Evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The Church does not say that if Moses repeats an allegory from scripture, that makes it a literal history.

The quote from Exodus 20:11 is preceded by the author of Exodus saying, “The LORD said:” Hence, what follows thereafter is a direct quote from God, who says that he made the universe in six days.

All of scripture is the word of God. But that doesn’t mean that all of it is literal history. That goes far beyond what the Church has accepted.

Are you suggesting that Moses lied by attributing those very words to God, and that those words are really Moses’ own words?

See above. Perhaps you should be a little more cautious about the way you characterize God’s word.

 

[oriel16]

When did I make something less of the temporal existence of Our Lord? You are losing me. Remember, I am a numbskull so slow down.

Absolutely not,the work of Genesis and the Divine message it contains does not beg a descent to a level of thinking from which it clearly protects itself,if you wish to ascend to its magnificence you have to let go of this stupid childish craving for a historical Adam.

I presented you with the Theologia Germanica which I believe has the best Christian treatment of Adam in comparison to the Life of Jesus but your inability to distinguish between the Divinely inspired text of Genesis and the actual Divine Life of Jesus casts you in a positions where you appreciate neither.

I well understand how the empiricism vs creation mess arose but genuine science is not affected by the racket made by either side and neither is the text of Genesis which uses a chronological device to protect itself from numbskulls who wish to make God in their image .

You are unlikely to comprehend the genealogical structure nor even the basic device which connects the day of creation with the genealogical chain and it works with such effect that it cuts less careful people to pieces should they invoke a literal interpretation or try to place narrative necessities over Spiritual truths.

Page 10 for those who can catch a glimpse of a Divinely inspired masterpiece and who can see the outlines of its purpose in today’s incredibly rude and hostile environment -

books.google.com/books?id=c4e81Qa0rQ4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inner+reaches+outer+space&ei=nyKtSebOBJb0ygTO5eWQBQ#PPA10,M1

 

[Marocchino]

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
Cardinal Ratzinger,
Communion and Stewardship
Sounds right to me.

This 150 000 years ago gives rise to the question in my mind of how a genealogy with 19 men between Adam and Abraham can span such a great length.

Do not bother explaining - this is my last post here.

All of scripture is the word of God. But that doesn’t mean that all of it is literal history. That goes far beyond what the Church has accepted.
Perhaps you should be a little more cautious about the way you characterize God’s word.

If I read “The LORD said:” (Exo. 20:1) followed by a paragraph in quotation marks, it is natural to assume that said paragraph is a direct quote from the LORD.

Absolutely not,the work of Genesis and the Divine message it contains does not beg a descent to a level of thinking from which it clearly protects itself,if you wish to ascend to its magnificence you have to let go of this stupid childish craving for a historical Adam.

It is neither stupid and childish nor a craving. The Early Church Fathers thought of Adam as a historical character. I would hardly charaterize these brilliant saints as stupid and childish for doing so, rather than abiding by your more esoteric exegesis (which has not explained anything to me). And I do not crave a historical Adam; I merely do not understand how original sin was committed and transmitted without one.

You are unlikely to comprehend the genealogical structure nor even the basic device which connects the day of creation with the genealogical chain and it works with such effect that it cuts less careful people to pieces should they invoke a literal interpretation or try to place narrative necessities over Spiritual truths.
Page 10 for those who can catch a glimpse of a Divinely inspired masterpiece and who can see the outlines of its purpose in today’s incredibly rude and hostile environment -

I am unlikely to understand the structures and basic devices because, instead of patiently explaining to me these things you refer to, you spout off at the mouth and call me names like a petty 3rd grader who thinks he’s smarter than the rest of the class.

It is people like you who create a rude and hostile environment. I have not called you one foul name, while you have called me “numbskull”, “stupid”, “childish”, and “rude”. If we were speaking in person I doubt if you would use these words, but such is the beauty of forums that you do not have to face the person you insult. This is why people with low self esteem come on here and froth at the mouth like wild dogs behind the facade of their nicknames.

I will continue to ask these questions, which I have been told are valid questions by a Priest of the Catholic Church who cannot answer them because his specialty is not the Old Testament. Thus I figured it would be a good idea to ask them on a Catholic forum where people would meet my puzzlement over God’s word and sincere questions with Christian patience and wisdom. Instead, I have found rudeness and hostility by those claiming to be followers of Christ and comprehenders of Scripture. Believe me, you will be answerable to God for turning away one of your less knowledgeable brothers, who merely seeks for greater understanding, with rudeness and cutting remarks. May God have mercy on us.

 

[oriel16]

This 150 000 years ago gives rise to the question in my mind of how a genealogy with 19 men between Adam and Abraham can span such a great length.

Do not bother explaining - this is my last post here.

