evolution

[Orogeny]

No - the Catholic Church does not require a literal reading of every passage of Scripture. It requires a literal reading unless there is sufficient reason not to. This is not my answer, it is the Church’s.

Therefore, it is not official Church teaching that Genesis must be taken literally.

Back to you - are you privately interpreting Genesis? It would be helpful…etc…

Nah, I’m just interpreting it the way the Church allows me to! (see above)

Peace

Tim

 

[garysibio]

Orogeny,

Since you insist on using ridicule as a discussion technique, I’m adding you to my ignore list. Don’t bother wasting your time responding to me.

Gary

 

[buffalo]

Therefore, it is not official Church teaching that Genesis must be taken literally.Nah, I’m just interpreting it the way the Church allows me to! (see above)

Peace

Tim

Privately, that is. Are you turning Protestant on me?

 

[Orogeny]

Privately, that is. Are you turning Protestant on me?

Nevahhhhhhhh!

I do protest that question though.

Peace

Tim

 

[Dameedna]

My answer is complete.

Oh man I know I’ll be blasted for this, but THIS answer is the funniest I’ve heard in a long time.

Can you IMAGINE giving an answer like this to other people(directed at athiests and agnostics).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The lack of evidence for a building, even a large one like the Temple of Solomon, is not the same as the lack of evidence for a global flood. You understand that, right?

ok, i cant help it this statement is killing me.

what exactly is the western wall of the Temple that Jews pray at in Jerusalem, if not proof of the Temple.

am i wrong somehow in thinking that this is evidence?

 

[buffalo]

Oh man I know I’ll be blasted for this, but THIS answer is the funniest I’ve heard in a long time.

Can you IMAGINE giving an answer like this to other people(directed at athiests and agnostics).

Have you followed the posts?

 

[nordskoven]

Mitochondrial DNA / mtDNA study through the female lineage shows we came from one woman, dubbed “Eve.” Jumpy scientists, nervous about the gene study through the male lineage showing we came from one man, have named him “Scientific Adam.” Saying “scientific” makes it politically correct. Move on. The Bible fostered science as it is accurate and cogent. Scientific advances are grounded in Judeo-Christianity.

Sir Julian Huxley said his swinging crowd adopted Darwinism not because it was good science but because it nullified God by invalidating Genesis. This is the intent, not “scientific truth” and is exactly shown in correspondence between “naturalist” Darwin and lawyer Lyell. To paraphrase, “Let’s get rid of Moses’ creation account in Genesis…”

Darwin’s era saw the origins of the first “free love” movement, and Darwin spawned the deadly racism of Hitler and Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder, with her plot to get rid of all brown-eyed people. This was code for Africans and Catholic immigrants like the Italians. By their fruits you will know them. Chose life and blessing.

Ben Stein’s call for academic freedom can be heeded by signing a petition that has insured the liberty to discuss the scientific facts in various academic sectors. Stein’s EXPELLED is a fine documentary film. Get it and get moving before it’s too late.
youtube.com/watch?v=JEPqLKErXpI

 

[Orogeny]

ok, i cant help it this statement is killing me.

what exactly is the western wall of the Temple that Jews pray at in Jerusalem, if not proof of the Temple.

am i wrong somehow in thinking that this is evidence?

Yes, you are. That wall is from the second temple, not Solomon’s Temple.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Ben Stein’s call for academic freedom can be heeded by signing a petition that has insured the liberty to discuss the scientific facts in various academic sectors. Stein’s EXPELLED is a fine documentary film. Get it and get moving before it’s too late.
youtube.com/watch?v=JEPqLKErXpI

Ben Stein did exaclty what he condemned - he expelled Christian scientists who accept evolution from his film. Why would you listen to him when he starts out by doing that which he decries?

Peace

Tim

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, you are. That wall is from the second temple, not Solomon’s Temple.

Peace

Tim

ooohhhhhhhh…

 

[garysibio]

ok, i cant help it this statement is killing me.

what exactly is the western wall of the Temple that Jews pray at in Jerusalem, if not proof of the Temple.

am i wrong somehow in thinking that this is evidence?

