Hmm. Darwin Central. I guess that you think that all athiests 1) participate in internet forums, 2) all athiests participate in that specific forum and 3) someone (athiest or not) participating in that forum could possibly have not heard of, um, Darwin.Tim. Run over to Darwin Central. Atheists who have no clue about evolution? The ones who didn’t take High School Biology or missed Richard Dawkins on TV or youtube? I don’t think you can prove such people exist.
People also leave the faith when told that they CANNOT accept science. I think it is time to stop such nonsense.The scientists I mention are making faith statements and too many people believe them.
You know what is real nonsense? Calling evolution science. Plenty of science is done outside of that related to evolution.Hmm. Darwin Central. I guess that you think that all athiests 1) participate in internet forums, 2) all athiests participate in that specific forum and 3) someone (athiest or not) participating in that forum could possibly have not heard of, um, Darwin.People also leave the faith when told that they CANNOT accept science. I think it is time to stop such nonsense.
Peace
Tim
The fact that there are other disciplines besides biology does not negate the fact that evolution is science, your protestations not withstanding.You know what is real nonsense? Calling evolution science. Plenty of science is done outside of that related to evolution.
Right. I accept evolution AND I believe in God. I believe in God because He has called me and I have answered. I accept evolution because I have seen the evidence.People accept the faith by being drawn by the Father of God, by accepting Jesus Christ and by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. You are making the nonsense assertion that: Don’t believe in Evolution? Then I can’t believe in your God.
Evolution is the primary and most essential doctrine supporting atheism today. I cannot imagine an atheist who “does not have a clue” about evolution. The very vast majority are ardent promoters of an evolutionary world-view.Tim. Run over to Darwin Central. Atheists who have no clue about evolution? The ones who didn’t take High School Biology or missed Richard Dawkins on TV or youtube? I don’t think you can prove such people exist.
What I believe is taught by the Catholic Church. After Pope John Paul II said “evolution is more than a hypothesis,” (“evolution, a term he did not define,” as mentioned by Cardinal Schoenborn), Pope Benedict said, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”The fact that there are other disciplines besides biology does not negate the fact that evolution is science, your protestations not withstanding.Right. I accept evolution AND I believe in God. I believe in God because He has called me and I have answered. I accept evolution because I have seen the evidence.
Peace
Tim
As do I and I agree with the Pope. Of course, that is true of ALL scientific theories, isn’t it Ed?What I believe is taught by the Catholic Church. After Pope John Paul II said “evolution is more than a hypothesis,” (“evolution, a term he did not define,” as mentioned by Cardinal Schoenborn), Pope Benedict said, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Me, too.And that is exactly where I stand. With the Church.
For a writer, your spelling isn’t very good. You wrote “scientism” when you really mean “science”.I am against scientism, the philosophy that defines reality as only what can be detected by humans and their devices. “There are other areas of reason that we still need.” Pope Benedict
Those evil biology textbooks again, huh Ed. The ones that DON’T explicitly exclude God as you claimed?That’s where things stand with me. The Church is able to combine what it calls complementary: faith and reason. This is what Catholics should be aware of. It is critical information. But all I get here is orthodox scientism, with faith a footnote at best. The Church tells us in Human Persons Created In the Image of God that if a process like evolution happened, it could not exist without God’s direct action. By failing to mention that important fact, the biology textbook, and leading scientists, lead the world astray. They tell us we are animals, ambulatory bags of chemicals, accidents, and the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have us in mind. I will not be telling anyone they are biological automatons.
Excellent point. If they leave the Faith because they hear criticisms of evolution, then they connected science and religion.Here, you are clearly making the connection between science and religion.
The Papal document stated that they cannot explicitly exclude “divine providence” as a causal. When textbooks state that evolution is “undirected” and “purposeless”, it excludes Divine Providence as a causal and is incompatible with Catholicism.Those evil biology textbooks again, huh Ed. The ones that DON’T explicitly exclude God as you claimed?
Pope Benedict and Nature’s GeniusBut all I get here is orthodox scientism, with faith a footnote at best.
Do you have evidence to support this claim?I believe that the common understanding is that nature was horribly warped after the Fall of Adam and Eve. All systems on Earth have been irreparably damaged and nothing is in the pristine condition in which it was created.
You find it difficult to believe that a demon could posses a snake and make it talk, but have no problem with a monkey (or “MRCA”) being able to talk without help from anything (except evolution).A story that we *know *cannot be literally true based on the fact that multiple lines of genomic data preclude the possibility of humans having descended from two sole parents and on the fact that talking snakes do not exist.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
Thank you, very much, for this.
And here, on a Catholic forum, the comment by hecd2 or Alec goes to the heart of the matter. Did a man who was also the Son of God, live, die and rise from the dead for the remission of the sins of all men? Yes. But I’m betting that orthodox scientism will find no evidence for that either.You find it difficult to believe that a demon could posses a snake and make it talk, but have no problem with a monkey (or “MRCA”) being able to talk without help from anything (except evolution).
Monkey? C’mon now, you know full well that homo sapiens is not descended from monkeys.You find it difficult to believe that a demon could posses a snake and make it talk, but have no problem with a monkey (or “MRCA”) being able to talk without help from anything (except evolution).
Ed, what sort of scientific evidence prove to you that a man was the Son of God? Should we look toi science for this evidence, or should we rely on faith instead?And here, on a Catholic forum, the comment by hecd2 or Alec goes to the heart of the matter. Did a man who was also the Son of God, live, die and rise from the dead for the remission of the sins of all men? Yes. But I’m betting that orthodox scientism will find no evidence for that either.Peace,
Ed
I think you know the definition of faith as it is written in the Bible.Ed, what sort of scientific evidence prove to you that a man was the Son of God? Should we look toi science for this evidence, or should we rely on faith instead?
StAnastasia
THE RESURRECTION!!!Ed, what sort of scientific evidence prove to you that a man was the Son of God? Should we look toi science for this evidence, or should we rely on faith instead?
StAnastasia
Ed, you didn’t answer my question: what sort of scientific evidence would prove that a man was the Son of God? Blood or genetic analysis? Fingerprints? Dental records? Would this evidence need to be quantitative?I think you know the definition of faith as it is written in the Bible. May God forbid that men should bar the path to the truth of the gospel and make the gospel to none effect.
Peace,Ed
Where can I obtain a resurrectionometer? Are there tables I could use to compare Jesus’ resurrection with established resurrectional parameters to determine whether His is genuine?THE RESURRECTION!!!