Evolution

[Marocchino]

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?

I have a question for you: who is the evolutionist that believes that all humans have descended from one original pair?

 

[agangbern]

I have a question for you: who is the evolutionist that believes that all humans have descended from one original pair?

First, you have to define what you think is an “evolutionist”. Then I will answer your question.

 

[The_Barbarian]

1. 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).

No, that’s wrong. It is not impossible. And of course, if God miraculously gives people immortal souls, He can easily give them to two orginal ancestors. Why do you think the Pope accepts the common descent of all living things?

1. 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?

We are not always sure when the Bible is figurative, and when it is literal history. But it’s not good for you to confuse allegory with fiction.

 

[The_Barbarian]

How did they know that horses came first and not man?

We have fossils of horses from much, much older strata. Older than even the predecessors of modern humans.

 

[Marocchino]

First, you have to define what you think is an “evolutionist”. Then I will answer your question.

A person who believes in the theory of evolution; ie, that all species have descended from a common ancestor existing millions of years ago.

 

[agangbern]

A person who believes in the theory of evolution; ie, that all species have descended from a common ancestor existing millions of years ago.

All Catholics believe that they all descended from Adam and Eve.

 

[Marocchino]

No, that’s wrong. It is not impossible. And of course, if God miraculously gives people immortal souls, He can easily give them to two orginal ancestors. Why do you think the Pope accepts the common descent of all living things?

He could have done this but Genesis does not even hint at Adam having parents without immortal souls and living amongst pseudo-humans.

The Pope may accept it because he has not considered the creationist arguments and he does not want the Church to be considered a flat earth society by the secular world.

We are not always sure when the Bible is figurative, and when it is literal history. But it’s not good for you to confuse allegory with fiction.

When I am not sure about a Bible passage I consult the Patristics, Scholastics, or articles in the Deposit of Faith (ie, Catechism, encyclicals, etc.). I have not found one official document that says that Genesis 1-11 is not literal history.

You can consult the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1909 if you want to know how the Church officially understands Genesis.

 

[Marocchino]

All Catholics believe that they all descended from Adam and Eve.

Not all do, especially amongst the theistic evolution camp. Scientist and former Catholic priest Francisco J Ayala, for example, believes that the human population has never been below 10 thousand individuals.

 

[agangbern]

We have fossils of horses from much, much older strata. Older than even the predecessors of modern humans.

That findings conform with Genesis.

 

[DavWan]

Oh, you mean you only heard it. That actually qualifies it to be called hearsay. And you believe in hearsay?

Um, you realize you sink all the claims of Christianity if you want to argue this, don’t you? Perhaps you want to rethink this?

 

[agangbern]

Not all do, especially amongst the theistic evolution camp. Scientist and former Catholic priest Francisco J Ayala, for example, believes that the human population has never been below 10 thousand individuals.

If they do believe that
Catholics did not descend from Adam and Eve, then they are contradicting Church teachings.If they persist in contradicting Church teachings, then they are protestants. Protestants are not to be counted as Catholics. But it is better for you to quote here and show the link of what Ayala actually said.

 

[oriel16]

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!

The answer is important insofar as empiricism and all its outriggers such as Darwin’s ‘cause’ for evolution have the same disregard for intuitive intelligence as it is applied to evolution and the problem began with Newton’s distortion of astronomy back in the 17th century.You are just another person who wants to discuss evolution without the intuitive intelligence to know the difference between genuine science and the empirical approach.

There is a resolution but it is based on definite arguments with a definite beginning and it does require the same intuitive intelligence that acknowledges the life of Christ within the Trinity and as the faculty that appreceates creation within the once great Christian scientific tradition.

What are you going to do ?,ask me another question while you yourself are deficient in basic understanding of Christian scientific tradition and how it is an expression of God and his gifts.

 

[agangbern]

Um, you realize you sink all the claims of Christianity if you want to argue this, don’t you? Perhaps you want to rethink this?

How did it sink all of Christianity?

 

[agangbern]

The answer is important insofar as empiricism and all its outriggers such as Darwin’s ‘cause’ for evolution have the same disregard for intuitive intelligence as it is applied to evolution and the problem began with Newton’s distortion of astronomy back in the 17th century.

I have given you my answer, and my answer is NOTHING AT ALL. What more answer do you want?

 

[DavWan]

He could have done this but Genesis does not even hint at Adam having parents without immortal souls and living amongst pseudo-humans.

