Evolution refuting catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brown10985
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
dcdurel:
Since you seem to have faith in Darwinian evolution, by blindly calling it “a fact” please explain how sexual reproduction came about, using the basic theory of Darwinian evolution…
“Darwinian evolution?” What the heck is THAT?

Evolution is a fact. Darwin had a theory that explained the process.
40.png
dcdurel:
I want a good explanation. …
Sexual reproduction came about through the sharing of genetic material at the single-cell level. That’s something that can be observed today in single-cell animals.
40.png
dcdurel:
Please do not evade the issue by calling me a Fundamentalist or other ad hominem attacks. …
Then quit using the Fundamentalist play book. We both know you didn’t think up the question you just asked by yourself. You got it from a Fundamentalist source.

The very term, “Darwinian evolution” is one used by Fundamentalists – who have no idea what it means.
40.png
dcdurel:
Please do not evade the issue by saying “it a fact” thus it must have happened.
Please don’t evade the issue by saying, “all scientists believe it” ( which is false, because 40% of scientists believe in a God directed evolution)…
Please don’t erect strawmen. Please don’t throw around numbers you have no cite for. Please don’t try to peddle Behe and Company’s ID in a Catholic forum.
 
Hey Vern,

I think we should allow dcdurell to fabricate little patterns of life while the rest of us laugh ourselves into eternity. It’s obvious he is content in dabbling with thought of designing his life into a colorful prism. Heck, it’s the holiday season, let’s awe at his prettiness like an ornament on a Christmas tree. 😃 After New Year, let’s carefully wrap him up and put him back into the box. :yup:

Mary ~
 
40.png
ISABUS:
Hey Vern,

I think we should allow dcdurell to fabricate little patterns of life while the rest of us laugh ourselves into eternity. It’s obvious he is content in dabbling with thought of designing his life into a colorful prism. Heck, it’s the holiday season, let’s awe at his prettiness like an ornament on a Christmas tree. 😃 After New Year, let’s carefully wrap him up and put him back into the box. :yup:

Mary ~
Box? Maybe a sport jacket with 48-inch sleeves and a belt in the back. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
vern humphrey:
Box? Maybe a sport jacket with 48-inch sleeves and a belt in the back. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Sweet, very sweet! Vern, if you ever decide to run for President of the United States, you’ve got my vote! 😃 You have the intelligence, wit, and stamina to keep the ball rolling in the right direction.

I may need to call you into active service. You’d have to wear your military attire. The other newsgroup I’m dealing with have decided to use a Catholic priest to backup ID. They don’t care about ruining his reputation as a scientist. If need be, can I ask you to help me and a friend out? We seem to be the only people who are putting forth the battle cry for TRUTH. It’s going to be a long battle. The thought of it makes me weary since it’s been two years of dedicated service towards keeping alive the real truth about this priest. My heart aches when I think how some people intentionally twist the truth into lies to further their own agenda. 😦

On a happier note ~ let’s not forget it’s all about Jesus. Our love for Jesus! The man of the hours!!! :amen:

Mary
 
vern humphrey said:
"
Evolution is a fact. Darwin had a theory that explained the process.

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory.

2 + 2 = 4 is a fact. It is observable and can be demonstrated repeatedly.

Human beings evolving from a common ancestor of apes cannot be observed nor demonstrated once.
 
40.png
Brad:
Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory.

2 + 2 = 4 is a fact. It is observable and can be demonstrated repeatedly.

Human beings evolving from a common ancestor of apes cannot be observed nor demonstrated once.
The heck it can’t.

Both claddistics and DNA evidence support the hypothesis that not only humans but all other species are closely related to earlier species.
 
vern humphrey:
The heck it can’t.

Both claddistics and DNA evidence support the hypothesis that not only humans but all other species are closely related to earlier species.
A hypothesis that different species have similarity in DNA is the same thing as an observable fact that humans evolved from a common ancestor of apes.
 
