Evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Should I put up another link to the 2007 Nature article that denies man was made in God’s image?

It would backfire on you again. Atheists and creationists misunderstand what that means. Since Jesus pointed out that God is a spirit, and spirits don’t have bodies, it’s clear that the image is in our minds and spirits.

You like evidence. Just go to youtube and listen to the PZ Myers interview (plumbing is never mentioned but religious belief is). Pick up a copy of the God Delusion. I have a Secular Humanism link where Sam Harris disparages his fellow scientists for listening to “the alien hiss of religious lunacy.” More links available for the asking. I also recommend Darwin Central. (Note to new Catholics: I would avoid Darwin Central.)

It’s sort of like atheists pointing to Fred Phelps as an example of Christianity. Most atheists know better and have the integrity to not make such a comparison.

Likewise, most Christians have the knowledge and integrity to avoid presenting Myers and Dawkins as spokesmen for scientists.

You have made common cause with those guys because they have the same agenda you do; to make science and faith incompatible.

 

[mdcpensive1]

To edwest2 who said:

No. We don’t have to wait for the final judgement. We can know what the Church teaches today. Do you remember where you heard the Pope make a reference to an animal being connected to Adam?

Maybe I am not making myself understandable as I would like, I apologize. What I am saying is that it is true the Church teaches what the apostles have handed down and it also gives more clarity to doctrine, but the Church does not have the full understanding of the FULL plan of Salvation.
For example, why is it necessary to have lower animals? How and why is Islam which is so much antagonistic against the Church part of God’s plan? Why does God allow the Protestant Reformation? Why didn’t He tell us when the last day will be when He comes back? These things are not for us or the Church to know but is a part of God’s plan. Remember, Jesus said that He did not know the day or the hour, which means He was not sent to tell us the precise moment of the second coming.

mdcpensive1

 

[mdcpensive1]

It seems to me that there exists a fundamental conflict between the Catholic Doctrine (or Dogma?) of Original Sin and evolution.

The Church clearly teaches that death came to humans at that moment of disobedience (an act which the Church also asserts was, though figuratively presented in scripture, nevertheless a real event, and not just a metaphor).

Evolution and Church teaching does not have to be in conflict unless you believe that evolution is the whole story which it is not. It is I believe part of the truth of our adaption.

Concerning your premise of death is required for evolution, I don’t believe it is so. Death is not what causes evolution but adaption of new creatures to circumstances. I hope you are not thinking that all the “older” creatures go on procreating the same type of being. This theory would confirm your logic though.

Your thoughts?

mdcpensive1

 

[edwest2]

It would backfire on you again. Atheists and creationists misunderstand what that means. Since Jesus pointed out that God is a spirit, and spirits don’t have bodies, it’s clear that the image is in our minds and spirits.

It’s sort of like atheists pointing to Fred Phelps as an example of Christianity. Most atheists know better and have the integrity to not make such a comparison.

Likewise, most Christians have the knowledge and integrity to avoid presenting Myers and Dawkins as spokesmen for scientists.

You have made common cause with those guys because they have the same agenda you do; to make science and faith incompatible.

Myers and Dawkins are saying nothing then? The comment in Nature was meant for no one? I have nothing but my humanity in common with those people. They are clearly the ones laying the groundwork for an Atheist Technocracy. And you are behaving like the police officer: Move along now. Nothing to see here.

I choose not to ignore the man behind the curtain. The one who appears all over the internet and disparages the faith. In the present, instead of referring to themselves as atheists, they use another word. For example, “There is no invisible man in the sky. I make that comment as a rational human being.” The atheist now owns the word rational. He becomes the rational human being, the model for his fellow human beings.

Science has made common cause with atheism, not me.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Myers and Dawkins are saying nothing then?

They are with you in your assertion that God and science are incompatible. But they do not speak for scientists, any more than you speak for the Church.

You and they have common cause to make God and Science enemies.

