T
The_Barbarian
Guest
You should tell God. He thinks life was brought forth by the Earth.
- Status
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Deconi << You know, this is rather juvenile, Phil…I still love you though, Man! >>
Thanks, it was late at night. I guess I was trying to show you cannot present both sides or all sides of everything. You should leave out the thoroughly discredited and kooky ideas like “there are no transitional fossils.” (for example)
Wolseley is correct in that much of these creation-evolution threads is a waste of time IF people would only check the search engine of the forums, and read all these same threads we had back in May 2004 forward when the board started. It’s all been said before. Of course the same is true about many other pure Catholic doctrinal and non-science topics. Some subjects tend to surface again and again. For creation-evolution threads:
Creation or Evolution: What Do You Believe? (June 2004, 300+ replies)
Creation vs. Evolution Poll II (June 2004, about 200 replies)
Evolution vs. Creation – Let’s Give Up Sounding Educated (June 2004, 87 replies)
Evolution: Much Ado About Nothing (Aug 2004, 100 replies)
Creation vs. Evolution (Take 187) (Sept 2004, short thread)
This last thread is interesting since by Sept 2004 we were all saying we were already sick of all the “creation and evolution” threads. See my post in that thread that is similar to this one where I list the long 2004 threads we’ve already had!
Of course my all-time favorites are the ones from the end of Dec 2005 which I have preserved on my site:
Catholic Creationism and Jack Chick Comics
Phil P
Thanks, it was late at night. I guess I was trying to show you cannot present both sides or all sides of everything. You should leave out the thoroughly discredited and kooky ideas like “there are no transitional fossils.” (for example)
Wolseley is correct in that much of these creation-evolution threads is a waste of time IF people would only check the search engine of the forums, and read all these same threads we had back in May 2004 forward when the board started. It’s all been said before. Of course the same is true about many other pure Catholic doctrinal and non-science topics. Some subjects tend to surface again and again. For creation-evolution threads:
Creation or Evolution: What Do You Believe? (June 2004, 300+ replies)
Creation vs. Evolution Poll II (June 2004, about 200 replies)
Evolution vs. Creation – Let’s Give Up Sounding Educated (June 2004, 87 replies)
Evolution: Much Ado About Nothing (Aug 2004, 100 replies)
Creation vs. Evolution (Take 187) (Sept 2004, short thread)
This last thread is interesting since by Sept 2004 we were all saying we were already sick of all the “creation and evolution” threads. See my post in that thread that is similar to this one where I list the long 2004 threads we’ve already had!
Of course my all-time favorites are the ones from the end of Dec 2005 which I have preserved on my site:
Catholic Creationism and Jack Chick Comics
Phil P
W
Wolseley
Guest
Oh, I tried to offer a few things, as I recall, but all I got for my trouble was a derision of my information from the High Priests of Darwinism (without any of them ever so much as reading the material offered, to see what it said first-hand, mind you), and then having them accuse me of being a Hare Kirshna.
Oh, then you have read through the sources I offered so long ago?
Why do I doubt that, Barb?
I think we both know where the record stands on this account, chum.
Have a nice day.
W
Wolseley
Guest
And Darwinists think it came from a lightning bolt hitting a mud puddle.
N
Namesake
Guest
Evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of life on Earth. I bet you know that.
But, I also bet lots of Darwinists would agree that life probably got going by a process like lightning and some sort of puddle.
But the two ideas (evolution and origin of life) should not be conflated because to do so is just wrong all the way around.
W
Wolseley
Guest
Talk to Barbarian, five posts above.
Personally, I think the “dichotomy” between evolution and origins is a dodge, but that’s me.
Personally, I think the “dichotomy” between evolution and origins is a dodge, but that’s me.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Never heard any scientist say that. It’s mostly just a story creationists like to tell about “all the stupid scientists.”
Yep.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
That’s the sort of stuff that got you in trouble in the first place. It marks you as an angry ideologue.
Someone called you a Hindu chant? Really? I do remember being a little surprised that you were pushing a Krishna Consciousness doctrine on a Catholic message board, but I don’t remember anyone calling you a follower of that religion.
Barbarian observes:
For anyone who’s decided that he has nothing left to learn, yes.
How do you think I discovered what religion was pushing that doctrine? I read your link.
You, too. God be with you.
R
Rogerteder
Guest
Ok here is a very simple question. The creationist(s )would say that the transitional fossils that the evolutionist sites are not a different species, but simply the same species with variations. For example, they say that Archaeopteryx was a bird, and not a “bird-dinosaur.” How do we determine if the species is in fact “transitional” or not?
N
Namesake
Guest
Lots of work has been done in the lab making sparks in various “primordial soups” and some have resulted in pretty cool results, but nothing like life. That’s not just a creationist story at all but an actual area of investigation some years ago. Kind of lightning and a puddle.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Great question. By definition, a transitional has apomophies of two different taxa. In everydayspeak, that means that the organism has characteristics otherwise found only in two different groups.
For example, Archaeopteryx has a dinosaur tail, skull, ribs, pelvis, hands, etc. It has feathers and a somewhat birdlike spine and legs.