40.png
Brad:
A hypothesis that different species have similarity in DNA is the same thing as an observable fact that humans evolved from a common ancestor of apes.
I don’t know if you meant what you said, but you’re close to the truth. Claddistically, we are apes. That was hypothesized long ago. Modern DNA analysis shows it to be true.
 
vern humphrey:
I don’t know if you meant what you said, but you’re close to the truth. Claddistically, we are apes. That was hypothesized long ago. Modern DNA analysis shows it to be true.
Actually, I said the opposite of what I intended to say. I meant that it is NOT the same thing. A hypothesis makes for good science fiction but not for verifiable fact. Simply having similar DNA doesn’t show this to be true at all.
 
40.png
Brad:
Actually, I said the opposite of what I intended to say. I meant that it is NOT the same thing. .
Perhaps the Holy Spirit, just this once, inspired you to tell the truth, as a gentle reminder to stick with Catholic doctrine, and stop trying to sell Fundamentalism.
40.png
Brad:
A hypothesis makes for good science fiction but not for verifiable fact. Simply having similar DNA doesn’t show this to be true at all.
As a matter of fact, it does. DNA analysis is used in paternity cases – it can tell if a child was or not fathered by a given man. And it can tell if two species are related, and how closely.
 
Vern << DNA analysis is used in paternity cases – it can tell if a child was or not fathered by a given man. >>

Yep, not only that but the stronger point in evolution’s favor is the copying of DNA errors, the whole molecular plagiarism idea. Did God specially and directly copy these DNA errors, or was that evolution? (The errors are called “pseudo-genes” which are functionally no longer used). Evolution is a fact, we’ll have to work out the theology later…The following article explains all this

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Print it out, read it, absorb it, and like me get over the shock :eek: and fear :confused: that evolution may therefore be true, humans and chimps had a common ancestor several million years ago, then work on the theology like I am trying to… 😛

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Vern << DNA analysis is used in paternity cases – it can tell if a child was or not fathered by a given man. >>

Yep, not only that but the stronger point in evolution’s favor is the copying of DNA errors, the whole molecular plagiarism idea. Did God specially and directly copy these DNA errors, or was that evolution? (The errors are called “pseudo-genes” which are functionally no longer used). Evolution is a fact, we’ll have to work out the theology later…The following article explains all this

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Print it out, read it, absorb it, and like me get over the shock :eek: and fear :confused: that evolution may therefore be true, humans and chimps had a common ancestor several million years ago, then work on the theology like I am trying to… 😛

Phil P
The theology is pretty well worked out – God created the universe. He did it His way, and has allowed us to learn a great deal about His workings. That’s how we come to have things like vaccines and anti-biotics, as well as airplanes and electric lights.

As best we can tell, His way to produce humans and other advanced species is to evolve them. Who are we to tell Him how to do His business?

The main reservation is the human soul – and for that science has no answer, nor should it.
 
Vern << The theology is pretty well worked out – God created the universe. He did it His way, and has allowed us to learn a great deal about His workings. >>

Well I mostly agree. However, in my opinion, what the Max article above on “genetics and DNA error” does for proving evolution, the articles below do for proving Catholicism must hold, or at least did hold, to a literal Adam/Eve, and bodily immortality before the Fall.

That’s the theology I’m working out…print these articles out as well. They are above average thoughtful articles with excellent theological content in my opinion, and worth considering when trying to reconcile with evolution. :cool:

Did the Human Body Evolve Naturally?

Early Vatican Responses to Evolutionist Theology

Evolution and the Truth About Man

Theistic Evolution: A Vain Search for Spontaneous Generation

The Evolution of Original Sin

EXCERPT from this last one:

As for dogma, under “Preternatural Gifts” in the Pocket Catholic Dictionary (by Rev. John Hardon, S.J.) we read: “They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title - infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.”

