Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Techno2000]

rossum:

No. The earth billions of years old because physics and geology show that it is billions of years old. The age is determined independently of evolution.

Just because you are fixated on evolution does not mean that either physicists of geologists are.

Of course, you can deny physics and geology if you want to, but that means you will have to learn a great deal more about those two subjects if you want to make a convincing case.

My theology can accommodate an ancient earth, but it wouldn’t suprise me one little bit if the “scientifically” determined age of the earth has been “stretched” for the sake of ToE.

This may seem strange but the earth doesn’t feel or seem to me like it’s billions of years old.

 

[Rau]

Note to self: Use common sense.

And then cross-check with Glark.

 

[Rau]

My theology can accommodate an ancient earth, but it wouldn’t suprise me one little bit if the “scientifically” determined age of the earth has been “stretched” for the sake of ToE.

So the suspected conspiracy may extend to the astrophysicists, physicists, geologists and cosmologists…

Have you started your physics degree yet Glark?

 

[Rau]

This may seem strange but the earth doesn’t feel or seem to me like it’s billions of years old.

Does it feel about 5778 years old?

 

[rossum]

This may seem strange but the earth doesn’t feel or seem to me like it’s billions of years old.

What you see mostly isn’t that old. Trees, grass and soil are young. Most of the surface rocks are younger than the earth – all limestones are younger as are sandstones. Unless you live in certain parts of Canada or Greenland you will not be seeing the oldest rocks.

As with Glark, if you want to dispute radiometric dating, then you are actually going to have to learn Physics. Creationist websites will not help you there.

rossum

 

[jcm2017]

I’m referring to the dome described in Genesis.
Since you are espousing a rigidly literal translation of scripture, you must believe there is a dome up there.
Do you?

 

[Aloysium]

Do you believe there is a dome in the sky separating “the waters”?

I suppose it would qualify as a belief. It’s an explanation, a way to conceptualize, to put our perceptions into an order, an image of the world in which we participate. Sort of like how we use the Theory of Evolution. Of course there is a dome in the sky; just look up and there it is, pretty big, covering everything and everywhere one might travel. One wonders where it ends and how it got there. But, no one sees that today. When we bother to look, there are Hubble images and diagrams in textbooks connecting us to the universe. Same questions come to mind, about its end and its beginning. We seem to have come so far in one respect, but fallen back in another - more knowledgeable about the world’s workings and yet more alienated, finding a nature that cares nothing for us and in whose vastness we disappear. Within that representation of reality, we have people reduced to apes. And, that’s where modern science fails us; or more accurately, we fail to meet its obligation to pursue the truth.

The Theory of Evolution provides a vision of the truth as realistic as is the concept of a dome above us. Focussing on morphology, gross anatomical remnants and genetic, predicated on the assumption that there was no creation, it will find just that mirrored back, missing the entire point of what constitutes life and what it means to be human. It is the modern equivalent of astrology, and Galileo today would be arguing that the universe revolves around existence, lacking in what constitutes proof, but knowing what reason dictates. All beings, from the subatomic to the person, behave in accordance to their nature, what they are. That nature, the processes that define individual events and link them together as the constituents of a greater whole, is universally relational. The Centre of this all is perfect relationality - Love. A relegation to Metaphysics and Theology, is a way to disregard how all this works and fits together. I would assert that it is no less science than Quantum Mechanics, which as geeky as it may sound, will expand our vision beyond the narrow confines of modern thought.

 

[jcm2017]

Anyone who ascribes a scientific literalism to Genesis must give credence to a dome in the sky. And Jonah literally in the belly of a whale. Etc…
You either admit of various senses of scripture or you are a fundametalist literalist.
Fundamentalism robs the scriptures of inspiration and makes them a dead letter. In any case, the approach that Glark and others use is NOT Catholic, and that should be emphasized for the benefit of readers. Ironically, fundamentalism does give atheists something to object to, and they should object to it along with Catholics.

