Evolution In The Classroom

[edwest2]

Just like a prior article you provided, this individual has to piece together bits and pieces of things that Popes have said from the 500 AD until now to illstrate his points. And he is right about one thing: the Church is very careful about how it words things. Several Popes have refered to Eve coming out of Adam’s side however they have not speculated as to how that might have occured. Nor have they actually declared it to be literal. If science were to find the bodies of Adam and Eve and prove how she was created, the Church would agree, even if they had to re-evaluate “coming out of his side” as a metaphore or something. Why? Because the Church is highly intelligent and reasonable, not because they were bowing to science. The truth IS the God’s truth and as the Church has said science and religion should not conflict.

Still trying to push the metaphor idea? The Bible records things God actually did. God is able to form Eve from Adam’s side as recorded in the Bible. This is another attempt to connect the work of God to a non-God interpretation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

buffalo;5843183:

you - But that doesn’t mean anything regarding the biblical "kinds Noah supposedly brought on board the ark./QUOTE]

Right – it’s nonsense to suppose that Noah brought two dogs on board the ark 4,000 years BCE, and that in a few hundreds years from the “Flood” they evolved into wolves, coyotes, dingoes, foxes, and African wild dogs. And even if speciation this rapid were possible, it forces you to acknowledge the thing you hate above all other things: Evilushun

.

Actually they might have been two wolves as all the one’s you pointed out are wolves. This is called adaptation. Dogs were domesticated withing two generations from wolves.

 

[StAnastasia]

Just like a prior article you provided, this individual has to piece together bits and pieces of things that Popes have said from the 500 AD until now to illstrate his points. And he is right about one thing: the Church is very careful about how it words things. Several Popes have refered to Eve coming out of Adam’s side however they have not speculated as to how that might have occured. Nor have they actually declared it to be literal. If science were to find the bodies of Adam and Eve and prove how she was created, the Church would agree, even if they had to re-evaluate “coming out of his side” as a metaphore or something. Why? Because the Church is highly intelligent and reasonable, not because they were bowing to science. The truth IS the God’s truth and as the Church has said science and religion should not conflict.

I read through the article carefully. It’s largely nonsense.

 

[buffalo]

Still trying to push the metaphor idea? The Bible records things God actually did. God is able to form Eve from Adam’s side as recorded in the Bible. This is another attempt to connect the work of God to a non-God interpretation.

Peace,
Ed

Ed. God could have created the universe ex nihilo but could not form Eve from the first man. Don’t you get it? Not… Speaking of diminishing the power of God. Geesh.

 

[carinapir]

But people post here all the time, supposedly using Science, to state God did this or that based on science? Where? How? How can you ever say God did anything based on science which is silent about such things?

As I said, science observes nature. But it is faith that causes us to believe that God is active in nature and that He is behind the phenomenon that scientists study. They are just making the logical connection between their faith and science and cutting out the explanation that faith is required. So they are not using science to state that God did something.

God did something, we observe it via science (or just via our 5 senses if it’s simple), and faith has us ascribe what we have observed to God.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia;5843308:

Actually they might have been two wolves as all the one’s you pointed out are wolves. This is called adaptation. Dogs were domesticated withing two generations from wolves.

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. If you think you do indeed, why not propose a scientific paper on how in a few generations after the landing of the ark wolves “adapted” to become foxes, coyotes, dingoes, and dogs. It would be a way to get critical feedback on your theory from working scientists, rather than merely from fellow Catholic creationists who likewise don’t understand science.

 

[buffalo]

God did something, we observe it via science (or just via our 5 senses if it’s simple), and faith has us ascribe what we have observed to God.

Correct, we are limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. Is there more? Since we will not be able to discover that we rely on Revelation to give us some very good clues.

 

[buffalo]

buffalo;5843492:

You don’t understand the theory of evolution. If you think you do indeed, why not propose a scientific paper on how in a few generations after the landing of the ark wolves “adapted” to become foxes, coyotes, dingoes, and dogs. It would be a way to get critical feedback on your theory from working scientists, rather than merely from fellow Catholic creationists who likewise don’t understand science.

Is your question dogs came from wolves?

 

[reggieM]

Ed. God could have created the universe ex nihilo but could not form Eve from the first man. Don’t you get it? Not… Speaking of diminishing the power of God. Geesh.

That’s right. Theistic evolutionists are willing to accept that God created the universe and some will even accept that God aligned the universe with some mathematical precision which can be observed in the fine-tuning of constants and conditions for life on earth.

But there’s no way that God would intervene in the creation of man and woman, supposedly. It’s simply impossible to consider it, because Darwin taught us the truth about what God really did (according to the fairy-tale). Now we even have evolutionists declaring that they alone can define what a human being is – and according to them a mixture of 70% animal and 30% human might or might not meet the criteria.

 

[edwest2]

As I said, science observes nature. But it is faith that causes us to believe that God is active in nature and that He is behind the phenomenon that scientists study. They are just making the logical connection between their faith and science and cutting out the explanation that faith is required. So they are not using science to state that God did something.

God did something, we observe it via science (or just via our 5 senses if it’s simple), and faith has us ascribe what we have observed to God.

Logical? Where? Unless you can provide the peer reviewed, scientific studies that explain such things about God and Creation, those people are not using logic. They are creating fictions that are not based on science.