If I read “The LORD said:” (Exo. 20:1) followed by a paragraph in quotation marks, it is natural to assume that said paragraph is a direct quote from the LORD.

It is neither stupid and childish nor a craving. The Early Church Fathers thought of Adam as a historical character. I would hardly charaterize these brilliant saints as stupid and childish for doing so, rather than abiding by your more esoteric exegesis (which has not explained anything to me). And I do not crave a historical Adam; I merely do not understand how original sin was committed and transmitted without one.

I am unlikely to understand the structures and basic devices because, instead of patiently explaining to me these things you refer to, you spout off at the mouth and call me names like a petty 3rd grader who thinks he’s smarter than the rest of the class.

It is people like you who create a rude and hostile environment. I have not called you one foul name, while you have called me “numbskull”, “stupid”, “childish”, and “rude”. If we were speaking in person I doubt if you would use these words, but such is the beauty of forums that you do not have to face the person you insult. This is why people with low self esteem come on here and froth at the mouth like wild dogs behind the facade of their nicknames.

I will continue to ask these questions, which I have been told are valid questions by a Priest of the Catholic Church who cannot answer them because his specialty is not the Old Testament. Thus I figured it would be a good idea to ask them on a Catholic forum where people would meet my puzzlement over God’s word and sincere questions with Christian patience and wisdom. Instead, I have found rudeness and hostility by those claiming to be followers of Christ and comprehenders of Scripture. Believe me, you will be answerable to God for turning away one of your less knowledgeable brothers, who merely seeks for greater understanding, with rudeness and cutting remarks. May God have mercy on us.

If you want a historical Adam,a 7 day creation and the lifespans of the Patriarchs which amount to many 100’s of years in order to appreciate God then do so and indeed ,that life may be enviable for its simplicity.

Your views and those of the same ‘creationist’ type were used effectively by the empiricists to create an impression that evolution somehow challenges Christ and Christianity or rather, Christian faith relies on the belief of a historical Adam and a 7 day creation but this is a bright shining lie.Evolutionary biology was basically founded within Christianity through the efforts of bishop Steno and added to by William Smith long before the empiricists hijacked it via Darwin.

The work by Julius Oppert basically uncovers part of the structure of Genesis which protects mishandling by rude people who only consider their own personal satisfaction in terms of God and his creation and nothing for their past Christian scientific heritage or for future generations who may have to undo this mess.If you did not spot the familiar value in terms of days of the year in the lifespan of Enoch you will hardly appreciate the overall structure -

books.google.com/books?id=c4e81Qa0rQ4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inner+reaches+outer+space&ei=nyKtSebOBJb0ygTO5eWQBQ#PPA10,M1

Yes people are behaving in the most stupid manner but I will point out as the Church has washed its hands of its scientific heritage and accepts its ‘moral authority’ role and jettisons any interest in its once magnificence scientific heritage,a heritage that stopped dead with Newton and the emergence of empiricism,who is going to argue for genuine scientists and their works.In other eras it would be perfectly acceptable to believe what you wish but in today’s anti-Christian atmosphere and especially the terrible acceptance of the empircial/Arian stance within Christianity itself it is not acceptable.

 

[buffalo]

If there is one development of life from cells depending on environment or whatever, why can’t there be two developments operating. This may be the weakest part of the evolutionary theory. Just because there is a drawing of the “tree of life” no one can imagine another scenario??

All human beings owe their existence to God.

That is exactly the problem. Therefore the EES, trying to explain saltations.

 

[The_Barbarian]

This 150 000 years ago gives rise to the question in my mind of how a genealogy with 19 men between Adam and Abraham can span such a great length.

This is why the Church does not teach that these are literal generations.

Do not bother explaining - this is my last post here.

It’s not about you and me; it’s a message board, so it’s for others to read and think about.

Barbarian obsrverves:
All of scripture is the word of God. But that doesn’t mean that all of it is literal history. That goes far beyond what the Church has accepted.
Perhaps you should be a little more cautious about the way you characterize God’s word.

If I read “The LORD said:” (Exo. 20:1) followed by a paragraph in quotation marks, it is natural to assume that said paragraph is a direct quote from the LORD.

You don’t understand; the whole Bible is God’s word. But that doesn’t mean that it’s always a literal history.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh
If there is one development of life from cells depending on environment or whatever, why can’t there be two developments operating. This may be the weakest part of the evolutionary theory. Just because there is a drawing of the “tree of life” no one can imagine another scenario??

That is exactly the problem. Therefore the EES, trying to explain saltations.

Dear buffalo,

I’m really interested in what you are saying. My current understanding (from my American Heritage dictionary) is that a saltation is a single mutation that drastically alters the phenotype which is the observable physical or biochemical traits of an organism as determined by both genetics and environment. I checked Wikipedia and it linked to Carl Woese. Fascinating. Looking out my back door I see organisms in the environment, but I can’t tell if any of them are the result of a saltation.

