H
Hobgoblin
Guest
I think you’re well aware of the evidence.There’s a record of this somehow? What evidence? I truly want to know. The evidence is actually a set of assumptions, which people believe or they don’t.

I think you’re well aware of the evidence.There’s a record of this somehow? What evidence? I truly want to know. The evidence is actually a set of assumptions, which people believe or they don’t.
Sure.Did he have a belly button?
Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen anyone here make a strictly materialist argument. I sure haven’t. But you routinely respond to my posts as if I am. I’ll make it clear for you: I believe the Christian God is the Creator of Nature. Do I subscribe to peculiar beliefs grounded in whimsical interpretations of old poems? No. And there’s a lot of room for friendly discussion there.There are two sides here: the science only side and the science and things God actually did side.
Well… you’re just wrong there. Try to take in some ideas, Ed. There’s no Illuminati out to get you.It’s an attempt to use the word God to pacify Christians. And that’s as far as that goes.
Do you speak authoritatively for the Church? I’ve yet to see a binding Church teaching that says Adam couldn’t have been the result of evolution. I think you might be superimposing your beliefs on the Church here.On the Catholic Church side, we do not believe there was anybody before Adam and Eve. Were there human-like creatures? Yes. Were they related to us? No.
I don’t care how long it goes as long as it’s productive. I admit I was kindof glad when the other thread locked though. Certain folks seemed more interested in scoring points than honestly exchanging ideas. I was getting frustrated and felt it hurting my spirit to even continue. I’m not even sure I made a good decision coming back. It’s a safe bet no one here is completely right. But there are surely varying degrees of wrongness.And that will be the problem until this thread passes 10K posts and 30K views.
It is proposed that an equation covers all the forces that could possibly interact with physical reality. Mathematics has significantly altered the world. It is not a physical force, but when we look around, especially what is right in front of us, this method of communication, we realize its impact. Clearly thought is a reality, as are feelings, perceptions and action. While a person is a physical entity, existence does not boil down to matter. These are all natural events, not covered by the equation.Aloysium:![]()
Then you don’t understand what was written.Wozza:![]()
That’s not what I read here.I have never said that if something couldn’t be explained then it must be supernatural.
To reiterate: That which CONTRADICTS what we know to be natural forces that act on reality is therefore outside what can be termed natural. And is therefore described as super natural.
The equation posted earlier covers all forces and particles that could possibly interact with physical reality. Anything that happens that is not covered by that equation is supernatural.
It is reasonable if one believes in evolution, that all this diversity, including our own existence happened by itself. It didn’t. It was designed and formed to be this way. That particles came together in just the right way is what we are told happened.And the assumptions are reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than swirling particles coming together in just the right way.
I’ve not as yet encountered a scientific explanation as to how Adam could have been the result of evolution. It is all supposition, randomness-of-the-gaps at mega-lottery odds, the psychological magically emanating from matter, the sort of ideas that any degree of skepticism scraps in a flash.I’ve yet to see a binding Church teaching that says Adam couldn’t have been the result of evolution.
As in natural selection as a scientific explanation of speciation?… in the absence of info, we don’t claim either ‘supernatural’ or ‘natural’ origin for the things that we don’t have scientific data on.![]()
True.… that’s a claim made without evidence.
Start with an ape similar to a chimpanzee, but not actually a chimpanzee. It lived in a forest. Then around six million years ago the climate changed and the trees began to die back, leaving more savannah grasslands with isolated trees. Some of the apes remained in the forest, others moved out onto the savannah. Evolution adapted the apes who moved to better survive in the savannah, basically bipedalism. They were still good at climbing trees, but if a lion appeared they had to run to the nearest tree before they could climb it. In the jungle the nearest tree was a lot closer. The jungle apes were already adapted to the jungle environment, so did not change much.I’ve not as yet encountered a scientific explanation as to how Adam could have been the result of evolution.
Well, we have theories. And, as it goes, scientific theories are more or less reasonable, depending on the context. They represent the best thought of the day, and as such, are valuable. But, to look at a theory (which may be more tenuous or less tenuous, as it were) and to use it as ‘proof’ that there’s nothing supernatural going on…? Well, that smells like a ‘faith claim’ to me. It’s just a faith claim about science…As in natural selection as a scientific explanation of speciation?
We have been told through Revelation. Science is pending. I have confidence that science will be able to soon confirm. BTW, science, empirically does not rule it out.I asked how Adam came to be then and how you knew it but you never replied.
I’m glad that you put proof in scare quotes. And as I keep saying, constantly, there is nothing to stop anyone claiming any event as supernatural however it might conform with natural laws. Claim away as you will. But the very definition of supernatural means that it CANNOT have ocurred via natural means.o_mlly:![]()
Well, we have theories. And, as it goes, scientific theories are more or less reasonable, depending on the context. They represent the best thought of the day, and as such, are valuable. But, to look at a theory (which may be more tenuous or less tenuous, as it were) and to use it as ‘proof’ that there’s nothing supernatural going on…? Well, that smells like a ‘faith claim’ to me. It’s just a faith claim about science…As in natural selection as a scientific explanation of speciation?![]()
Hmmm. - neither do Catholics.Do I subscribe to peculiar beliefs grounded in whimsical interpretations of old poems?
Or else Loki/Trickster is being very sneaky and making it look like it was natural, but actually it wasn’t.But the very definition of supernatural means that it CANNOT have ocurred via natural means.
Humani Generis rules out polygenism.I’ve yet to see a binding Church teaching that says Adam couldn’t have been the result of evolution.
Q: How do we tell the difference between natural and supernatural.Wozza:![]()
Or else Loki/Trickster is being very sneaky and making it look like it was natural, but actually it wasn’t.But the very definition of supernatural means that it CANNOT have ocurred via natural means.
If there is no evidence then there is no science. In science, the null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise.Well, we have theories . And, as it goes, scientific theories are more or less reasonable, depending on the context. They represent the best thought of the day, and as such, are valuable. But, to look at a theory (which may be more tenuous or less tenuous, as it were) and to use it as ‘proof’ that there’s nothing supernatural going on…? Well, that smells like a ‘faith claim’ to me. It’s just a faith claim about science…![]()
Humani Generis says:Humani Generis rules out polygenism.
An organism can be scientifically a member of the species Homo sapiens without possessing a human soul. As Humani Generis says, science is dealing purely with the physical body. Evolution explains the origin of the physical body from “pre-existent and living matter”. That reference to “living matter” is a reference to humanity’s non-human primate ancestors. Humani Generis explicitly allows Catholics to believe that human bodies evolved.
- 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 - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.