Fossil Challenge Old Evolution Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can’t understand why people want to be Catholics and Evolutionists at the same time. They are incompatible religions. You have to reject Genesis completely to accept the latest Evolutionary theology.

Evolutionism is just an explanation for creation without a Creator. If you have enough faith to believe in evolution, what do you need God for? Evolution is NOT science. If it were science, it wouldn’t constantly be revising its theology as new discoveries prove it wrong.

Imagine if the Catholic Church were to continually revise its beliefs. How much credibility would it have? How can any of you believe in the fairy tale of evolution? Do you really think your ancestors were some kind of apes?

The fact that there are churchmen who apparently believe this nonsense is a result of Modernism. Papal Encyclicals warn against Modernism and the novelties it introduces. The problem with these churchmen is that they have lost their faith. Because they have lost the foundation of their faith, they are ready to fall for anything.
 
edwest2 said:
Unfortunately, the Theory of Evolution has been used to convince or attempt to convince people to abandon their belief in God. After all, evolution claims we all got here through natural (no God needed) means. It is my concern that young people in particular will be confused by this. In Darwin’s day, the interior workings of the cell were not visible due to the technology limits of the time, but now, it’s obvious that the cell is very complex and is essentially a small factory with interconnected parts.

This fossil find indicates the possibility that there was no evolution. Just as there are many types of dogs with different body shapes and skulls, so could it have been that primates/hominids could have been of different types. This also ties in to recent science that modern humans and neanderthals interbred and that more ‘modern’ dinosaurs lived with their ‘ancestors.’ It seems to me that the dinosaurs could have lived at the same time as modern humans.

Now the interesting thing about making a statement like that is that the reaction is usually emotional and visceral, as opposed to a ‘you know, there might be something to that.’ After all, there are many stories of dragons from around the world. It strikes me as possible that the dragons the humans wrote about could have been dinosaurs.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
 
steveandersen said:
That is not what that article says

It says that Homo habilis and Homo erectus possibly lived at the same time.
Nothing earth shattering there

Homo Sapiens came along much later.
Click to expand...
Well, of course they lived at the same time at some point. It’s not like a bell rings and h. habilis disappears and h. erectus takes over.

I can’t imagine why anyone would see this as a challenge to evolutionary theory. When subspeciation takes place there will always be a period of overlap – in fact there’s no law that says the “parent” species has to die out.
 
Abira said:
I’m intellectually capable of a lot of things steve, but not debate with people like you who are extrememly rude to me for no reason.

I think you should start your own thread called: basic manners and communication techniques.

that response is hardly the start of a loving dialogue is it!! lol
Click to expand...
Good point, rudeness is a poor protocol of communication. However, in reality intellectual ability is over rated and I’d ask that you not be offended. Why do we place so much value on the ability to understand something? That’s not what gives us value. Our value comes from the truth that God created us and He loves us. Isn’t it arrogant to say I know better than the Bible because of science? It takes humility for us to say we don’t know and what I am saying is that because we don’t know, we should hold firm to what God has said. Sorry if I offended you I admit it was intentional but not personal. Frustration is no excuse for being rude.
 
Teflon93 said:
Easy there—I’m no evolutionist myself, but I don’t believe the Pope said the literal interpretation of Genesis was dogma. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that to be the case.
Click to expand...
If literal interpretation of Genesis is not dogma then what else can I throw out and say it is symbolic. “This is My Body…This is the cup of My Blood”? Yes, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture is the responsibility of the Magisterium and there are certain things that they have said we must believe such as, we have all come from a real Adam and a real Eve, but this does not mean that they are saying that everything else is up for grabs. Pope Leo XIII and St. Augustine were wise in laying down the rule, unless proven otherwise, believe what it says. No one within the Magisterium has said this rule does not apply to Genesis. What individuals within the Magisterium have said in personal opinion, not with the authority they hold to interpret Sacred Scripture, is that they personally may believe there is enough evidence to show evolution as a truth. If that is the case then by necessity they depart from the literal interpretation of Genesis. I am not their judge, but I don’t think they or anyone else are culpable for this error. Nevertheless, scientifically evolution is not proven so I can say with certainty that departing from the literal and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture is error and against Church teaching.
 