Would you be so kind as to expand the “exactly the problem” as you put it?

Blessings.
granny

All human beings have a soul which connects them to God.

 

[buffalo]

Dear buffalo,

I’m really interested in what you are saying. My current understanding (from my American Heritage dictionary) is that a saltation is a single mutation that drastically alters the phenotype which is the observable physical or biochemical traits of an organism as determined by both genetics and environment. I checked Wikipedia and it linked to Carl Woese. Fascinating. Looking out my back door I see organisms in the environment, but I can’t tell if any of them are the result of a saltation.

Would you be so kind as to expand the “exactly the problem” as you put it?

Blessings.
granny

All human beings have a soul which connects them to God.

It means sudden and drastic change. Darwinism cannot explain this as Darwinism is gradualism, small, incremental steps over a very long time.

So there is something else going on.

I wonder what that might be?

 

[oriel16]

It is neither stupid and childish nor a craving. The Early Church Fathers thought of Adam as a historical character. I would hardly charaterize these brilliant saints as stupid and childish for doing so, rather than abiding by your more esoteric exegesis (which has not explained anything to me). And I do not crave a historical Adam; I merely do not understand how original sin was committed and transmitted without one.

.

Look,is there a possibility that you and those who hold a similar view can accept that Adam was the first Hebrew who realised that man is made in the image of God thereby connecting the human to the Divine for the first time in human history ?.

The Church has given no direction but among those who can accept Adam as the first Hebrew rather than the first human being can help out other Christians .

 

[grannymh]

It means sudden and drastic change. Darwinism cannot explain this as Darwinism is gradualism, small, incremental steps over a very long time.

So there is something else going on.

I wonder what that might be?

This is an educated guess to your question: “I wonder what that might be?”

Since something (saltation) is going on in addition to Darwinism, that would indicate that Darwinism is not all inclusive. Not all inclusive means that there could be other possibilities.

One possibility is that there could be an extra line of descent very similar to other species like monkeys, lions etc. This would happen because the original building blocks of life come together in different combinations due to chance, environment, geographical location on the earth, whatever. Thus, there would be matching genomes etc. along with others. Now since there are already different rates of evolution when one figures in saltations, this opens up the possibility that this extra line could evolve independently from other similar animals.

The next possibility is that DNA, genes, etc. carry different information. Given the wide range of life on earth, this information could contain a wide variety of procreation information.
Since survival is one of the driving forces in adaptation to environment, the early members of this extra line of descent could have been able to procreate without the perils of incest. Saltation could also mean changes in information so that the extra line of descent could change as a large population lessened the need for incest.

This whole scenario is reasoned from the concept of more than one possibility for the same basic concept of evolution. Possibilities don’t have to contradict the original theory. Possibilities should be plausible in the sense that they could likely exist as complimentary.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings have souls which connect them to God.

 

[buffalo]

This is an educated guess to your question: “I wonder what that might be?”

Since something (saltation) is going on in addition to Darwinism, that would indicate that Darwinism is not all inclusive. Not all inclusive means that there could be other possibilities.

One possibility is that there could be an extra line of descent very similar to other species like monkeys, lions etc. This would happen because the original building blocks of life come together in different combinations due to chance, environment, geographical location on the earth, whatever. Thus, there would be matching genomes etc. along with others. Now since there are already different rates of evolution when one figures in saltations, this opens up the possibility that this extra line could evolve independently from other similar animals.

The next possibility is that DNA, genes, etc. carry different information. Given the wide range of life on earth, this information could contain a wide variety of procreation information.
Since survival is one of the driving forces in adaptation to environment, the early members of this extra line of descent could have been able to procreate without the perils of incest. Saltation could also mean changes in information so that the extra line of descent could change as a large population lessened the need for incest.

This whole scenario is reasoned from the concept of more than one possibility for the same basic concept of evolution. Possibilities don’t have to contradict the original theory. Possibilities should be plausible in the sense that they could likely exist as complimentary.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings have souls which connect them to God.

It has been argued a long time that Darwin is the only explanation. Now it is clear in the evolution camp it is lacking big-time. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

One thing I am pretty sure of - the answer will again up the odds necessary. At what point will we realize that astronomical odds means it ain’t so?

 

[The_Barbarian]

It means sudden and drastic change. Darwinism cannot explain this as Darwinism is gradualism, small, incremental steps over a very long time.

By definition, it’s saltation is not gradual. However, saltation has been part of evolutionary theory, almost from the start. Huxley, “Darwin’s Bulldog” was a proponent of saltation, although later evidence convinced him that gradual evolution would also fit Darwin’s theory. Turns out he was right.