The wall you are referring to is part of Herod’s temple, not Solomon’s. The only evidence we have that Solomon built a temple comes from the Bible. So, if you are a person who believes that there must be physical corroboration of biblical accounts before you can take them as literal, then you logically must reject the existence of Solomon’s temple.

Gary

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The wall you are referring to is part of Herod’s temple, not Solomon’s. The only evidence we have that Solomon built a temple comes from the Bible. So, if you are a person who believes that there must be physical corroboration of biblical accounts before you can take them as literal, then you logically must reject the existence of Solomon’s temple.

Gary

not me brother, i dont find science and faith mutually exclusive.

 

[garysibio]

not me brother, i dont find science and faith mutually exclusive.

Neither do I. People assume that, if you reject evolution, you are anti-scientific. I am not. I’m just against bad science. Just because a viewpoint is held by the majority, even a vast majority, of scientists does not make it valid. The vast majority of scientists used to believe in Lamarkianism. The vast majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation. Just as those ideas have been rejected now that they have been demonstrated to be erroneous, advances in biochemistry are starting to show that evolution is impossible.

Gary

 

[Orogeny]

Just as those ideas have been rejected now that they have been demonstrated to be erroneous, advances in biochemistry are starting to show that evolution is impossible.

I know Gary has me blocked so he won’t see this, but hopefully someone else who rejects science will give us a citation that supports Gary’s assertion. Otherwise, I will have to put it in the same class as his moon dust argument.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

Just as those ideas have been rejected now that they have been demonstrated to be erroneous, advances in biochemistry are starting to show that evolution is impossible.

Don’t hold your breath Gary. See The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism. You are not the first person to predict the end of evolution and I am sure you will not be the last.

rossum

 

[Brady01]

From here, i believe i shall quote your Saint Augustine from a rather interesting commentary on Genesis i once read a long time ago.

From: De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim

156 comments astonishing or what…I thought nobody was going to reply this question I thought it was stupid. I really don’t believe in evolution as no monkey has a human soul…it’s all erroneous

Thanks everyone who responded to this question!!!

[SIGN]God bless you all [/SIGN]

 

[garysibio]

Don’t hold your breath Gary. See The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism. You are not the first person to predict the end of evolution and I am sure you will not be the last.

rossum

I’m sure there were a lot of Lamarkians who felt the same way about their theory.

Gary

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Neither do I. People assume that, if you reject evolution, you are anti-scientific. I am not. I’m just against bad science. Just because a viewpoint is held by the majority, even a vast majority, of scientists does not make it valid. The vast majority of scientists used to believe in Lamarkianism. The vast majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation. Just as those ideas have been rejected now that they have been demonstrated to be erroneous, advances in biochemistry are starting to show that evolution is impossible.

Gary

what parts of chemistry are you talking about?

 

[cynic]

OK. I should have explained this a bit better. The point is that we can find human beings living today that have skulls exactly like those of our Homo habilis and H. erectus fossils. When anthropologists look at fossil skulls and compare them, they say “See. The skull is increasing in size until we get to modern man. This is evolution.” However, that idea goes right out the door if there are people whose skulls are the same size or even smaller than our supposed ancestors.

This just isn’t true. There are no human groups around that have the heavy brow ridges, large jaws and small cranial carrying capacity of *Homo Erectus. *There are no human groups with a small cranial carrying capacity ranging from 800-1000cc (except perhaps Pygmies). I don’t know where you heard that. Please provide a credible reference if you have one, because it sounds bizaare.

An anthropologist who believes in evolution would say that Homo habilis and Australopithecus share a common ancestor but the latter represents a limb of the family tree that died out and left no descendants.

Australopithecus seems to have lived much earlier than Homo Habilis.

“australopiths shared several traits with modern apes and humans, and were widespread throughout Eastern and Northern Africa by a time between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago”

"species of the genus Homo, which lived from approximately 2.2 million to at least 1.6 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene.[1] "

One is *thought *to be ancestral to the other. Er, which anthropologists again?