C
- Status
C
carinapir
Guest
Ah, here, perfect: catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
Excerpt:
"Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “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 . . . 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—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. "
Therefore, evolution and the Catholic faith do not conflict.
Excerpt:
"Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “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 . . . 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—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. "
Therefore, evolution and the Catholic faith do not conflict.
E
edwest2
Guest
See Part 5 of this letter:
damienhighschool.org/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html
I encourage you not to rush headlong in believing something that even Pope Benedict said cannot be proven. The atheist form of evolution taught in all public schools is a deception and you should realize that. You should also realize that science cannot study God or the supernatural. By giving to mindless nature the power to create, it removes that power from the Creator God.
Peace,
Ed
damienhighschool.org/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html
I encourage you not to rush headlong in believing something that even Pope Benedict said cannot be proven. The atheist form of evolution taught in all public schools is a deception and you should realize that. You should also realize that science cannot study God or the supernatural. By giving to mindless nature the power to create, it removes that power from the Creator God.
Peace,
Ed
L
liquidpele
Guest
Why do you continuously insist that evolution is atheistic? If a lot of atheists supported the red cross would you condemn that as well?
Evolution is simply a recognition of reality, supported by lots of lots of evidence. I really fail to see why you would have such a vendetta against reality. Why evolution and not biological chemistry or cosmology or the big bang theory or geology or any other scientific study that conflicts with a literal interpretation of certain parts of the bible? Methinks you’re just on a mindless crusade.
C
cantheist
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
The mantra: Evolution is a fact.
Math anyone can do.
I can drop something at any time and demonstrate gravity.
Evolution? No.
Peace,
Ed
G
gearhead
Guest
You know, in my Red Cross first aid course, they didn’t mention God once. And don’t let anyone know I told you, but CPR is part of the atheist conspiracy.
E
edwest2
Guest
The other mantra: Science is evolution is reality.
No one can demonstrate macro-evolution.
Breeding dogs produces dogs.
Bacteria can go through a billion generations and remain bacteria.
The same with viruses.
Peace,
Ed
L
liquidpele
Guest
I’ve already replied to that about 3 times, you don’t listen, you never will. You’ve made up your mind, and repeat your opinion incessantly. That’s fine that you have an opinion, just realize that you’re on the same level as people that believe in UFOs.
Just to clarify again, evolution takes a long time. Your call for proof in a lab is like asking for proof that the sun will eventually go out. It’s there, it’s just not the proof you want so you reject it because of your confirmation bias.
You also didn’t answer my question about why you view evolution as atheistic.
H
hecd2
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
It is atheistic. Do you need to add God to the formula to make evolution work? No, of course not, according to the biology text. It runs by itself. It spits out organisms by itself. And if an organism just happens to be in the right environment at the right time, it gets selected. Maybe.
What does any of this have to do with UFOs? Or the sun?
Like I said, gravity I can prove.
Dog breeding only produces dogs. Right?
However, there are people who get on a stage, show you a top hat with nothing in it, wave their free hand, and then pull out a living rabbit.
Peace,
Ed
I’ll probably repeat myself as often as the “evolution is a fact” people.
H
hugh_miller
Guest
So “evolution takes a long time.” OK Let’s test that hypothesis by going right to the 10 page brochure by the American Geological Institute entitled, “Why scientists believe in EVOLUTION.” 1999. On the front cover is a sort of tree of life for the evolution of man from 65 M years ago up to the present [unprovable K/Ar, Ar/Ar etc dating]. At the bottom are the artistic renderings of two four legged rat-like critters then a lemur [Ida I suppose] then two more chimp-like critters in ascending order etc. followed by a man-like creature with hands, then ancient man then three faces of modern man, oriental, African and Caucasian. The similarities are: All have four appendages including the mastodon, Llama, saber tooth tiger and a couple of mammals I don’t recognize]. Now what then are the similarities amongst all these artistic renderings? Why all have four appendages for locomotion, they also have two eyes, two ears, mouths with which to consume food for energy and noses with which to breathe.
The first question is so what does that prove? Nothing! The above shared characteristics and much more are all necessary and would be the logical way that an “intelligent designer” would have created all those in the animal and insect kingdom etc. No proof for evolution there. No evidence against the six days of creation there.