Argumentum ad silentio. Genesis attests that all that came into being came into being from God, and nothing had its existence apart from God. It says nothing of the ***way ***God chose to create.

The Pope may accept it because he has not considered the creationist arguments and he does not want the Church to be considered a flat earth society by the secular world.

I find this to be a baseless accusation for the person who headed the CDF. Perhaps you should consider that he has considered it?

When I am not sure about a Bible passage I consult the Patristics, Scholastics, or articles in the Deposit of Faith (ie, Catechism, encyclicals, etc.). I have not found one official document that says that Genesis 1-11 is not literal history.

Argumentum ad silentio. Have you found one that asserts we must believe in Creationism?

You can consult the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1909 if you want to know how the Church officially understands Genesis.

I believe I cited that one a couple of times in the last week. It does not exclude evolution. It permits the concept of day being viewed in a figurative sense. Thus one of the major Creationist arguments is shot down

Not all do, especially amongst the theistic evolution camp. Scientist and former Catholic priest Francisco J Ayala, for example, believes that the human population has never been below 10 thousand individuals.

I believe the word former is the most significant word in that statement. Are you lumping all evolutionists together because they believe in evolution? If so, under this logic, one can group Lefebvre and Hans Kung together because they are Catholic.

agangbern:

All Catholics believe that they all descended from Adam and Eve.

Indeed, and so do Catholics who believe in evolution.

 

[DavWan]

How did it sink all of Christianity?

If you want to argue hearsay, then all the claims of the Church likewise become “hearsay.” On who’s say do we believe in the Bible? or the authority of the Church?

Under your argument of “hearsay,” the whole concept of Apostolic Witness and Tradition collapses, because it can be turned back against you.

Personally I don’t care if you believe in evolution, old earth creation or YEC. I do care when someone misrepresents what someone may believe as something they must believe.

 

[agangbern]

Argumentum ad silentio. Genesis attests that all that came into being came into being from God, and nothing had its existence apart from God. It says nothing of the ***way ***God chose to create.

I find this to be a baseless accusation for the person who headed the CDF. Perhaps you should consider that he has considered it?

Argumentum ad silentio. Have you found one that asserts we must believe in Creationism?

I believe I cited that one a couple of times in the last week. It does not exclude evolution. It permits the concept of day being viewed in a figurative sense. Thus one of the major Creationist arguments is shot down

I believe the word former is the most significant word in that statement. Are you lumping all evolutionists together because they believe in evolution? If so, under this logic, one can group Lefebvre and Hans Kung together because they are Catholic.

Indeed, and so do Catholics who believe in evolution.

I find your arguments worthy of praise

 

[oriel16]

I have given you my answer, and my answer is NOTHING AT ALL. What more answer do you want?

You do not say if the easy to understand reasoning of Copernicus is inspirational and it is exceptionally easy to understand using modern imaging. -

apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

If you can’t handle an insight which it is possible to physically see then you cannot comment on the past evolutionary framework which can only be acknowledged through careful and highly intuitive reasoning and the clues through fossils, rock strata and so on.The empiricists just jumped in with a careless ‘cause’ for biological evolution built on an essay demonstrating a justification for invasion based on supremacy,overpopulation,food resources ect.

The substance of your posts reflect ‘Nothing at all’ but then again,you are not alone in that respect.Don’t bother with your one sentence reply as you might congratulate yourself that you are saying or doing something clever.

 

[agangbern]

If you want to argue hearsay, then all the claims of the Church likewise become “hearsay.” On who’s say do we believe in the Bible? or the authority of the Church?

By the rules of evidence, our belief in the bible is one exempt from the hearsay rule.

 

[agangbern]

You do not say if the easy to understand reasoning of Copernicus is inspirational and it is exceptionally easy to understand using modern imaging. -

apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

If you can’t handle an insight which it is possible to physically see then you cannot comment on the past evolutionary framework which can only be acknowledged through careful and highly intuitive reasoning and the clues through fossils, rock strata and so on.The empiricists just jumped in with a careless ‘cause’ for biological evolution built on an essay demonstrating a justification for invasion based on supremacy,overpopulation,food resources ect.

The substance of your posts reflect ‘Nothing at all’ but then again,you are not alone in that respect.Don’t bother with your one sentence reply as you might congratulate yourself that you are saying or doing something clever.

You knowwhat? You who insists on the relevancy of Cpernicus in this thread is the one who has the duty to show here how copernicus theory is relevant to evolution. Do it, and maybe I could repond to you in another way.