Evolution refuting catholicism?

[buffalo]

From the Kolbe Center

Biology Eliminates Evolution and Confirms Genesis 1-11. This objective report reveals that evolution is founded entirely on frauds and forgeries whereas the sciences confirm the Bible. For additional scientific evidence, see Biology Versus Evolution.

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

From the Kolbe Center

Biology Eliminates Evolution and Confirms Genesis 1-11. This objective report reveals that evolution is founded entirely on frauds and forgeries whereas the sciences confirm the Bible.

Oh, come on Buffalo, that is awful, in staggeringly many ways. You can’t be serious. Even the Institute for Creation Research recommends against using a lot of those arguments.

 

[buffalo]

Yeah, I am not sure what to make of it. But I do see that a point made is that a lot of evolutionary claims have been hoaxes. Now how are we to trust the scientists who will hoax us?

What do you think of the genetic problems graph? Does it make sense that Adam would have been genetically perfect and that we are devolving genetically as more generations go on.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wanerious:

Oh, come on Buffalo, that is awful, in staggeringly many ways. You can’t be serious. Even the Institute for Creation Research recommends against using a lot of those arguments.

That’s why I keep asking the question – since Catholicism doesn’t teach the bible is literally true (which is the ultimate consequence of Sola Scriptura), we have no quarrel with science. We don’t NEED to pretend some oddbball sophistry is “scientificaly acceptable” because we aren’t threatened by real science.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Yeah, I am not sure what to make of it. But I do see that a point made is that a lot of evolutionary claims have been hoaxes. Now how are we to trust the scientists who will hoax us?

What do you think of the genetic problems graph? Does it make sense that Adam would have been genetically perfect and that we are devolving genetically as more generations go on.

Why bother with Creationism? Why not go straight to “Chariots of the Gods” and claim that Earth was populated from outer space?

Von Dannikin mustered all sorts of sophistry, half-truths and distortions in defense of that nonsense. For those who like this sort of thing, it’s a smorgasbord of whacky arguments.

 

[Newman60]

vern humphrey:

Why bother with Creationism? Why not go straight to “Chariots of the Gods” and claim that Earth was populated from outer space?

Von Dannikin mustered all sorts of sophistry, half-truths and distortions in defense of that nonsense. For those who like this sort of thing, it’s a smorgasbord of whacky arguments.

Same old garbage, Vern. You are the one who brings up Sola Scriptura and uses that and other fantasies as straw men to obfuscate your great fear that there just might be a reasonable train of thought different than yours.
Why are you so afraid of Creationism? Or is it God that you are afraid of?
Keep up the good work, Buffalo.
Newman60

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

vern humphrey:

That’s why I keep asking the question – since Catholicism doesn’t teach the bible is literally true (which is the ultimate consequence of Sola Scriptura), we have no quarrel with science. We don’t NEED to pretend some oddbball sophistry is “scientificaly acceptable” because we aren’t threatened by real science.

The Catholic Church does teach that the Bible is literally true.

Science does not equal evolution. If you have questions about the different theories on if and how evolution occured you do not becomce a redneck.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Newman60:

Same old garbage, Vern. You are the one who brings up Sola Scriptura and uses that and other fantasies as straw men to obfuscate your great fear that there just might be a reasonable train of thought different than yours.
Why are you so afraid of Creationism? Or is it God that you are afraid of?
Keep up the good work, Buffalo.
Newman60

What I’m afraid of is having a narrow-minded protestant fundamental view forced on Catholicism.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tom of Assisi:

The Catholic Church does teach that the Bible is literally true. .

Show me where I’m required to reject evolution.
Tom of Assisi:

Science does not equal evolution. If you have questions about the different theories on if and how evolution occured you do not becomce a redneck.

That’s close to gibberish. Science does not equal chemistry, either. Nor does it equal physics. Yet chemistry, physics and biology ARE branches of science.

And THEORIES are the highest level of scientific explanation - -and are different in kind from the facts they explain.