 

[soma]

Many people today view science and religion as two radically different ways to understand the world, but religion and science strengthen each other’s belief because they are both concerned with what is true. They were not meant to live alone in isolation, divorced from each other so tear down the barricades that divide them because faith and reason are meant to live happily together. Reason does not destroy faith, but fulfills it so we can use our intelligence as a path to spiritual awareness and when our intellect can say no
more, our instinctive spiritual view of life will take over. This provides us with a kind of intuitive perception of God as He is reflected in creation.

 

[edwest2]

Your thinkunity.com link is to a site that does not preach the Gospel but an alternate view. Catholics should not go to it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[soma]

Catholic means universal. Point out what is not Catholic and it can be discussed. We have one Pope that makes decisions for the Church and he is not so quick to condemn. Catholics are not afraid of ideas, but embrace them and science too.

Remember God is the strongest force so if we walk with God there is nothing to be afraid of. If we disagree with an idea there is no need to burn a book, but discuss it. We can accept an idea or choose not to. If we accept an idea we have two ideas we don’t lose anything.

 

[agangbern]

The claim has been made by the Pope that there is no conflict, but I seem to have encountered one.

Evolution has truth in it except when it is stretched so long as to start claiming that man evolved from “monkeys”, or that there is no God. Those are claims that self-proclaimed evolutionists would break their heads in attempting to prove them.

 

[Fnord]

If Evolution teaches that man and animal “evolved” from the SAME primitive biological source, is this not a blatant denial of the Scriptures. The Bible clearly teaches that the flesh of humans is different from the flesh of beasts… “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (1st Corinthians 15:39). Mankind was created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26); animals were not.

…

So you’re saying evolution means nobody and no organisms are different? Um…

 

[The_Barbarian]

Evolution has truth in it except when it is stretched so long as to start claiming that man evolved from “monkeys”, or that there is no God.

You’ll be pleased to know that evolutionary theory says neither.

Those are claims that self-proclaimed evolutionists would break their heads in attempting to prove them.

Sounds interesting. Name a prominent scientist who says that evolutionary theory says we evolved from monkeys or that it says there is no God.

 

[Squishy]

Evolution does not claim man evolved from monkeys.

Just in case anyone missed it

EVOLUTION DOES NOT CLAIM MAN EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS!

It claims we where hairier, and walked on 4 limbs instead of upright. Much of which can be supported. But im afraid that certainly doesn’t make us monkeys.

Just for people who do not accept evolution how are people with different skin colours explained ? Evolution theory has some very intresting ideas on it that make a hell of a lot of sense, and i would challange ANYONE to refute them.

 

[Thing]

Evolution does not claim man evolved from monkeys.

Just in case anyone missed it

EVOLUTION DOES NOT CLAIM MAN EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS!

It claims we where hairier, and walked on 4 limbs instead of upright. Much of which can be supported. But im afraid that certainly doesn’t make us monkeys.

Just for people who do not accept evolution how are people with different skin colours explained ? Evolution theory has some very intresting ideas on it that make a hell of a lot of sense, and i would challange ANYONE to refute them.

Hello

How does a lifeforms attributes change or evolve, just to take one example, the attribute of … well, lets say , mercy.
So, one day we have a clam, really, which shows no mercy - just eats everything in front of it.
Then we have Patrick, who won’t eat anything at all, until the health of the one worse off than him improves, he gives his food to them.

When did a clam become a man? Genetically speaking.
Did the clams genes randomly mutate for no rhyme or reason in a hideously complex flurry of proteins and stop at random and suddenly ‘mercy’ was there, a fully formed genetic possibility.

Or was the quality of mercy impressed by some external force into the clam and the clams genes responded and took on the form, in so far as its possible, of this new attribute.

 

[agangbern]

You’ll be pleased to know that evolutionary theory says neither.

Sounds interesting. Name a prominent scientist who says that evolutionary theory says we evolved from monkeys or that it says there is no God.

