A
abcdefg
Guest
FACT of evolution? are they fossils? of course fossils are real. but whatever come out of it claimed by evolutionist aren’t facts.
Have you seen an ape mutating into human directly? Has anyone seen it directly?
- Status
Have you seen an ape mutating into human directly? Has anyone seen it directly?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Popes are only infallible as relates to faith and morals, not science and not history. Faith and morals dictate that God created life. How it was done is a matter of history (even if we do not know precisely what that history IS). Thus, I would say that the pope might have over reached the boundary of the charism and protection promised him.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Pope John Paul II was responsible for the Catechism. I posted a direct quote from the Catechism. Your statement is wrong.
emphasis added by me.
It will never happen. The Church will never take that kind of position on a scientific matter.
Peace
Tim
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Exactly, she knows she doesn’t have the competence.
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
Has anyone seen an atom directly? How about a neutron? Have you seen Abraham Lincoln directly?
O
Orogeny
Guest
Evolution is a FACT. There is much, much more to evolution than fossils.
Has nothing to do with evolution being a FACT. Evolution has been observed. Speciation has been observed.
Peace
Tim
A
abcdefg
Guest
Did he say evolution is right and can be freely accepted without damaging faith?
It’s not a pure scientific matter. Tradition holds it’s (also) a theological matter.
I don’t think any pope can teach evolution can be accepted without damaging faith or formation of human body isn’t a theology question.
A
abcdefg
Guest
If evolution means how humans develop into different colors then it’s right. if evolution means human come from apes then it’s not fact at least.
evolution of apes/humans hasn’t been observed. Who has seen it?
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
Questions about “what happened” or “how did it happen” are clearly scientific. Did humans evolve from apes? That’s a factual question about the physical world and is definitely within the purview of science.
A
abcdefg
Guest
one question: Do you understand Catholic theology?
E
EnterTheBowser
Guest
A small bit.
O
Orogeny
Guest
I refer you to the quote from the Catechism. The Catechism accepts the science as a fact. How can a fact damage faith? You didn’t answer that one before. Want to try to this time?
No, it doesn’t.
How can a fact damage faith?
Look, I can PROVE to you that evolution can be accepted without damaging faith. For proof, I give you myself. I accept evolution as a fact. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. I also accept God as the Creator. For a nice summary of my beliefs, I refer you to the document that came out of the Nicean Council that we recite at Mass. I accept everything in that creed.
There. Your thesis that one cannot accept evolution without damaging one’s faith has been proven false.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Let me give you some advice. Go learn what evolution is. You don’t understand the basics.
Go learn about evolution.
Peace
Tim
A
abcdefg
Guest
Does this small bit include Church’s Tradition on the matter?
A
abcdefg
Guest
fact doesn’t damage faith. fossils are facts and doesn’t damage faith. E"T" simply isn’t fact. the claim that humans come from apes isn’t.
Paul Martin says he’s a strong Catholic. It’s much worse and more embarrassing to judge your own faith as good than to judge others’ faith as bad.
scientific evidence for phrenology is overwhelming. it’s based on stats. would you accept it if you were born at that time?
E
EtienneGilson
Guest
As St. Thomas stated, and Cardinal Schonborn reminded us recently, abcdefg’s attempted defense of a version of the Catholic faith which doesn’t exist is nothing but irrisio infidelium:
“one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.” stephanscom.at/edw/katechesen/articles/2005/12/02/a9719/
“one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.” stephanscom.at/edw/katechesen/articles/2005/12/02/a9719/
O
otm
Guest
what you are failing to understand is the meaning of the word “made”. You are taking it litierally - that there was noting standing, sittting, or lying there before the act of God; and when God “made” man, voila! there was a living, breathing human being.
“Made” also can encompass the giving of a human soul. In other words, here is a creature, capable of standing upright, capable of modifying objects and using them as tools (interesting how other animals can do that today), and God picks one and “breathes” in a soul. By this way also, God can “make” man.
You may choose to be a literalist and insist that “Made” has the meaning of taking clay and shaping a figure, and then breathing in life. However, even literalists have to state what the definition is of the words they use.
M
Melchior
Guest
They were not created Phil, they evolved. Quite living in the stone age.Why oh why do we keep creating new evolution threads? It is definitely not me creating them but I will respond when they crop up.All right now, if the Council of Cologne has it right, what do we do with Pope Pius XII 1950 statement in Humani Generis that human evolution for the body is OK:
“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – or the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 36)
How could he say this if (in Fr. Brian Harrison’s words) the Church previously “condemned the idea of natural human evolution in no uncertain terms” ?
Was Pius XII not aware of the Council of Cologne and its meaning and significance? Was Pius XII ignorant that the Church previously “condemned the idea of natural human evolution in no uncertain terms” ?
I think John Paul II answered this in his 1996 message. I also think the Council of Cologne was a local council, and does appear to condemn “spontaneous” human evolution, but what about a theistic evolution, an evolution set up, overseen, somehow directed, somehow guided, and “willed” by God (see Catechism 159, 283-284, and especially 362, 369).
Ratzinger / Benedict as I’ve quoted at least a dozen times in these forums, says in his commentary on Genesis that the Bible tells us “who we are” while evolution tells us “how we got here.” They are complementary concepts according to him. That would be consistent with the most recent teaching on the subject.
Yeah early Vatican response, now what about the LATEST Vatican response on the creation-evolution issue. Has Fr. Brian Harrison made any commentary on this 2004 document yet? Or is he just content to ignore any statements on the creation-evolution issue after about 1925 or so?
Phil P
Mel
A
abcdefg
Guest
To otm: If God hadn’t taken an active role in the formation of human body, you could go and worship whatever had taken the charge.
For example you can pray to nature or randomness so that you can develop stronger body.
For example you can pray to nature or randomness so that you can develop stronger body.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Maybe it’s time for a reminder that the documents can’t be expected to deal with topics that have not been discussed - look to the distant past for a judgement on evolution is like expecting Nicea I in 325 to rule on the morality of the Highland Fling.
Documents dealing with the questions that crop up in a society in the throes of the Reformation cannot be expected to given guidance on what Catholics are to make of “Lucy” or of Archaeopteryx remains.BTW - where do the Fathers mention the Americas ? They don’t. Therefore, curare poison does not exist. Not one single Patriarch, Prophet, Apostle, Saint, martyr Council, Bishop, Pope, Synod, Confessor, Doctor, Father or “approved author” mentions it. That is a pretty final argument - I’d like to hear of even one apparition - just one ! - that mentions it; one visionary, ecstatic, or the like. Silence, universal silence, is all there is.
So much for the myth of curare poison ! ##
- Status