And yes, theories are subject to revision and fine-tuning as new information is discovered.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

buffalo:

Yeah, I am not sure what to make of it. But I do see that a point made is that a lot of evolutionary claims have been hoaxes. Now how are we to trust the scientists who will hoax us?

A “lot”?
Other than Piltdown man (which was exposed by the way by scientists) and some headlines in the National Enquirer, what were these “hoaxes?”

That’s kinda like saying “after this Jim Jones and that David Koresh fellow how can we ever trust clergymen who will hoax us”

buffalo:

What do you think of the genetic problems graph? Does it make sense that Adam would have been genetically perfect and that we are devolving genetically as more generations go on.

No, despite what grade B Sci-Fi movies may have indicated you don’t devolve. It is a one way trip. Snakes lost their limbs and cetaceans returned to the oceans but those were steps forward not back.

You know I try to be charitable but I cannot believe that we are even having this discussion …in the 21st century…and on a computer no less

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

vern humphrey:

Show me where I’m required to reject evolution.

That’s close to gibberish. Science does not equal chemistry, either. Nor does it equal physics. Yet chemistry, physics and biology ARE branches of science.

And THEORIES are the highest level of scientific explanation - -and are different in kind from the facts they explain.

And yes, theories are subject to revision and fine-tuning as new information is discovered.

The Church teaches that the Bible is literally true. You do have to assent to that to remain a faithful Catholic (assuming you would consider yourself one–you could be a Hindu for all I know), but, I suppose, you are certainly free to believe whatever you like. As Pope John Paul II explained: There are many theories concerning evolution. We are allowed to consider them provided we do not go beyond what is provided in terms of the Catholic moral teachings and doctrines concerning human origins. So relax, nobody has told you to “reject evolution.” I’m not trying to make a monkey out of you or anything.

My other point was that some posters frequently maintain that questions posed about the many different evolutionary theories amount to some sort of hickish rejection of science or scientific principles in general. Obviously that is not true. I think we agree on that. And yes, we do agree that physics, chemistry, and biology are branches of scientific investigation.

You do seem pretty invested in your belief of evolution. You are obviously in possession of a superior mind and intellect. Thank you very much for condescending to read my gibberish and then furthermore taking the time to respond to me in such a snobbish and arrogant way. I am so blessed in so many ways.

thank you…thank you…thank you…thank you…

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Steve Andersen:

A “lot”?

You know I try to be charitable but I cannot believe that we are even having this discussion …in the 21st century…and on a computer no less

:bowdown2: Thank you so much for being so patient with the morons and idiots who have posted here :bowdown2:

 

[PhilVaz]

Vern << And THEORIES are the highest level of scientific explanation - -and are different in kind from the facts they explain. >>

Well that’s just your theory.

Proof I am not afraid of the “best” creationism and intelligent design has to offer and why the “best” that creationism and intelligent design has to offer was defeated in a formal debate by evolutionists and modern science.

Phil P

 

[Steve_Andersen]

:bowdown2: Thank you so much for being so patient with the morons and idiots who have posted here :bowdown2:

Now that is not nice.

We all have different ways of thinking and name calling is no way to win hearts and minds

There is one Light but since it shines in every direction we all can take different paths to it.

I just get discouraged sometimes
To think that it was in the Christian West that the Renaissance and the enlightenment and scientific revolution that followed were born

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Tom of Assisi:

The Church teaches that the Bible is literally true.

Does it?

I always thought that it taught that the Bible was true….but not literally so

After all the world isn’t flat nor is the sky a firmament

The Bible is true but it conveys that truth sometimes in allegory and metaphor

…. As Pope John Paul II explained: There are many theories concerning evolution.

While the science is always undergoing revision (or evolution even ) in light of new evidence and there are varied view points on some of the specifics of the theory there basically is one robust theory of evolution and it has been proven nine ways to Sunday

The Pope, not wanting to comment on matters of science, didn’t distinguish between the mainstream theory and other hypothesis because frankly it is not his turf.