Is Fr. John Hardon right or wrong? A literal Adam and Eve possessed bodily immortality before the Fall? I know – not easy to answer. :confused: Now you’re not dealing with the Fundamentalist playbook anymore, since Fr. John Hardon is definitely not a Protestant Fundamentalist. 😃

More here from Living Tradition

Don’t worry, I’ll come up with something in my massive new articles in response to Robert Sungenis here 👍

Phil P
 
vern humphrey:
The main reservation is the human soul – and for that science has no answer, nor should it.
most scientists teach that there is no soul. Christians who choose to believe in evolution as the origins of human beings and, indeed all life, insert God in the process somewhere…wherever they want to pretty much.

Science cannot examine the soul because it is not there and neither is God. Evolution explains it all and we don’t need God. That is the claim of most scientists…you can feel free to accept their teachings on evolution, and feel free to throw God into the process wherever you feel comfortable. :rolleyes:
 
vern humphrey:
Perhaps the Holy Spirit, just this once, inspired you to tell the truth, as a gentle reminder to stick with Catholic doctrine, and stop trying to sell Fundamentalism.

.
Wow you are a scholar and a gentleman :rolleyes: at least you didn’t call anyone a fool this time…reading your posts…I do think some people are descended from apes and not made directly from God as He had it written in the Bible.

Are you eating a banana right now?
 
Tom of Assisi:
Wow you are a scholar and a gentleman :rolleyes: at least you didn’t call anyone a fool this time…reading your posts…I do think some people are descended from apes and not made directly from God as He had it written in the Bible.

Are you eating a banana right now?
Nice christian approach.😦

Peace

Tim
 
Tom of Assisi:
most scientists teach that there is no soul. Christians who choose to believe in evolution as the origins of human beings and, indeed all life, insert God in the process somewhere…wherever they want to pretty much.

Science cannot examine the soul because it is not there and neither is God. Evolution explains it all and we don’t need God. That is the claim of most scientists…you can feel free to accept their teachings on evolution, and feel free to throw God into the process wherever you feel comfortable. :rolleyes:
“Most scientists?” You can back that up – you’ve run a poll and can give us hard figures?

Most scientists admit that the soul is outside the realm of science – I don’t know of one who “teaches” there is no soul.
 
TomA << Are you eating a banana right now? >>

😃 😃 😃

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/homin2.jpg

(A) Pan troglodytes, modern chimpanzee; (B) Australopithecus africanus, 2.6 My; (C) Australopithecus africanus, 2.5 My; (D) Homo habilis, 1.9 My; (E) Homo habilis, 1.8 My; (F) Homo rudolfensis, 1.8 My; (G) primitive Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium, 1.75 My; (H) Homo ergaster (late H. erectus), 1.75 My; (I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 - 125,000 y; (J) Homo sapiens neandertalensis, 70,000 y; (K) Homo sapiens neandertalensis, 60,000 y; (L) Homo sapiens neandertalensis, 45,000 y; (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon, 30,000 y; (N) modern Homo sapiens sapiens
 
40.png
Brown10985:
Hi,
Macroevolution is something that I’ve been deeply struggeling with. I believe in the Catholic Church and everything she says it is though I just don’t see how belief in macroevolution is compatible with Catholicism. None of the evidence points to monogenism. My professors tell me that, even though it is a theory, the evidence is so strong for macroevolution that it’s widely accepted as fact among most scientists. This confuses and scares me.

Help

Brian
Do your professors have more experience, and have they spent more years in scientific study than you have at present? Theology and science are two separate disciplines.

Human beings are higher order animals of the primate branch of mammals which also includes chimpanzees, gorillas, monkeys, lemurs, etc. Catholics are not expected to take the Genesis account as scientific or historic fact. We are not fundamentalist Christians.

Our faith tells us that God exists, and that we are created in God’s image and after God’s likeness. We do not expect science to provide such insights as these are a part of direct Divine, not indirect natural, revelation.
 