Hence it is a transitional. Such derived characters found in two separate taxa are called “synapomorphies” and indicate evolutionary relationships.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Ah. Miller-Urey. They used a spark, but we have since found that the biotic molecules found in the experiment occur naturally by various processes. And the spark isn’t necessary.
E
edwest2
Guest
Correct the Vatican. And no, the earth has no creative ability whatsoever. Only the Word does.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
S
Steve40
Guest
When discussing Catholic teaching on evolution don’t forget that Catholics are required to believe as dogma:I am going to be teaching at a Catholic High(Religion) school this September. I have a degree in Theology and History and have spent 10 years in the public school system teaching history.
This year will be my first at a Catholic school and I am very excited because I am going to be teaching Religion.
Ok here is my question. Do you think this is a good idea? When dealing with creation/evolution I was planning on presenting both sides. I was also planning on explaining what a Catholic may believe about evolution. However, I was also planning on telling the students about evolution’s “weak spots.” I think it is important to talk about the seemingly lack of transitional fossils that should be in existence if evolution is true. Ok what do you say? Is that evolution’s “achilies heal?” Let’s keep it real simple—THANKS!!
- Adam and Eve were real people
- Eve physically came from Adam and
- We all had to come from Adam and Eve ( Polygeism, multiple first parents is an evolutionary belief, but is a Catholic heresey)
R
ROBIN97
Guest
Robin I appreciate your comments. However, I know the question will arise about(Im teaching religion) Genesis and evolution. A student will ask how are we suppose to interpret Genesis, in light, of the modern science of evolution? Should we take it literally or figuratively? If yes or no why? What would you say?Exactly. And with your credibility will go Faith in the Christian religion. You could very easily create an atheist - or several. Much of the Creationists arguments are bunk. These kids are not stupid. They do weigh evidence. Especially on religious matters. The young “fence-sitters” (and this is the age when faith is most tenuous-young rebellion etc.) may very easily reject Christianity completely when they see how flimsy the Creationist arguments are. In my opinion, Catholicism knows how easy it is to get burnt by using Literalist arguments against scientific facts. Capernicus, Galileo, etc. etc. The fundamentalists - because of their ignorance of history - haven’t discovered that yet.
If you don’t know enough about evolution to make a good argument For it, then how can you possibly argue against it in a religious class- which I presume is your intent. Best study what the Church says- and why it says it.
Remember, some of the greatest scientists in history were scientists. Most of them were students or instructers in Catholic Universities- which the Catholic Church invented. The Pope put Galilio under lock and key in the Vatican, not so much as punishment, but because he new Galileo was Right - and to protect him from the igorant mobs who would kill him. This threat came from both within the Church and from without it. Catholics are not threatened by evolution. We are not Fundamenalists. We do not have to bend, deny, or avoid scientific truth to fit a Literalist Bible interpretation. We are not afraid of science. Truth is Truth.
Robin
First I would let them know that Catholics are not Literalists. We are not Fundamentalists. Catholics take a Literal view of Genesis-not a Literalist view - as the Fundamentalists do. Meaning, when we say "It’s raining Cats and Dogs outside we Mean, that were getting a very hard rain. Is that not what we mean? However, if we take a Literalist point of view - as do the Fundamentalists, we Mean that Cats and Dogs are literallyfalling from the sky by the truckloads. If this was a statement in the Bible. We would know what the author was trying to tell us from a Literal viewpoint. Genesis tells us that God Created Everything including mankind. (You might say out of Stardust if your in a romantic frame of mind - and it would probably be true).That there was a man and woman who were the beginning of the human race. We call them Adam and Eve. (They could have reallybeen called John and Marsha. To Catholics it shouldn’t make a difference. Genesis tells us that mankind Fell from Gods Santifying Grace (Original Sin) and needs to be- and Can be- restored to that condition again. But we needed a Savior to Restore us.
That is what we are required by the Church to believe. That is what we need to get from the story of the Creation in Genisis.That is what is important to the faith. This shouldn’t be a problem for your student - who when the next bell rings - will walk straight into his Biology class to learn about Evolutionary Theory. He should not have to make a false choice - for or against God-For or against God as thd Literalists do. And neither should you.Learn what the Church teaches starting with Pope Pius 12.
Augustine warned against what the Fundamentalists do with Genesis (for a start). He warns that if you stick your nose into scientific stuff and don’t know your facts, you risk making fool of yourself and Faith a laughing stock.
Fundamentalist, Literalists type interpretations of Genesis probably make more atheists of our youth than scientists ever will. Literalists eventually loose their credibility as youth learn more about the natural world and ancient history. Literalists force young people to make a choice; Faith or Science, when there really doesn’t need to be one. They have a true lack of faith, I feel. They feel that their faith cannot stand up to truth of science.
Eventually, for many, Creationist beliefs cause a faith trainwreck for young people who have a inquiring mind. Or, what is worse, create a robot with a completely closed mind that cannot face science, history, and many other things that make us uniquely human. Even Biblical truth.
