EVOLUTION: what about this

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
Buffalo, am I being too literalist here? I could have interpreted the snake story as metaphorical or symbolic, but I thought literal biblical interpretation was acceptable on Catholic Answers. Genesis 3 reports this conversation, with no mention of telepathic communication:

1: Now the serpent … said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3: But of the fruit of the tree…
4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Of course God can do what She/He/It wants to do with the universe. The question is whether we interpret literally all passages in the Bible, or none, or some, and how to decide in each case. That’s what the science of hermeneutics is about!

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
How many posts on here start with “…you said…?”

No one “says” anything here. There is no sound. Sometimes things that people write aren’t literally true.
 
StAnastasia said:
Not at all. God is first cause and creator of the universe. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo needs a bit of refinement (which theologians are engaged in), in that in the course of its doctrinal development it became entangled with the issue of creation in time.

So, if Big Bang cosmology is true – and it seems to be confirmed more and more – the question is whether God created the conditions of the Big Bang (and therefore space-time) ex nihilo – or whether there was an energetic state prior to the Big Bang, of which God was the cause.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
St. Augustine, whom I’ll take over a comboxer any day, alredy settled this. He wrote that God created space, matter, AND time. Before these were created, only God existed as the Trinity.
 
Orogeny said:
Nor is evolution a religion.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
I can provide a link to PZ Myers’ interview on youtube, or a link to the Nature article where most leading scientists reject God. Bottom line: Stephen Jay Gould says we’re all animals, as in, no God involved. So does evolution. Scientists deny God and they use the same mountains of evidence to back that up.

Peace,
Ed
 
rossum said:
rossum

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.
Click to expand...
So it’s only relatively true that there is no ultimate truth?

Therefore, there is an ultimate truth.

You also are caught in a logical trap.
 
edwest2 said:
I can provide a link to PZ Myers’ interview on youtube, or a link to the Nature article where most leading scientists reject God. Bottom line: Stephen Jay Gould says we’re all animals, as in, no God involved. So does evolution. Scientists deny God and they use the same mountains of evidence to back that up.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
None of which refutes what I said. Evolution (nor any other science) is religion.

Peace

Tim
 
Volodymyr_988 said:
So it’s only relatively true that there is no ultimate truth?

Therefore, there is an ultimate truth.

You also are caught in a logical trap.
Click to expand...
You are big on logical traps, aren’t you?😉

Rossum has explained that on numerous threads.

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
None of which refutes what I said. Evolution (nor any other science) is religion.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Empirical observations are not religion. Conclusions lead in to philosophy. Evolutionism is indeed a religion.
 
Orogeny said:
Nor is evolution a religion.Peace
Tim
Click to expand...
I am a tectonist. I worship Gaia-Tecton, and I venerate His god-plates. May they forever float above the holy magma, oozing forth the stuff of life. The martyr plates died for us in the Cascadia subduction zone.

Tecton alone is God, and Alfred Wegener is his prophet.

Tecton Akbar!
 
reggieM said:
What these researchers have nicely documented in the fossil record, like so many other discoveries, flatly contradicts what would be expected in a Darwinian world. The findings fit quite nicely, however, with the concept of a preexistent design, with front-loaded genetic programs.
Click to expand...
Reggie, if there is any truth to your ideas, why confine them to the hidden recesses of Catholic Answers? Why not propose them as papers at major biology and biochemistry conferences? If there is merit they will be accepted.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
From humanistperspectives.org/issue154/ten_things_to_remember.html

"If life was designed, an idiot did it. This is, of course, an exaggeration, but it serves to make a point: for every example of what looks like beautiful design, you can find dozens more examples of very poor design.

"The human eyeball is an engineering mess. Heart attacks and cancer exist because they occur principally after we have passed on our genes and so these problems are not selected out. Yet these and countless other inefficiencies could be easily eliminated by a moderately-intelligent designer. The designer didn’t eliminate them, so either the designer has unknowable motives, or the designer doesn’t exist.

"If the designer has unknowable motives, then you can’t use designer motives to argue for the designer’s existence (see number 6).
Click to expand...
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.
 
rossum said:
No, we will never know what the name of Cain’s wife was so obviously Christianity is flawed. 😦

rossum
Click to expand...
…non sequitur

Christianity does not stand or fall on what Cain’s wife is named any more that Darwinism stands or falls on what the turtles that Darwin saw were named.
 
Orogeny said:
You are big on logical traps, aren’t you?😉

Rossum has explained that on numerous threads.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen him around before. I don’t post all that much.

I also think that way too many people get caught in logical traps.
 
Orogeny said:
None of which refutes what I said. Evolution (nor any other science) is religion.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Scientists are directly linking science to religion. Evolutionary science has stepped outside of its bounds and is being promoted as the new belief system. The average person hears these scientists, hears about their work and hears about their conclusions, which their work cannot demonstrate, that God is rejected. Science tells us that God “did not breathe life into Adam’s nostrils.” Just ask Alec (hecd2) on this board for the non-evidence for Adam and Eve.

Atheistic-Science is a religious belief system because it is based on faith and an imagined future where man is god and will equal god and his power. Evolution, for them, negates a role for God, at best, and proves that, like the Greek and Roman gods, belief in the Christian God should be discarded as well.

The goal is a Scientific-Atheist Technocracy. Our minds and machines will save us. A warning: none of that will matter when we stand before the Living God at judgement.

Peace,
Ed
 
Volodymyr_988 said:
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.
Click to expand...
True. We can see the creative power of God (His perfect designs) in a world broken by sin.
 
StAnastasia said:
I am a tectonist. I worship Gaia-Tecton, and I venerate His god-plates. May they forever float above the holy magma, oozing forth the stuff of life. The martyr plates died for us in the Cascadia subduction zone.

Tecton alone is God, and Alfred Wegener is his prophet.

Tecton Akbar!
Click to expand...
The Heart of Tectonics sutra:
Om namo Tecton hum!

Tecton, holy lord and earthshaker, was moving in the magma of the subduction that has gone below. He looked up from the depths and he beheld but five plates and saw that in their own-being they were empty. Here, oh listeners, the plates are emptiness and very emptiness is the plates. Emptiness does not differ from the plates; the plates do not differ from emptiness. Whatever is the plates, that is emptiness; whatever is emptiness, that is the plates.

Gone, gone, gone below, gone completely below. What a descent. Hail!

🙂

rossum
 
edwest2 said:
Scientists are directly linking science to religion.
Click to expand...
If that is true, they are just as wrong as you are to reject science in the name of religion.
Evolutionary science has stepped outside of its bounds and is being promoted as the new belief system.
Click to expand...
No it hasn’t, Ed. Besides, science doesn’t exist, right? How can something that doesn’t exist step outside of it’s bounds?
Evolution, for them, negates a role for God, at best, and proves that, like the Greek and Roman gods, belief in the Christian God should be discarded as well.
Click to expand...
So how do you explain athiests that have no clue about evolution?

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
If that is true, they are just as wrong as you are to reject science in the name of religion.No it hasn’t, Ed. Besides, science doesn’t exist, right? How can something that doesn’t exist step outside of it’s bounds?So how do you explain athiests that have no clue about evolution?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
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.

The scientists I mention are making faith statements and too many people believe them.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top