Evolution chat...

[buffalo]

[376](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/376.htm’) By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.252 The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman,253 and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”. [377](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/377.htm’) The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

 

[sbcoral]

buffalo:

A myth is not fiction. A myth is a story presented as historical.

Myths usually are fiction. Greeks and Romans and Egyptians, etc, had their own myths, like the 12 labors of Hercules, that didn’t really happen. They had their own creation myths, too.

I tend to take Genesis as myth - a myth with the point that God created the universe and made man in His image. But I don’t believe as fact that the world was created in 7 days, or that Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eve necessarily existed as actual things. Convincing science shows us that human beings as Homo sapiens have existed on Earth for 10s of thousands of years, and that a continuum of human-like beings can be traced back much longer than that. What troubles me about this is the uniqueness of man and the existence of his immortal soul that we are taught to believe by the Church - when in that continuum of humanity did these things appear? Having an immortal soul is an all-or-none thing, something that I wouldn’t expect to gradually arise. If we accept what evolutionary anthropology tells us about human development, then when did that happen?

 

[Orogeny]

sbcoral:

What troubles me about this is the uniqueness of man and the existence of his immortal soul that we are taught to believe by the Church - when in that continuum of humanity did these things appear? Having an immortal soul is an all-or-none thing, something that I wouldn’t expect to gradually arise. If we accept what evolutionary anthropology tells us about human development, then when did that happen?

When God decided it was time.

There is no way to measure that and is outside the realm of science. You can accept anthropology because that only deals with the physical development of humans. The creation of souls is a religious matter, not a scientific one.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

sbcoral:

Myths usually are fiction. Greeks and Romans and Egyptians, etc, had their own myths, like the 12 labors of Hercules, that didn’t really happen. They had their own creation myths, too.

I tend to take Genesis as myth - a myth with the point that God created the universe and made man in His image. But I don’t believe as fact that the world was created in 7 days, or that Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eve necessarily existed as actual things. Convincing science shows us that human beings as Homo sapiens have existed on Earth for 10s of thousands of years, and that a continuum of human-like beings can be traced back much longer than that. What troubles me about this is the uniqueness of man and the existence of his immortal soul that we are taught to believe by the Church - when in that continuum of humanity did these things appear? Having an immortal soul is an all-or-none thing, something that I wouldn’t expect to gradually arise. If we accept what evolutionary anthropology tells us about human development, then when did that happen?

It happened at the time historical Adam walked the earth.

 

[buffalo]

Main Entry: myth [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?myth0001.wav=myth’))
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism – Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

 

[sbcoral]

buffalo:

Main Entry: myth m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism – Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

Yes, this is right, Mr. Buffalo. Note especially 2b and 3. #1 also doesn’t refer to a myth as being true fact.

 

[sbcoral]

buffalo:

It happened at the time historical Adam walked the earth.

…which implies that we have to accept the creation story as fact, doesn’t it?

 

[sbcoral]

Orogeny:

When God decided it was time.

There is no way to measure that and is outside the realm of science. You can accept anthropology because that only deals with the physical development of humans. The creation of souls is a religious matter, not a scientific one.

Peace

Tim

I agree with all of that - religious truth is not something that can explained by science but only by faith. It’s easy to want to try to reconcile the two, though - to expect a rational explanation for a religious belief, but in the end I agree that the two are different things.

 

[Randell]

Orogeny:

Rendell,

Thank you for the thoughful reply, especially regarding my spelling. Good point. Good luck in your search for scientific proof. By the way, how do we, you know, us scientists, prove a scientific theory?

You obviously, being an engineering major, have a great wealth of scientific understanding. I apologize for having wasted your time.

Peace

Tim

ps - Regarding the fork into a knife analogy. I must say that is the first time I have heard that used to refute evolution.

Once again, no proof as to your stance…Let me know when you find factual proof of evolution. Thanks

 

[buffalo]

sbcoral:

…which implies that we have to accept the creation story as fact, doesn’t it?

That’s where Divine Revelation comes in:
**CATECHESIS ON CREATION **

[282](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/282.htm’) Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:120 “Where do we come from?” “Where are we going?” “What is our origin?” “What is our end?” “Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?” The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.

[283](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/283.htm’) The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121

284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called “God”? And if the world does come from God’s wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?

[285](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/285.htm’) Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.

 

[Orogeny]

Randell:

Once again, no proof as to your stance…Let me know when you find factual proof of evolution. Thanks

Sorry, I’m not qualified to discuss this with you. I’m just a geologist, not an engineering student and I can’t even spell, remember?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

[286](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/286.htm’) Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123 [287](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/287.htm’) The truth about creation is so important for all of human life that God in his tenderness wanted to reveal to his People everything that is salutary to know on the subject. Beyond the natural knowledge that every man can have of the Creator,124 God progressively revealed to Israel the mystery of creation. He who chose the patriarchs, who brought Israel out of Egypt, and who by choosing Israel created and formed it, this same God reveals himself as the One to whom belong all the peoples of the earth, and the whole earth itself; he is the One who alone “made heaven and earth”.125

[288](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/288.htm’) Thus the revelation of creation is inseparable from the revelation and forging of the covenant of the one God with his People. Creation is revealed as the first step towards this covenant, the first and universal witness to God’s all-powerful love.126 And so, the truth of creation is also expressed with growing vigor in the message of the prophets, the prayer of the psalms and the liturgy, and in the wisdom sayings of the Chosen People.127

[289](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/289.htm’) Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation.