They say Dancing is a sin. But David danced for joy before God and his people - naked. They say Christ never drank Wine. But it took a Seventh Day Adventist to invent pasturized grapejuice - and a great way to market his juice by the way. I worked in a vinyard for a whole summer. Grapes start fermenting in minutes-still in the basket by the vine. God created a special yeast that lives on the grapes that causes them to start turning into wine Before you can even get them out of the vineyard. This is a scientific fact that these people have been tought to avoid so they can interpret Scripture to fit their non-drinking doctrines.
On one hand they believe Bishop Usher (of the Anglican Church)- that the world was only 5 thousand years old. And on the other, in next breath, they tell you that Evolution is a fraud because Carbon dating of humans only goes back 54,000 years.
. What just happened here? Do you see the mental self-deception. The mental convolution. Your teenage students will see it to!This is what is happening with Creationism. Invent a doctrine, then look for facts to fit it. Real scientists look for facts and try to find an explaination to fit the facts. Not the other way around. Thats why Creationism isn’t Science.
They cannot get into Scientific Journals because what their doing is not Science. Being a Barber who works on heads does not make a Brain Surgeon.
Catholics believe that the world is rational. Can you see that rational thinking has been thrown out the window in this case and the Lack of it is what they pridefully call Faith? This is Creationism. Another Johnny-Come-Lately Doctrine of the Fundamentalists invented right after the turn of the century (1900’s). Catholics should know its origin. That it was invented to protect a certain Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. A religious bias if you will. It was not invented as an institution to discover Scientific knowledge.
Mendel discoved Genetics. Mendel was a Catholic Monk. Louis Pasteur discovered Pasteurization. Louis was a Catholic Scientist. The first flight (by kite-plane) was by a Catholic Priest in the 15th Century. One of the Greatest Engineers if not the Greatest. DeVinci was a Catholic. Were They afraid of Science? Did They loose their faith? No. It’s great to be Catholic!
Did you know that the Vatican has a telescope in Arizona that co-operates with the University of Phoenix and contributes up-to-the-minute dataphotographs of the heavens to the astronomical community everyday?
That their calculations are based on the knowledge that the universe is 15.2 billion years old? Some of these scientists say Mass everyday. It is my understanding.The statement that the Catholic Church is an enemy of science is trumped-up misinformation invented by Protestantism to discredit
Catholicism in the eyes of the world. It almost worked. For a few centuries.
Creationism is part of that. If you are not with them, you are against them.
And Catholics are not Creationnists if they know their Faith.
You can tell your student that as a Catholic, there is no dicatomy between Science and the Catholic religion. We do not fear Science. Truth is Truth whereever you find it. God is God. True Science and True Religion go hand in hand.
Look at a strand of DNA or gaze at Baby Stars being born millions of years away-in the past - The Eagle Nebula, and really begin to see the Magesty of God and His Works. Show His Works to your student when he asks you questions about Genesis. Let him see your Awe of His Creation. As most modern scientists do. Many years later he will thank you for it. And still have the Faith. And they will thank God for a mind that is not afraid of Science.
Robin
E
edwest2
Guest
That is correct. The textbook as taught would have most people believe random mutation and natural selection are everything. No God required. That is what these debates are about.
God bless,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
To Robin -
Your comments are misleading. The Church teaching is simple and it should not be buried under lots of words. Catholics are never allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. That’s it. The Church has the ability to go beyond the science and add, correctly, divine revelation. This is outside the boundaries of science as currently practiced.
So only the Catholic Church teaches the complete answer. I do not trust anyone who holds up the biology textbook as the only source of information about human life on earth, yet I think you know that many young people will only have this theory (and I do not mean a guess) to rely on. As a Catholic, you should know that the supernatural God is the Living God to whom we pray and the Living God in the Eucharist. This combined knowledge, one scientific and one through divine revelation, must be included whenever you or any Catholic speaks about truth. The other fact you need to keep in mind is that most Leading scientists still reject God. It would be incorrect to ignore this.
God bless,
Ed
Your comments are misleading. The Church teaching is simple and it should not be buried under lots of words. Catholics are never allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. That’s it. The Church has the ability to go beyond the science and add, correctly, divine revelation. This is outside the boundaries of science as currently practiced.
So only the Catholic Church teaches the complete answer. I do not trust anyone who holds up the biology textbook as the only source of information about human life on earth, yet I think you know that many young people will only have this theory (and I do not mean a guess) to rely on. As a Catholic, you should know that the supernatural God is the Living God to whom we pray and the Living God in the Eucharist. This combined knowledge, one scientific and one through divine revelation, must be included whenever you or any Catholic speaks about truth. The other fact you need to keep in mind is that most Leading scientists still reject God. It would be incorrect to ignore this.
God bless,
Ed
A
anthony022071
Guest
It does. Hence the title of Darwin’s famous book.
When one species evolves from another,it originates.
A
anthony022071
Guest
Essentially,life is spirit,and therefore supernatural. The life of natural creatures is a state of existence caused by the presence of spirit.
- Status