But right under the lowest critters on this imaginary evolutionary “totem pole of life” is a Triceratops with its horns sticking through the top soil where the rat-like critters are walking. Question two: Have any of their bones ever been tested for C-14 a method that is only good perhaps back to 50,000 or lately even 80,000 or so years? Yes, but NOT by evolutionists. That could destroy their sacred cow.
Well, to check to see if this “totem pole type theory of life” is valid I began my own investigation over 25 years ago. Of course I too began with a bias. I believed that Christ and the early church fathers were correct in requiring us to believe in essentials of Genesis 1-11 but would science support a literal scripture?
The results are now in: (1) That Triceratops at the bottom of the totem pole and all dinosaurs which several teams from Texas to Alaska have C-14 dated their bone collagen and/or bio-apatite are only 22,000 to 31,000 radiocarbon years old at the most - the same age as saber tooth tigers,12,000 to 28,000 RC years, one giant bison @ 31,000 RC years, mammoths etc. That is over 2000 times younger than evolutionary claims. (2) Based on their fossil footprints together in several locations in the USA dinosaurs and humans have coexisted in time as proven by cat-scan studies of thier impressions together and pristine impressions under tons of rock * and alleged long period of time evolution must be a fact.
It can be said of the above evolutionists: “My mind has forsook me, and is gone a-woolgathering” (Cervantes}
T
tjm190
Guest
When evolution is taught, it is almost always at first presented as an estimated account of past events- this, of course, is not science but rather history. However, since a student in a history class is better served by learning about recent history, and the mechanics of evolution are a great tool in helping the science student learn about cellular reproduction, it seems that evolution, while not being science, fits best in the science class.
Also, if I could get a link to your source on these radiocarbon dating tests, that would be most appreciated.
Also, if I could get a link to your source on these radiocarbon dating tests, that would be most appreciated.
G
gearhead
Guest
You don’t need to add God to the formula for any aspect of science. Why get all hot and bothered over evolution specifically and not, say, thermodynamics?
L
liquidpele
Guest
You claim to have dug up fossils, but claim that C-14 dating on a fossil is valid???
C-14 dating only works on organic material… FOSSILS ARE STONE. Not to mention that it only works for up to about 30k-50k years due to the half life of C-14. I suspect you are blatantly lying about your experience or unable to realize you are ignorant on the subject.
ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html
B
buffalo
Guest
not even the study of the Divine- aka the science of theology? the highest science
L
liquidpele
Guest
Regarding the dating mentioned by the other poster, see my reply to him.
Regarding evolution as not being science, this is like saying plate tectonics is not science, or that cosmology is not science. The amount of evidence for evolution is simply so large that it’s nearly impossible to ignore. Is it any wonder that the only ones that don’t accept it also accept a theory along the lines of creationism?
If you’d like to hear a Roman Catholic biologist discuss why ID has been quite literally proven wrong to the point that a conservative Christian judge found it to be a farce, and also about some of the glaring evidence for evolution, feel free to watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
L
liquidpele
Guest
It not mentioning God makes it technically atheistic in the sense that it doesn’t mention God, but not in the sense that is meaningful. As someone else said, the same applies to thermodynamics or any other science, why pick out evolution? You’re just playing with words. You’ve specifically said that evolution is an atheist agenda… back that up instead of playing word games. It’s simply nonsense to bring up so stop being deceptive.
Why do you think evolution is bad? What do you specifically have against it? Why that and not geology?
My reference to UFOs and the Sun were similes on 2 different topics, do try to keep up.
You can prove gravity because it works quickly. If you dropped a rock and it took 100,000 years to drop, you would deny it as well I presume. Like I said, you’re problem is that you don’t see immediate results, so you ignore all the other evidence.
G
gearhead
Guest
:ehh:
Rather than get drawn into some sort of weird side-debate by this red herring, I’ll re-phrase:
There are lots of things that are taught in public school science classrooms. Out of all those things, why worry about evolution specifically and not any of the other things that are covered?
C
cantheist
Guest
If you need a demonstration of micro evolution Aids or HIV it changes form. If you need a demonstration of macro evolution nylonase the Nylon-eating bacteria it is capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6. Look at nylonase DNA it is a new form of life.
- Status