 

[Glark]

So what process do you use to differentiate something that is a miracle (something that doesn’t result from natural process, like, I dunno…magic) and something

In the case of abiogenesis, it is obvious to me that a living organism is too functionally complex to be the result of chance.

If you were walking on a beach and found your name written in the sand, would you conclude it’s the result of a fluke of nature?

 

[IWantGod]

In the case of abiogenesis, it is obvious to me that a living organism is too functionally complex to be the result of chance.

Are you saying that it’s metaphysically impossible or extremely unlikely?

 

[Glark]

I think you are reading too much into this passage. Jesus is quoting Genesis to rescind Moses’ allowance of a divorce law, which was only a temporary law because of their hard hearts. He is not describing the method humans came into existence. quotes them a Scripture passage from Genesis to say that God’s original law, that of one male and one female be joined by God for life goes back to the beginning of human creation and therefore supersedes Moses’ temporary law. But using this passage to try to disprove Evolution is a bit of a stretch since that is not the scope of the passage.

Spoken like a true Darwinist. If Jesus says humans existed “from the beginning of of creation”, why do you doubt him? Does your Jesus speak falsehoods?

In addition, it must be talking about the beginning of human creation. Since under a literal interpretation of the beginning of all creation on day 1 there were no humans.

The “beginning of creation” is obviously a loose reference to the six days in Genesis 1. A loose reference is hardly surprising, given the context of the passage.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Again, “all the forensics” do not point to a Godless or unguided universe, so your analogy simply fails.

But what would the universe look like if God didn’t exist. All the evidence points it to looking exactly like it does right now.

I think you are begging the question. Either God did create the universe and, therefore, it looks like what it does today. Or, he didn’t and therefore it looks like what it does today. You can’t assume God is NOT involved simply because the universe looks the way it does. That would be a case of viciously circular reasoning because you are presuming it would look like what it does if God were not involved. Try spinning that wheel again, Mr. Bradskii, sir.

 

[Glark]

This may seem strange but the earth doesn’t feel or seem to me like it’s billions of years old.

If you want to become a Darwinist, you will need to rid yourself of such feelings. Have you considered therapy? Try tuning into dolphin consciousness - I heard it’s very good.

Dobzhansky suggests your resistance to the truth may be the result of an “emotional block”; and Dawkins suggests poor souls like you may actually be “insane”.

 

[Glark]

Actually, scientific enquiry unconnected with evolution seems fairly confident in the age estimates of the earth and the sun. Perhaps God has taken steps to deceive us in this area too?

A naive outlook. The cult of Darwinism isn’t confined to just biology. Its influence is holistic.

 

[rossum]

A naive outlook. The cult of Darwinism isn’t confined to just biology. Its influence is holistic.

One of the ways to tell a post that is purely personal opinion, with no independent evidence to back it up, is to see how easy it is to turn the words round to point the other way. In this case only one word needs to be changed:

A naive outlook. The cult of Creationism isn’t confined to just biology. Its influence is holistic.

See what I mean?

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

rossum, did Neandertals go through re-birth ?

 

[Glark]

And then cross-check with Glark.

It’s only a matter of time before the Church offers Glark seats on the boards of both the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences and the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

 

[Glark]

Have you started your physics degree yet Glark?

One third done and dusted.

 

[Glark]

What you see mostly isn’t that old. Trees, grass and soil are young. Most of the surface rocks are younger than the earth – all limestones are younger as are sandstones. Unless you live in certain parts of Canada or Greenland you will not be seeing the oldest rocks.

For starters, it would have taken at least 2.0958 million years for wind and water erosion to have carved the four faces out of the rock on Mt. Rushmore.

 

[Glark]

I’m referring to the dome described in Genesis.

Since you are espousing a rigidly literal translation of scripture, you must believe there is a dome up there.

Do you?

In which chapter and verse is a “dome” mentioned? I can’t find it.