Steve40 said:
Nevertheless, scientifically evolution is not proven so I can say with certainty that departing from the literal and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture is error and against Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Scientifically nothing is *proven, *but that doesn’t mean that science doesn’t provide a vastly superior way of learning about the natural universe than reading the bible.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Steve40 said:
It takes humility for us to say we don’t know and what I am saying is that because we don’t know, we should hold firm to what God has said.
Click to expand...
If it was as simple as that we wouldn’t be having multiple debates on the subject.

the point is not what we DON’T know…but what we DO… we do know that scientists generally agree on the 63 million year gap…despite it not being 100% proven (as few things are)… we do know that Genesis allows for a reading on evolution…I can find a really good post in another thread if you want me to PM you… we do know that evolution can be influenced in a lab using animals with v short life spans… using the surroundings to effect colour and size etc over generations of their lifespans…

we do know that no modern man has been found older than current records…and yet the skills God has given us have allowed us to find remains much, much, much older than this…

how do you accountfor this? it is not enough to say we can’t be 100% sure… there is a general bank of evidence that you haven’t engaged with

so I agree that nothing is proven…but you cannot ignore the facts around us just because we can’t be 100%…scientifically 100% doesn’t happen very often. Most of our recent history isn’t 100% accurate and that’s in the past few hundred years.

The fact that you are discussing this on CAF also proves that belief in evolution does not stop a belief in God… many people here believe in both.

S
 
Steve40 said:
If literal interpretation of Genesis is not dogma then what else can I throw out and say it is symbolic. “This is My Body…This is the cup of My Blood”? Yes, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture is the responsibility of the Magisterium and there are certain things that they have said we must believe such as, we have all come from a real Adam and a real Eve, but this does not mean that they are saying that everything else is up for grabs. Pope Leo XIII and St. Augustine were wise in laying down the rule, unless proven otherwise, believe what it says. No one within the Magisterium has said this rule does not apply to Genesis. What individuals within the Magisterium have said in personal opinion, not with the authority they hold to interpret Sacred Scripture, is that they personally may believe there is enough evidence to show evolution as a truth. If that is the case then by necessity they depart from the literal interpretation of Genesis. I am not their judge, but I don’t think they or anyone else are culpable for this error. Nevertheless, scientifically evolution is not proven so I can say with certainty that departing from the literal and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture is error and against Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Well, the dogma question is easily resolved—just post a link to the dogmatic teaching.
 
abu_kamoon said:
I can’t understand why people want to be Catholics and Evolutionists at the same time. They are incompatible religions. You have to reject Genesis completely to accept the latest Evolutionary theology.

Evolutionism is just an explanation for creation without a Creator. If you have enough faith to believe in evolution, what do you need God for? Evolution is NOT science. If it were science, it wouldn’t constantly be revising its theology as new discoveries prove it wrong.

Imagine if the Catholic Church were to continually revise its beliefs. How much credibility would it have? How can any of you believe in the fairy tale of evolution? Do you really think your ancestors were some kind of apes?

The fact that there are churchmen who apparently believe this nonsense is a result of Modernism. Papal Encyclicals warn against Modernism and the novelties it introduces. The problem with these churchmen is that they have lost their faith. Because they have lost the foundation of their faith, they are ready to fall for anything.
Click to expand...
Was Gregor Mendel a heretic for his genetics work?

We Catholics care about the truth. If evolution did indeed play a role in God’s creation, shouldn’t we want to know that?

Let’s not confound materialist with theistic evolution. A big chunk of the “origin of species” claim for evolution is still unproven, and evolution is by definition not able to explain the origin of life itself (evolution being what we think happens to living things over the long haul).

Now, there’s a lot of hokum and bunk and twaddle and just-so stories on the evolutionist side of the debate, but any farmer or breeder knows that change does occur in living things through natural selection—they apply that concept all the time to tangible benefit.
 