%between%
**DENVER POST **
JANUARY 2, 2005
New year, new level of tolerance, perhaps?http://www.denverpost.com/cda/images/article/spacer.gif

By Barrie Hartman

Here in Boulder land, where the left is always right and the right is always wrong, a debate is raging over whether a public school is really a religious school.
Peak to Peak charter school in Lafayette is just a stone’s throw from the liberal city of Boulder. Some parents are accusing Peak to Peak of turning into a Christian academy funded by tax dollars. The tension, they say, has caused a few teachers to quit and some parents to pull out their kids.

**Even worse, a girl attempted suicide last month after complaining she was bullied by students for believing in evolution, not creationism.😦 **

Peak to Peak and district officials staunchly defend the K-12 school, saying that it is neither plagued by “fundies” (fundamental Christian bullies) nor subservient to an evangelical agenda.

Because I know parents who founded Peak to Peak, I’m skeptical about the validity of the accusations. However, if religious education is actually making inroads into the liberal heartland of the state, what, for goodness sakes, is happening elsewhere?

It’s a serious matter that needs to be watched. Yet, I worry about the growing tendency to shoot first and ask questions later, a category into which the Lafayette situation may well fall. In any case, religious tolerance is being tested like never before, and we liberals can be just as guilty of seeing a conspiracy at the drop of a Bible as the right can be in seeing hatred for Jesus in every religious challenge.

Granted, there’s good reason for liberals to be wary. The born-agains, with their newfound power, are letting their true feelings hang out, such as judging homosexuality as sinful rather than as a biological roll of the dice.

Or teaching children that the Earth is 6,000 years old, as the Bible says, not 4.5 billion-plus, as scientific evidence makes clear.

Or not just opposing abortion, but admitting that the ultimate target is contraception.

Or condemning stem-cell research, even though exploration could lead to improving lives for victims of savage diseases like multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s in decades to come.

And then there’s the Iraq war, which many evangelicals defend as a crusade for Christ.

As wrong as I feel Christian rightists are on these issues, there are others that we liberals shouldn’t be so reticent about supporting - such as resisting gay marriage. It’s clear that the nation isn’t ready for that yet. But - hooray! - the right may be willing to accept civil unions as a compromise. Let’s go for it. Also, how many of us Christian libs were just as bothered as the right - but said nothing - when the Downtown Denver Partnership barred floats with religious themes from the holiday parade?

Or how many of us stood with the right in expressing displeasure as schools and cities went overboard making certain no one was offended by saying “Merry Christmas” or by singing a Christmas song?

My grandson, a fourth-grader, sang in the “winter program” at his school in Thornton. I didn’t recognize a single song. Apparently, neither did anyone else. “Good grief,” grumped a mom. “Couldn’t they at least have sung 'Frosty the Snowman?”’

We liberal Christians must be careful not to judge conservatives as being of one mind on everything. We’re certainly not.

My mail, phone calls and friendships show as many differences among Christian rightists as among any grouping of adults. To place them solidly in the mindset of the Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons is as wrong as labeling liberals as anti-American and morally vapid.

Jim Vandel of Cheyenne illustrates the dilemma so many of us experience.

“As a conservative, I want to have a balanced budget and a strong national defense,” he writes. "As a Methodist, I want to be able to tolerate others’ beliefs while they tolerate mine. I want to support the Constitution but don’t want it changed in order to protect the flag or deny rights to gays or anybody else not exactly like me.

"What I don’t understand is why others call themselves conservative and yet support politicians wanting to spend us into bankruptcy, conduct a totally unnecessary and probably counterproductive war and support actions that would stifle freedom in this country.

“Bottom line, I have become confused about liberal/conservative.” Vandel then goes on to suggest that many of us on the left and right actually belong in “the radical center.”

The point is most of us are not purely one way or the other. And that means there ought to be ways to break down the walls of arrogant resistance between us.

Nothing like a brand new year to get the ball rolling.

denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~31701~2626927,00.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top