That’s good. Therefore, evolutionists do not say that man evolved from “monkeys”. Nor do they say that there is no God.

What do you think of the following:

Evolution Of Man - What is it?
*"The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway. Perhaps the most famous proponent of evolutionary theory is Charles Darwin (1809-82) who authored The Origin of Species (1859) to describe his theory of evolution.

Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record."*

 

[Squishy]

Hello
How does a lifeforms attributes change or evolve, just to take one example, the attribute of … well, lets say , mercy.
So, one day we have a clam, really, which shows no mercy - just eats everything in front of it.
Then we have Patrick, who won’t eat anything at all, until the health of the one worse off than him improves, he gives his food to them.

When did a clam become a man? Genetically speaking.
Did the clams genes randomly mutate for no rhyme or reason in a hideously complex flurry of proteins and stop at random and suddenly ‘mercy’ was there, a fully formed genetic possibility.

Or was the quality of mercy impressed by some external force into the clam and the clams genes responded and took on the form, in so far as its possible, of this new attribute.

I would say that mercy is a by product of evolutional forces that have persuaded man to group together and form societys. Those societys impressing on its members certain attibutes that help the group over all. Theistic evolutionists would say that mecry was an attribute given when god infused man with a soul (im assuming) neither of which are incompatable with evolution.

 

[Squishy]

That’s good. Therefore, evolutionists do not say that man evolved from “monkeys”. Nor do they say that there is no God.

What do you think of the following:

Evolution Of Man - What is it?
*"The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway. Perhaps the most famous proponent of evolutionary theory is Charles Darwin (1809-82) who authored The Origin of Species (1859) to describe his theory of evolution.

Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record."*

The artical you posted is intresting, and its always nice to throw a questioning light on a theory. However it makes a lot of sweeping claims without really backing them up with the relevent scientific papers from biologists. Instead of making statements like

We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level

It would serve the argument much better to show them. Show the work by the biologists who declared them to be so.

 

[agangbern]

The artical you posted is intresting, and its always nice to throw a questioning light on a theory. However it makes a lot of sweeping claims without really backing them up with the relevent scientific papers from biologists. Instead of making statements like

We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level

It would serve the argument much better to show them. Show the work by the biologists who declared them to be so.

Sorry, but I am not interested in the statement, “We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level”

Better ask the person who said that.

It is enough that I learned from you that evolutionists does not say that man evolved from “monkeys” (or “apes”) and that they do not say that there is no God.

That’s nice knowing.

 

[Squishy]

Sorry, but I am not interested in the statement, “We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level”

Better ask the person who said that.

It is enough that I learned from you that evolutionists does not say that man evolved from “monkeys” (or “apes”) and that they do not say that there is no God.

That’s nice knowing.

That was a quote from the artical you posted, I assumed you where refering to more than just the ‘Ape’ part however never mind. I will tackle this for you now. Man is a member of Primates, who also include monkeys and apes. Man in the past walked on 4 limbs, was singnificantly more hairy giving it an ‘Ape-like’ appearance. We share a skelatol structure similer to apes with opposable thumbs. Damn but those things are handy! None of that means man evolved from monkeys.

Mabey you can show some evolutionary work that shows im perhaps mistaken ?

I know many evolutionists who believe in god, and many who do not. Luckely for everyone the argument does not hinge on that.

 

[Orogeny]

I will tackle this for you now. Man is a member of Primates, who also include monkeys and apes. Man in the past walked on 4 limbs, was singnificantly more hairy giving it an ‘Ape-like’ appearance.

Um, no. “Man” refers to Homo sapiens and H. sapiens never walked on 4 limbs and did not have an “ape-like” appearance.

Peace

Tim

 

[Squishy]

Um, no. “Man” refers to Homo sapiens and H. sapiens never walked on 4 limbs and did not have an “ape-like” appearance.

Peace

Tim

Semantics, Homo sapiens evolved from earlier primates that did