So there is something else going on. I wonder what that might be?

More Darwinism.

 

[grannymh]

By definition, it’s saltation is not gradual. However, saltation has been part of evolutionary theory, almost from the start. Huxley, “Darwin’s Bulldog” was a proponent of saltation, although later evidence convinced him that gradual evolution would also fit Darwin’s theory. Turns out he was right.

Whether or not saltation is in or out of current Darwin’s theory, it still illustrates that there is more than one posibility. So the idea in post 389 stands as is. Would you say that is correct?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Whether or not saltation is in or out of current Darwin’s theory, it still illustrates that there is more than one posibility. So the idea in post 389 stands as is. Would you say that is correct?

Except for the rather surprising misconception that it’s not part of Darwinism. There are other modes of evolution as well, some of which are not Darwinian, but they offer no comfort to creationists, since they are naturalistic.

 

[The_Barbarian]

It has been argued a long time that Darwin is the only explanation.

You have it backwards. Darwin’s theory, as he presented it, hasn’t been considered the whole story for about 100 years. The Modern Synthesis, neutralist theories, punctuated equillibrium, etc. All have modified it as evidence indicated.

Now it is clear in the evolution camp it is lacking big-time.

You’re just short of 100 years too late. Been here and gone.

It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

It’s called the “modern synthesis”, but it was worked out in the early 1900s. I’m not making fun of you for taking so long to hear about it. Better late than never.

One thing I am pretty sure of - the answer will again up the odds necessary.

Afraid not. In fact, it cleared up a couple of problems that vexed Darwin. The salient one was “how can a new mutation spread in a population without being diluted out of existence?”

The discover of genes put that one to rest.

At what point will we realize that astronomical odds means it ain’t so?

Hey, how about showing us the “astronomical odds” and how you calculated them? If you just made it up to impress us, feel free to ignore the request.

 

[oriel16]

You have it backwards. Darwin’s theory, as he presented it, hasn’t been considered the whole story for about 100 years. The Modern Synthesis, neutralist theories, punctuated equillibrium, etc. All have modified it as evidence indicated.

t.

The empirical hijacking of the evolutionary framework and the diversity of life,as understood by humans,will always have the national supremacy essay at its core regardless of how you try to disguise it by calling it ‘modern synthesis’ or any other buzzword

This is not a case where there is a minute flaw or simple wrong turn,it is just another example of the stranglehold empiricism has on genuine science while people ,and especially Christians gawk and do nothing when they have eyes to read the actual ‘eureka’ moment via Malthus and his social commentary of savage/civilised races and the reasons he thinks one country invades another country.

If the Church does not actively fight this malignant premise and conclusion as a symptom of the damaging empirical/Arian strain,our race will lose the ability to reason properly,not simply in the matter of enjoying God’s creation but in all matters where prescience is required.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I wonder what a debate between oriel and Riley Sinder would be like.

 

[oriel16]

I wonder what a debate between oriel and Riley Sinder would be like.

You debate things,I make the effort to straighten things out so people have a clear direction in both understanding scientific matters and its place within Christian tradition.Judging from the technical content of your posts,you foster an anti-scientific empirical view that attempts to rot Christianity from the inside and that is far worse than the genuine cult of empiricism which is outright hostile to Christianity.

It is either the unfamiliarity of Christians with their scientific tradition that includes astronomy and evolution which is causing difficulties or their bone laziness in accepting the fiction that the Church is forever the hapless idiot when discoveries are made.

 

[grannymh]

I wonder what a debate between oriel and Riley Sinder would be like.

Being the dedicated scientist that I am. Spending hours of diligent research on the dangers of drinking delicious Pepsi while deciphering posts. Studying the empirical method of learning so I could become a learned student. Depending on my dear, sweet colleagues to keep my curiosity out of trouble. Alas! Alack! Astray I’ve been led! Trusting in Google for background checks, I started my day. Sounding familiar, famous Riley Sinder was found on fantastic Google. Am so hoping that this upgrade will include a smilie for a splattered key board.

 

[buffalo]

You have it backwards. Darwin’s theory, as he presented it, hasn’t been considered the whole story for about 100 years. The Modern Synthesis, neutralist theories, punctuated equillibrium, etc. All have modified it as evidence indicated.

You’re just short of 100 years too late. Been here and gone.

It’s called the “modern synthesis”, but it was worked out in the early 1900s. I’m not making fun of you for taking so long to hear about it. Better late than never.

Afraid not. In fact, it cleared up a couple of problems that vexed Darwin. The salient one was “how can a new mutation spread in a population without being diluted out of existence?”

The discover of genes put that one to rest.

Hey, how about showing us the “astronomical odds” and how you calculated them? If you just made it up to impress us, feel free to ignore the request.

Thank you Barbarian.