 

[buffalo]

Paragraph 6. Man

[355](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/355.htm’) "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

** I. “IN THE IMAGE OF GOD” **

[356](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/356.htm’) Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221
[357](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/357.htm’) Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

[358](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/358.htm’) God created everything for man,222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:

What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honor? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.223
[359](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/359.htm’) "In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear."224

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."225

 

[buffalo]

[360](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/360.htm’) Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226

O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.227
[361](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/361.htm’) “This law of human solidarity and charity”,228 without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and peoples, assures us that all men are truly brethren.

 

[Evan]

Mary:

As a humorous offering, food for thought:

What if God has planted all this “suppposed evidence” (Still all a theory- as my Christian denominational friends always point out.) just to fool us up… I sometimes wonder if there were ever dinosaurs… God did create the world after all… He could have definitely planted some interesting clues to our origins…

Here is how to deal with that> If he created the evidence, yet the evidence leads us to believe falsehood, then God is not Truth. For to imply a falsehood, even if not stated, is a Lie. So if the evidence exists, and God created the world, AND God is Truth, then our senses should lead us to understand the world correctly.

What we still have to do is evaluate the information in an unbiased and correct manner.

You might also want to check out the theory of Intelligent Design.

 

[sbcoral]

360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God]
made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226

O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.227
361 “This law of human solidarity and charity”,228 without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and peoples, assures us that all men are truly brethren.

I read all of this, or skimmed it, and I don’t think it anywhere says that we must accept the Biblical story of Adam and Eve and 7 days of creation as fact. I’m not smart enough to understand the “last Adam is the first” part, other than I guess it means that the divinity of Christ and our immortal soul is part of being man, or something.

 

[Evan]

Randell:

There is no Proof that evolution has been proven.

Proof is just a preponderance of evidence and the ability to correctly predict what would happen in a controlled experiment.

There is not Proof that the Theory of Quantum Mechanics is true either, yet here you sit using a computer, based on transisters that should do absolutely nothing unless QM is true. But maybe it is just coincidence that your computer is working?

Randell:

Infact, I believe that there is a LAW in thermodynamics that states that nothing can improve itself without help.

The Theory of Thermodynamics is just a statictical result. It says that the total available energy in a system never increases. The earth/sun system began with a lot of energy, and as the sun reduces it’s available energy via nuclear fusion, the earth gains energy and all the wonder we see around us uses some of that. So the total continues to decline but locally, we get a bit more complicated. Overall there is a great waste of energy, but man is the result. Aren’t we just the cutest thing around?

Randell:

You can’t put a knife on a table and come back 1000 years later and it is a knife. It would be returned to matter from which it was made.

Also not true. If you look at the typical knife of a pharoh in a nice pyramid, it is unchanged. Of course no energy was provided or it would have burned up, melted, recast to a little duck figurine or whatever. … Evolution in action

Randell:

What improvements have humans made to show that evolution is happening?

If humans make the improvements, is that your idea of evolution. I know that the roads across America are much improved since the time of Columbus. … Evolution in action

 

[buffalo]

sbcoral:

I read all of this, or skimmed it, and I don’t think it anywhere says that we must accept the Biblical story of Adam and Eve and 7 days of creation as fact. I’m not smart enough to understand the “last Adam is the first” part, other than I guess it means that the divinity of Christ and our immortal soul is part of being man, or something.

I thought we were discussing when the first immortal soul was created.

Maybe this will help -
Adam, Eve, and Evolution

…
Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The *Catechism *states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

 

[alius123]

There is no science that proves we have evolved from homo erectus and what not. We have only gotten skeletal fragments of prehistoric species, such as lucy, and the man found in the alps. There was one reserved body found in the bogs, which scientists could not get a accurate reading to date it. They got a difference of a few million years on dating this bog person! The scientists ended up dating it by what they dated the grains and seeds in the teeth. If you cant date the bog person, how can you rely on the same dating method for something else? If we have never gotten a full skeletal body of these previous cousins of ours, how can we say for sure that they are our relatives and not a different species all together. We already thought we came from the homo neanderthalenus and found out amazingly it was a different species, so we say now we are from the homo heidelbergensis. We can not say we have been here for thousands of years because the dating methods are flawed. Take carbon dating. It can only date at 50,000 yrs at most. Carbon dating relies on the assumption that there is the same amount of carbon 14 in the whole fossil and that we would have to guess how much carbon 14 was there to begin with. This causes a very big variable. Same with potassium argon dating. Creation can be explained scientifically. Strata layers can form with in years, not millions of years. If you really want to talk about our origin, why hasn’t there been any talk of the Big Bang Theory. We can go on and what ever anyone says, noone is going to accept what the other says.

 

[Orogeny]

alius123:

There is no science that proves we have evolved from homo erectus and what not. We have only gotten skeletal fragments of prehistoric species, such as lucy, and the man found in the alps. There was one reserved body found in the bogs, which scientists could not get a accurate reading to date it. They got a difference of a few million years on dating this bog person! The scientists ended up dating it by what they dated the grains and seeds in the teeth. If you cant date the bog person, how can you rely on the same dating method for something else? If we have never gotten a full skeletal body of these previous cousins of ours, how can we say for sure that they are our relatives and not a different species all together. We already thought we came from the homo neanderthalenus and found out amazingly it was a different species, so we say now we are from the homo heidelbergensis. We can not say we have been here for thousands of years because the dating methods are flawed. Take carbon dating. It can only date at 50,000 yrs at most. Carbon dating relies on the assumption that there is the same amount of carbon 14 in the whole fossil and that we would have to guess how much carbon 14 was there to begin with. This causes a very big variable. Same with potassium argon dating. Creation can be explained scientifically. Strata layers can form with in years, not millions of years. If you really want to talk about our origin, why hasn’t there been any talk of the Big Bang Theory. We can go on and what ever anyone says, noone is going to accept what the other says.

Hmmm. I was going to reply, but what’s the use.

Peace

Tim

ps - this is a joke, right?