That is why evolution is so loved by atheists – No God Required, E V E R. These people are not using logic. At best, they are confused by the atheist claptrap on the sides of buses: Man Created God, and on billboards: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. At worst, they agree with the atheists and God D I D nothing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

You don’t understand the theory of evolution…

Coming from a non-scientist who claims to be (but will not document the claim) a Catholic theologian, I don’t find that opinion to have much value myself.

I wonder what you think the purpose of the Catholic religion is and why anyone would need to be a part of it?

I realize that would require you to talk about the Catholic Faith rather than science – so I can understand why you’d want to avoid the topic. But I’d like to think that you believe that the Catholic religion actually has a purpose and even that it is uniquely necessary for something.

Then again, if you really are the person that you sound like in these discussions, then you may not believe that at all. Just wondering.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia;5843533:

Is your question dogs came from wolves?

I didn’t pose a question. I suggested that you present a pseudo-scientific paper on post-diluvial evolution of the “dog baramin” and see how far you get with real biologists.

 

[carinapir]

Ed. God could have created the universe ex nihilo but could not form Eve from the first man. Don’t you get it? Not… Speaking of diminishing the power of God. Geesh.

No one said that God could nothave created Eve from Adam’s side. It’s just that He might not literally have done it that way. God has already chosen the method of Eve’s creation.

How come you get to pick and chose which parts of Gensis are literal and which are metaphors but I cannot? Do you believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days? You are not required to believe that, but you might. If you don’t how is that metaphor any different then a metaphor for how God created Eve?

I know that you are going to say that the Church has affirmed that Eve being created from Adam’s side is literal but that is not correct. Popes have ‘refered’ to her having been created that way several times but these are not teachings specifically dictating the Churches belief about how Eve was created. If the Church makes a declaration, well, then a good Catholic must obey, but they have not done so.

 

[buffalo]

That’s right. Theistic evolutionists are willing to accept that God created the universe and some will even accept that God aligned the universe with some mathematical precision which can be observed in the fine-tuning of constants and conditions for life on earth.

But there’s no way that God would intervene in the creation of man and woman, supposedly. It’s simply impossible to consider it, because Darwin taught us the truth about what God really did (according to the fairy-tale). Now we even have evolutionists declaring that they alone can define what a human being is – and according to them a mixture of 70% animal and 30% human might or might not meet the criteria.

The only conclusion I can draw is they have a crisis of faith and eventually will walk the road of complete Darwinism. I do not think one can sit on the theistic evolution position for too long. In my view it forces a choice as one learns about what the Church has always understood and taught.

 

[buffalo]

buffalo;5843540:

I didn’t pose a question. I suggested that you present a pseudo-scientific paper on post-diluvial evolution of the “dog baramin” and see how far you get with real biologists.

So you agree that dogs came from wolves? You are aware of the work of Dmitir Belyaev?

 

[buffalo]

No one said that God could nothave created Eve from Adam’s side. It’s just that He might not literally have done it that way. God has already chosen the method of Eve’s creation.

How come you get to pick and chose which parts of Gensis are literal and which are metaphors but I cannot? Do you believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days? You are not required to believe that, but you might. If you don’t how is that metaphor any different then a metaphor for how God created Eve?

I know that you are going to say that the Church has affirmed that Eve being created from Adam’s side is literal but that is not correct. Popes have ‘refered’ to her having been created that way several times but these are not teachings specifically dictating the Churches belief about how Eve was created. If the Church makes a declaration, well, then a good Catholic must obey, but they have not done so.

I only present the clear consistent understanding and teaching of the Church. What I refer to is the Church’s understanding of what the authors intended to convey from the very beginning.

 

[carinapir]

Logical? Where? Unless you can provide the peer reviewed, scientific studies that explain such things about God and Creation, those people are not using logic. They are creating fictions that are not based on science.

Wow, uhm, logic does not have to be based on biological science. Where did you get that idea?

 

[edwest2]

Wow, uhm, logic does not have to be based on biological science. Where did you get that idea?

Logic is a form of reasoning, right? On what basis do people come here and say anything about what God actually did in the Bible? As far as I can tell, their logic is not based on any science. Science cannot study the work of God. So science cannot be the basis for their logic. What is the basis for their logic? A desire to turn the work of God into a metaphor? That seems reasonable to me. And the other goal is to confuse Church teaching by establishing completely fictional ideas.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia;5843598:

So you agree that dogs came from wolves? You are aware of the work of Dmitir Belyaev?

Yes. Yes.

 

[carinapir]

Logic is a form of reasoning, right? On what basis do people come here and say anything about what God actually did in the Bible? As far as I can tell, their logic is not based on any science. Science cannot study the work of God. So science cannot be the basis for their logic. What is the basis for their logic? A desire to turn the work of God into a metaphor? That seems reasonable to me. And the other goal is to confuse Church teaching by establishing completely fictional ideas.

Firstly, science does study the work of God whether the scientists believe in God or not as everything is the work of God. Wouldn’t you agree? Science just doesn’t prove God’s existance and it cannot measure His envolvement.

Science is not the basis for logic. Logic, in this case, is in the connection between faith and science.

Science tells us how rain occurs and the various atmosphereic conditions that can create rain. If you believe in God as well, you might logically conclude that God created the rules or conditions for rain. Or you might go one step further and conclude that each time God wants it to rain, he communicates His will to nature in that way. How does it not make sense to make that connection?

I’m not really the best person to be arguing about this because I’m not trained in logic but I think that the basic idea makes sense.