Evolution

[buffalo]

Yet you believe Adam lived for (or had the potential for) 1000yrs

Yup I do. This is how Catholics read Scripture -

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

 

[buffalo]

How so?

You do not avail yourself of the full arsenal. You limit yourself to science alone, which is curious to me since scientists are by nature curious. Seems to me you have painted yourself into a corner.

 

[Isambard]

You do not avail yourself of the full arsenal. You limit yourself to science alone, which is curious to me since scientists are by nature curious.

Eh? Thats odd thinking. If I weren’t curious, I wouldn’t be one this religious forum (or others) would I?

Seems to me you have painted yourself into a corner.

You seem to have misrepresented me. When something contradicts empiracal evidence (creationism), I disbelieve it. Simple.

 

[buffalo]

Eh? Thats odd thinking. If I weren’t curious, I wouldn’t be one this religious forum (or others) would I?

You seem to have misrepresented me. When something contradicts empiracal evidence (creationism), I disbelieve it. Simple.

Oh - we have empirical evidence on origins?

 

[Isambard]

Oh - we have empirical evidence on origins?

On the origins of humans? Yes.

 

[buffalo]

On the origins of humans? Yes.

Empirical evidence - testable, reproducible and predictable.

 

[Isambard]

Empirical evidence - testable, reproducible and predictable.

Yep, yep, and yep.

Lets not forget falsifiable when talking about ToE, which it also accomplishes:thumbsup:

 

[buffalo]

Yep, yep, and yep.

Lets not forget falsifiable when talking about ToE, which it also accomplishes:thumbsup:

I am anxiously awaiting the laboratory Adam.

 

[historyb]

You do not avail yourself of the full arsenal. You limit yourself to science alone, which is curious to me since scientists are by nature curious. Seems to me you have painted yourself into a corner.

[SIGN]What he said[/SIGN]

 

[Isambard]

I am anxiously awaiting the laboratory Adam.

Why would one need a labratory Adam? (Ethics aside)

Do you need to produce a Super Nova in a test tube for it to be true? No. Me thinks you need to read up on the scientific method.

Testable- youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Reproducible- Yes, the evidence is reproducible. Its sorta of the criteria to be accepted as a scientific theory…
But Im guessing you misunderstand what it means.
Here’s what it means in scientific jargon
youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

Predictable- We’d find apes with more human characteristics later in the fossil record. Guess what they found?
youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

 

[buffalo]

Why would one need a labratory Adam? (Ethics aside)

Do you need to produce a Super Nova in a test tube for it to be true? No. Me think you need to read up on the scientific method.

Testable- youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Reproducible- Yes, the evidence is reproducible. Its sorta of the criteria to be published in a scientific journal…
But Im guessing you misunderstand what it means.
Here’s what it means in scientific jargon
youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

Predictable- We’d find apes with more human characteristics later in the fossil record. Guess what they found?
youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

If we cannot reproduce it it is not empirical now is it? So that negates your previous statement. So now we duel over best explanations.

I have been there. I understand it well.

I like this scenario. God created Adam and Eve supernaturally. It fits with Revelation and I am sure science will catch up.

Origins is moving toward self-organization. As we study more there are more “gaps” not less.

It is not surprising to me that since DNA is the building block of life that we would find commonality in all that is alive.

 

[edwest2]

My opinion:

It doesn’t matter. God did what he did for a reason and he is going to do what he does for a reason. We need to live in the here and now not the past or the future and live all for God. No one else just God. Prayer, mass, and food. It’s all we need.

It matters a great deal. Do you teach your children that they were created by God or are simply a bag of chemicals that naturally assembled themselves? Human identity, both physical and spiritual, hinges on the answers to these questions.

It is clear that the Church teaches that something similar to evolution occurred but it needed divine providence to actually happen.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Isambard]

If we cannot reproduce it it is not empirical now is it?

Yep, if you cannot reproduce the results of the evidence presented. Not the phenomena itself.

So that negates your previous statement. So now we duel over best explanations.

No it doesn’t, as I and the video explained.

I have been there. I understand it well.

Understand what? That you are scientifically illiterate? Well that’s obvious. I’d add intellectually dishonest as well given how casually you ignored what was specifically addressed.

I like this scenario. God created Adam and Eve supernaturally. It fits with Revelation and I am sure science will catch up.

