not addressing at all the development of our capacity to do such things as mathematics which is just one element of consciousness which is whole and relational. It’s so obvious that it feels weird, like telling someone they should notice that they exist. Not only does the individual exist but so too does the other. How that works is most definitely not at a molecular level. At any rate the theory fails because it has been revealed that we all originated from one man and one woman. It’s going to be difficult to wrap our minds around that, as it was difficult to understand that no matter how fast I go the light shining from my flashlight goes no faster. In the end we accept it 'cause that’s the way it is.

i believe our understanding of how matter works will ultimately be turned right side up. It all comes into being from the Word of God. The molecular stuff, the constituents do not generate the whole, but become it, like waves in a sea, and separate into wholes in themselves as particles. From us, the most complex, down to the smallest of things, that’s how it works.

Whatever. The remnants of our forebears’ lives can be pieced together into various patterns. I don’t buy the 6k theory, which was thought up by some guy, but that our existence arose merely from the arrangement of atoms into complex molecules, is even more ridiculous. Consider the simplicity of reading, thinking and posting, how it all flows through the will, and everything that can go wrong. You honestly think this just happened? Really?
 
Last edited:
Whatever. The remnants of our forebears’ lives can be pieced together into various patterns. I don’t buy the 6k theory, which was thought up by some guy, but that our existence arose merely from the arrangement of atoms into complex molecules, is even more ridiculous. Consider the simplicity of reading, thinking and posting, how it all flows through the will, and everything that can go wrong. You honestly think this just happened? Really?
This really boils down to an argument from incredulity, with a good deal of strawman involved. First of all, just because you have a hard time imagining something doesn’t really determine whether it is a legitimate claim or not. To many people Quantum mechanics seems counterintuitive if not outright fantastical (no less than Einsten himself was resistant, calling it “spooky action at a distance”), but in the end, it describes aspects of nature very well.

The strawman comes into acting as if evolution acts in some great leap, that the ability to do mathematics somehow just happened all at once, and that’s not how it happened at all. A great many organisms are capable of doing at least simple forms of arithmetic, and one can imagine the survival advantage of even being able to do quick calculations as to prey or predator. By the same token, even among H. sapiens, you’re going to be surprised to find out that some cultures have pretty rudimentary counting systems. Some, like the San Bushmen of Africa, don’t really have number systems that go beyond ten, mainly because they don’t need to. And the fact is that our closest relatives have brains that work a great deal like ours, which is what one would expect if we were both descended from a common ancestor.

Evolution is a process that has taken 4 billion years, step by step. There are no great leaps. Innovation is an illusion of time. Look at the tetrapod body form. There are thousands of species that use this form, and they all possess a similar set of HOX genes, and yet within that body form is an enormous amount of variation, but that variation didn’t spring all it once, and in fact took hundreds of millions of years, generation by slow generation.

At the end of the day it is up to you to square things away. I view evolution is as close to a fact as anything in science, with a vast body of research and evidence, whereas literal interpretations of Genesis come off absurd, to the point that it’s hard for me to fathom why anyone would want to misuse the Bible in such a way.
 
I view evolution is as close to a fact as anything in science, with a vast body of research and evidence, whereas literal interpretations of Genesis come off absurd, to the point that it’s hard for me to fathom why anyone would want to misuse the Bible in such a way.
If one does not deny there is a God, then there is no reason to deny the occurrence of things similar to the descriptions in Genesis. We are prompted to conclude that that literal story is not meant as literal information because it is not the only information we have to hand, not because it is overtly miracle-like. The creation of everything from nothing is miraculous enough, quite regardless of the observable mechanisms.
 
That’s what he claims. There is no Buddhist equivalent to the Magesterium. Not all Buddhist would agree with that statement. Some do not believe in reincarnation.

The issue may have to do with equating the soul to a sense of self, which could be thought of as being illusory. A soul hurts, lives and dies; what that soul imagines itself to be, rightly or wrongly, is something different.

Zen Buddhism plays mental games meant to wake the person up. Being told that there can be reincarnation where no soul exists will get the mind spinning until it gives up, and realizes itself to be the soul for which it has been searching - poof - enlightenment.
 
Last edited:
I’m not trying to argue, but rather providing you with an opinion that has been pretty well thought out, although perhaps not adequately expressed. You missed my point. You ask why someone would “misuse” the Bible. People are concerned about their neighbours’ eternal soul. Turning the question around, why would atheists misuse science to justify their belief that there is no God?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top