….You do seem pretty invested in your belief of evolution.

Evolution is not something to “believe” in
It’s like geometry, a nice practical tool for describing the world but surely not the subject of belief

 

[clmowry]

Steve Andersen:

You know I try to be charitable but I cannot believe that we are even having this discussion …in the 21st century…and on a computer no less

I think part of the problem is that evolutionary scientists go a step or two too far and the fun and games begin. Creationist’s and Evolutionist’s both seem to have an all or nothing approach.

i.e. Look evolution is true…there is no God. Or…There is a God…so evolution is false.

I have no doubt that living things evolve.

I have temendous doubt that life sprang from inanimate matter all by it’s lonesome.

Now tell me that evolution can’t explain (scientifically) the orgins of life, but that it appears that once life was “created” evolution explains how the different creatures came into exisitance. Then I’m a happy camper.

I also have a hard time understanding WHY a single living common ancestor would ever have evolved into, what would it be milliions, of different creatures that have inhabited the Earth?

i.e. Why would anything in the environment that supported the first living matter (be it a cell or whatever) drive that thing to evolve in not one but several different directions resulting in bacteria, plants, animals etc overtime.

If the direction comes from DNA, then Who directed the DNA?

As far as the science goes, I wouldn’t be surprised that when it’s all said and done that we find not a single but several “common ancestors.” You know…“each created in their kind”.

Finally, when an evolutinist tells me that the only difference between rats and apes and Human Beings is a few genes and that we are all just animals that happen to be here by random chance. That man has no “soul” beyound an evolved self awareness. Tell me that religion is an evolved trait. etc. etc. And then tell me that I’m a moron if I can’t see that evolution “proves” all of these spritual things that can be neither proven nor dis-proved by scietific observation. And well…I’m likely to tell you to keep working on evolutional theory until you’re no longer drawing theological conclusions from it.

Once certain evolutionists stop linking athesim with evolution, it’ll likely be much more easily accpeted.

As long as it means I have to become an aethist to accept evelotion. Well then I’m going to tell you “your” theory of evolution is wrong.

Chuck

 

[PhilVaz]

clm << As long as it means I have to become an aethist to accept evelotion. Well then I’m going to tell you “your” theory of evolution is wrong. >>

Well evolution doesn’t tell you that. Now that you know that, you can accept the massive evidence.

Stop the madness and end this thread. We’ll start up a new 250 post creation-evolution thread next week. And I’ll have John Haught by that time and we’ll do battle again.

Phil P

 

[Steve_Andersen]

……I have no doubt that living things evolve.

I have temendous doubt that life sprang from inanimate matter all by it’s lonesome.

Now tell me that evolution can’t explain (scientifically) the orgins of life, but that it appears that once life was “created” evolution explains how the different creatures came into exisitance. Then I’m a happy camper.

Well we have been making self replicating organic molecules in the lab for 50 years
True it is not life…but then God had billions of years

clmowry:

I also have a hard time understanding WHY a single living common ancestor would ever have evolved into, what would it be milliions, of different creatures that have inhabited the Earth?

i.e. Why would anything in the environment that supported the first living matter (be it a cell or whatever) drive that thing to evolve in not one but several different directions resulting in bacteria, plants, animals etc overtime.

(a) The environment changed so life had to change.
(2) Life is tenacious and lazy. If there is way to create more surviving offspring by definition it will be favored. Life is living proof that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
(III) Mutations happen. As with changes in the environment you can call it random change or the hand of God; evolution doesn’t address that just the response of life to the change.

clmowry:

If the direction comes from DNA, then Who directed the DNA?

the DNA will determine how a creature can respond to an environmental condition and the environmental conditions will determine which DNA is passed on.

Biology doesn’t address the “Who” part….not its turf. I suggest you talk to the chaplain

clmowry:

As far as the science goes, I wouldn’t be surprised that when it’s all said and done that we find not a single but several “common ancestors.” You know…“each created in their kind”.

I don’t know the common ancestor is fairly well proven
But science can always revives itself to fit the data

clmowry:

Finally, when an evolutinist tells me that ……That man has no “soul” beyound an evolved self awareness. Tell me that religion is an evolved trait. etc. etc. And then tell me that I’m a moron if I can’t see that evolution “proves” all of these spritual things that can be neither proven nor dis-proved by scietific observation. And well…I’m likely to tell you to keep working on evolutional theory until you’re no longer drawing theological conclusions from it.

Ask them what was the driving force behind the evolution of religion?

Once certain evolutionists stop linking athesim with evolution, it’ll likely be much more easily accpeted.

As long as it means I have to become an aethist to accept evelotion. Well then I’m going to tell you “your” theory of evolution is wrong.

Chuck

it doesn’t mean that
just ask JPII

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tom of Assisi:

The Church teaches that the Bible is literally true.

That must be a paragraph of the Catechism I haven’t read, then.
Tom of Assisi:

You do have to assent to that to remain a faithful Catholic .

Nowhere in the Catechism do I find a requirement to believe the Bible is literally true…
Tom of Assisi:

. As Pope John Paul II explained: There are many theories concerning evolution. We are allowed to consider them provided we do not go beyond what is provided in terms of the Catholic moral teachings and doctrines concerning human origins. So relax, nobody has told you to “reject evolution.” I’m not trying to make a monkey out of you or anything…

The Catholic Church does not require a literal interpretation of the bible.

The catechism says “101. In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of thir time and culture, the literary genres in use at the time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current.”

I don’t have to believe that John literally SAW a lamb with seven eyes and seven horns – nor that Babylon has seven hills.
Tom of Assisi:

My other point was that some posters frequently maintain that questions posed about the many different evolutionary theories amount to some sort of hickish rejection of science or scientific principles in general. Obviously that is not true. I think we agree on that. And yes, we do agree that physics, chemistry, and biology are branches of scientific investigation.

You do seem pretty invested in your belief of evolution. You are obviously in possession of a superior mind and intellect. Thank you very much for condescending to read my gibberish and then furthermore taking the time to respond to me in such a snobbish and arrogant way. I am so blessed in so many ways.

thank you…thank you…thank you…thank you…

Thank you for lecturing me on things you cannot support from the Catechism.

 

[Orogeny]

clmowry:

I have temendous doubt that life sprang from inanimate matter all by it’s lonesome.

Now tell me that evolution can’t explain (scientifically) the orgins of life, but that it appears that once life was “created” evolution explains how the different creatures came into exisitance. Then I’m a happy camper.

Welcome, Happy Camper! You and I agree on this! By the way, just to pick a nit with that statement, evolution does not describe how life came into being, only how it has changed over time.

Finally, when an evolutinist tells me that the only difference between rats and apes and Human Beings is a few genes and that we are all just animals that happen to be here by random chance. That man has no “soul” beyound an evolved self awareness. Tell me that religion is an evolved trait. etc. etc. And then tell me that I’m a moron if I can’t see that evolution “proves” all of these spritual things that can be neither proven nor dis-proved by scietific observation. And well…I’m likely to tell you to keep working on evolutional theory until you’re no longer drawing theological conclusions from it.

Any scientist that even addresses the soul is not making a scientific observation but rather a religious observation. Science cannot even go there because souls are supernatural and science is, by definition, the study of nature.

Once certain evolutionists stop linking athesim with evolution, it’ll likely be much more easily accpeted.

Which certain scientists are you refering to?

As long as it means I have to become an aethist to accept evelotion. Well then I’m going to tell you “your” theory of evolution is wrong.

Once again, welcome to the club! You don’t have to become an athiest to accept evolution!

The theory of evolution doesn’t say anything about God. It is only the best explaination for the data (observations) collected from nature.

Peace

Tim