I imagine you do given how ready you are to deny reality for that comfort.

Origins is moving toward self-organization. As we study more there are more “gaps” not less.

Shame that the gaps that have been filled, bury the myth of creationism.

It is not surprising to me that since DNA is the building block of life that we would find commonality in all that is alive.

Perhaps then you could explain why there is alot more DNA commonalities with prime apes than there are with non-prime apes. Or why mitocondrian evidence also suggests common decent, as does retro-viruses.

 

[edwest2]

I an satisfied that your response is not based on rational or factional considerations but on an emotional desire to prove the Church wrong. Please stop it.

I hope one day you will realize that divine revelation is actual, factual information just as the life and death of Jesus Christ was actual and factual, including His rising from the dead. These things, it appears, science is unwilling to study or uninterested in. This stems, I believe, from the fact that most leading scientists are atheists.

Do not promote atheism here.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Yep, if you cannot reproduce the results of the evidence presented. Not the phenomena itself.

No it doesn’t, as I and the video explained.

Understand what? That you are scientifically illiterate? Well that’s obvious. I’d add intellectually dishonest as well given how casually you ignored what was specifically addressed.

I imagine you do given how ready you are to deny reality for that comfort.

Shame that the gaps that have been filled, bury the myth of creationism.

Perhaps then you could explain why there is alot more DNA commonalities with prime apes than there are with non-prime apes. Or why mitocondrian evidence also suggests common decent, as does retro-viruses.

Ouch.

I have seen all this before.

Gaps gaps and more gaps everyday. Give me a break. You are living in an illusion or just not informed.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I must say I can see huge problems with darwin thinking.First we must believe in Adam and Eve, the Fall etc that is not up for debate Pope B16 is clear on that.

It’s all nicely compatible with evolutionary theory, which is why the Pope has also written that common descent of all living things on Earth is virtually certain.

Now if darwin mere ideas were correct that means death was from the very start, but that does not correspond with Adam and Eve.

The Pope thinks so. But then, he’s always been a Catholic and proud of it.

The answer no evolution.

The truthful answer is from your Pope:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

It would be an error to say that the Church disagrees with evolution, just as it was an error to say that the Church worships idols.

The truth matters. It should matter to you.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(discussion of the evidence for human descent)

Buffalo writes:

Ouch.

I have seen all this before.

Gaps gaps and more gaps everyday. Give me a break. You are living in an illusion or just not informed.

Creationists react badly to the “E-word.”

… “Evidence.”

 

[The_Barbarian]

It matters a great deal. Do you teach your children that they were created by God or are simply a bag of chemicals that naturally assembled themselves?

Ed, all Catholics accept that God created us. The only difference between you and them, is that they approve of the way He did it.

Human identity, both physical and spiritual, hinges on the answers to these questions.

**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. **
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis

It’s time to come back in, Ed.

It is clear that the Church teaches that something similar to evolution occurred but it needed divine providence to actually happen.

Which causes no conflict with evolutionary theory.

 

[edwest2]

Sad that you always end up repeating slogans and misleading people:

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

Both popular and scientific texts about evolution often say that “nature” or “evolution” has done this or that. Just who is this “nature” or “evolution” as (an active) subject? It doesn’t exist at all!" the Pope said.

news.com.au/story/0,23599,21548399-401,00.html

Perhaps one day you’ll understand that the biology textbook is inadequate to explain evolution. Random mutation and natural selection are insufficient. Nature has no brain. It is not an active force. Evolution, in opposition to the biology textbook, cannot occur without God. The rational and active force.

Wake up, my fellow Catholics. Do not accept an explanation that excludes God and is only satisfying for the atheist. God must be involved or evolution cannot exist. See: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69. That is Church teaching.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Isambard]

I an satisfied that your response is not based on rational or factional considerations but on an emotional desire to prove the Church wrong. Please stop it.

Straw man

I hope one day you will realize that divine revelation is actual, factual information just as the life and death of Jesus Christ was actual and factual, including His rising from the dead.

You seem to be confusing what is factual with what is myth. Here’s a hint, historical facts have outside references to an event.

These things, it appears, science is unwilling to study or uninterested in. This stems, I believe, from the fact that most leading scientists are atheists.

Most leading scientists are theists…

Do not promote atheism here.

Non-sequitur

Two logical fallacies and a complete misunderstanding over a concept. Well done sir:thumbsup: