A
agangbern
Guest
Ok, let us get away from that presentation for the moment. Tell me, do evolutionists know which came first, man or horse?
- Status
D
DavWan
Guest
Last I heard, the Horse came into existence some 45-55 million years ago, so it would seem the horse came before Man.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Horses.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Creationist biology.
A
agangbern
Guest
How did they know that horses came first and not man?
A
agangbern
Guest
Oh, you mean you only heard it. That actually qualifies it to be called hearsay. And you believe in hearsay?
O
oriel16
Guest
etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=38&division=div1
Like the Book of Job,the answer can only be as good as the questioner .I am an astronomer who works on a modification of the explanation for why we experienced the seasons while the ‘empiricists’ still work with variable ‘axial tilt’ as the cause.In short,when the author of Job through the’Whirlwind’ asks " Do you know where the rain and hail come from ?", people today do not answer it correctly,at least in terms of the motions of the Earth and the Sun.
The empiricist tries to rise to understanding by their own reason with the idea that if you get rid of uncertainties then you reach certainties but like a chain is only as good as its weakest link and ultimately where it comes apart All those begging questions disappear as the Divine background comes into view but when it does Creation lights up and men look on creation with new eyes.We have a responsibility to future generations rather than personal satisfaction to get this right and presently the Church has all but washed its hands and conceded to empiricism.
Be you creationist,empiricist or genuine scientist (at least in specific matters which require high intuitive intelligence),the offer would always be before people and while many here try to speak with ‘authority’,they look to me like children making up stories as they go along -
“If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.”
St Augustine
A
agangbern
Guest
I feel you are a Christian! But I am wondering who said this, “and presently the Church has all but washed its hands and conceded to empiricism” I don`t think that is true. The Church conceded to empiricism? I still have to be convinced.
G
grannymh
Guest
The greatest truth of the Catholic Church is beyond empiricism. This great truth which is the heart and foundation of Christian life is that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, is substantially present, body and blood, soul and divinity, in the Most Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine.
D
Darwinsbulldog
Guest
Radiometric dating data , fossil evidence and comparative genetic studies/ data all indicate that horses came before humans.
talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/index.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/index.html
A
agangbern
Guest
That`s great! It fits with Genesis.
O
oriel16
Guest
Indeed,if people need to be ‘convinced’ then they miss the point of what St Augustine wrote as the only true reflection of this current situation -
“If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.” St Augustine
Thank God the Hebrew authors of Genesis provided a braking mechanism within the text via the genealogies to prevent the narrative from overwhelming its core message.
Many here are drawn to empiricism like moths to a flame and beg questions that have no purpose only personal curiousity and feel no responsibility towards the the founding of evolutionary or astronomical principles or towards future generations.Today they might be told the tree of life is not a timeline and tomorrow they may be told the opposite that it is a timeline but that type of thing is indicative of people who try to reason their way to understanding of creation without intutive intelligence with horrible consequences.
A person who has Christ has that ability to discern those things which others only see in symbols,this is fine as long as those who believe in Christ through symbols do not try to speak for those who have something quite different -
"For through the law I died to the law, that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. "
usccb.org/nab/bible/galatians/galatians2.htm
In highly intutive matters such as evolutionary biology/geology or astronomy where we are not present as things developed we can hear the echos of creation but there are those who lack intuitive intelligence in matters of both Christianity and science and try to impose ‘laws’ on things they know little of.
A
agangbern
Guest
And who do you think are those who you call, "who lack intuitive intelligence in matters of both Christianity and science and try to impose ‘laws’ on things they know little of.]? How sure are you that your intuition is the one that is correct?
O
oriel16
Guest
People recognise the inspiring work of others go on to create inspiring works of their own while people who do not possess intuitive intelligence and do not recognise inspiration will distort things or settle for simpler intepretation.That is the difference between empiricism and science,or indeed ,creationism and science.
“Amen, amen, I tell you, whoever believes in me the works which I do one also will do,and one will do greater than these,because I am going to the Father;and whatever you ask for in my name, this I will do,so that the Father may be glorified by the son.If you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it.” John 14
If you are dealing with matters of science then I simply ask you what do you think of the inspiring works of Copernicus and Kepler in astronomy or Steno and Smith in geology and then you can judge what is the difference between science and empiricism or whether your position to ignore anything but a literal interpretation of Genesis disqualifies you from commenting on the Christian scientific tradition.
So,what do you think of this work of a Christian astronomer and his intuitive intelligence to resolve the observations of other planets through the resolution provided by the motions of the Earth without the benefit of a bird’s eye view ? -
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
The same intuitive intelligence that recognise Christ is also the same one that makes sense of the terrestrial and celestial arena.
If you commit to asking a question and it is answered then answer mine within the context of Christian science.At least then I know whether it is just a clever question on your behalf or that you are genuinely interested in discussion.
A
agangbern
Guest
This is nice. An astronomer entering the field of evolution.
You introduced in this thread “*Copernicus and Kepler in astronomy or Steno and Smith in geology *”. Why`? What do they say about evolution?
O
oriel16
Guest
I have it on good authority that indicates you can evolve into a mule,a pig ,a fish ect -
youtube.com/watch?v=iTUKHMlbYGA
Sometimes you miss that creativity is in God’s image and that is lost to the world at the moment.
O
oriel16
Guest
I asked you what do you think of the inspirational work of Copernicus and specifically how he resolved the apparent backward motion of the other planets by giving the Earth a forward motion with them around the central Sun ?
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Get that straight and you will have no problem with Bishop Steno and Smith in respect to the biological/geological evolutionary framework in applying their intuitive intelligence to rocks and fossils.The difference with the insight of Copernicus is that we still can see his reasoning in terms of the day and night cycle through daily rotation and the seasonal cycle by annual orbital motion.
If you can’t answer the question,and I would not ask again, then what business have you with science as the reasoning of Christian scientists within Christianity is expression of the gifts of God.Do you love how God acted through these men and their insights or not hence the common intuitive intelligence and why I say it is necessary to appreciative what was done by previous scientists and how it was done ?.
If all you can manage is to throw another question at me or a one sentence reply then don’t bother,if I want insincerity I can go to the empiricist forum where I can get it in abundance.
A
agangbern
Guest
You introduced yourself here as an astronomer and I am not. You seem to pride in the work of Copernicus in his ability to resolve “the apparent backward motion of the other planets..”
You asked me: “What do you think of…” that. My answer is NOTHING AT ALL! It has nothing to do with this thread, evolution. If you want, start a new thread about astronomy!
M
Marocchino
Guest
Can you tell me which Fathers and Scholastics did not hold the view that the world was created in 6 days less than 10 thousand years ago?
I do not push my creationism onto any fellow Catholics. I have simply been asking theistic evolutionists to explain their theory and not one has offered me a satisfactory explanation.
I’ll give you a couple of problems with theistic evolution:
- Evolutionary theory excludes the possibility that all humans have descended from one couple; thus, it destroys original sin, which is spread by propagation (not imitation).
- Evolutionary theory states that the dawn of the human species was 100 to 150 thousand years ago; the genealogies of Genesis list 19 men from Adam to Abraham (circa 2000 BC); thus, according to theistic evolution, either Moses listed one man per 7400 years or the genealogies are mythological, which leads to the following question: at what point does the Bible start talking about real people? If at Abraham (as many TEs claim), was Terah (Abraham’s father), a fictional character?
A
agangbern
Guest
What is this? Is this what you call theistic evolution? If this is, then I would say this is not what the Church teaches. Who is the theist who believe in that?
- Status