It is one thing to breed horses or other animals, but you always get the same animal. What evolution cannot explain is how gills turn into lungs of flippers turn into hands.

Evolution is not the whole of science. Yet the way evolutionists talk about it, not believing in evolution will what, stop the earth from spinning on its axis? I don’t think so.

It’s all guesswork and the similarities discovered between various creatures is all due to the fact that they live on the same planet with the same gravity, with the same temperature range and other environmental conditions. To believe that some creature is on its way to moving from living in the water to living on land makes no sense. That creature has to be able to find food and eat, now. Not wait around for some new trait to develop first.

The intense, emotional Why Don’t You Believe in Evolution? noise is the sound of a group of believers and if you don’t believe then you are called (bad name) and (bad name) and usually (bad name). Go to any evolution-creation-ID debate on the internet. It’s the rational ones who, after clearly seeing that others don’t agree with their “evidence,” who start ‘yelling’ moron, IDiot, cretard, fundamentalist (translation: hate filled, anti-science, willing to harm unbelievers) and other things.

We have the truth of Jesus Christ but they want to tell us theology their way. It doesn’t work like that. “And if you don’t believe the evidence then you will be a laughingstock and you won’t bring others to Christ…” How can I do that with a Theory that tells the world: “This all happened naturally, no God needed.” ? Even an uneducated person understands that much about evlution. No God. It’s a natural process. Trying to tack God on to the end is like, “Well maybe God was involved a little, maybe. Just make sure you believe the Theory.”

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
It is one thing to breed horses or other animals, but you always get the same animal. What evolution cannot explain is how gills turn into lungs of flippers turn into hands.

Evolution is not the whole of science. Yet the way evolutionists talk about it, not believing in evolution will what, stop the earth from spinning on its axis? I don’t think so.

It’s all guesswork and the similarities discovered between various creatures is all due to the fact that they live on the same planet with the same gravity, with the same temperature range and other environmental conditions. To believe that some creature is on its way to moving from living in the water to living on land makes no sense. That creature has to be able to find food and eat, now. Not wait around for some new trait to develop first.

The intense, emotional Why Don’t You Believe in Evolution? noise is the sound of a group of believers and if you don’t believe then you are called (bad name) and (bad name) and usually (bad name). Go to any evolution-creation-ID debate on the internet. It’s the rational ones who, after clearly seeing that others don’t agree with their “evidence,” who start ‘yelling’ moron, IDiot, cretard, fundamentalist (translation: hate filled, anti-science, willing to harm unbelievers) and other things.

We have the truth of Jesus Christ but they want to tell us theology their way. It doesn’t work like that. “And if you don’t believe the evidence then you will be a laughingstock and you won’t bring others to Christ…” How can I do that with a Theory that tells the world: “This all happened naturally, no God needed.” ? Even an uneducated person understands that much about evlution. No God. It’s a natural process. Trying to tack God on to the end is like, “Well maybe God was involved a little, maybe. Just make sure you believe the Theory.”

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Certainly there are those for whom evolution is a religion, but like every other heresy out there, it possesses a grain of truth. Going from natural selection within species to natural selection as the engine of speciation is one leap. Going from speciation to the origin of life itself is another. Going from the origin of life to the reason for life’s existence is still another.

Just because some are willing to exceed the bounds and limits of science into the metaphysical by sheer extrapolation doesn’t mean everyone does. Nor should we throw the baby out with the bath water.

This applies not only to evolution, of course, but to other aspects of science, such as global warming.

The lesson for us ought to be that man will always seek a religion, whether one overtly (and honestly) religious or one cloaked in mechanistic trappings.
 
ColleenG said:
The article doesn’t say this at all; you need to re-read it. One shouldn’t try to make his point about scientific matters with sound-bite statements taken out of context. After all, isn’t that what the Protestants do to us with the Bible?
Click to expand...
I’m not advocating the Protestant position on evolution. I’m just saying that there is still things we do not know.

The Arcticle did state, homo-erectus and , Homo habilis. These two species live side by side. Even though the article never mention homo-sapiens, I do think it is possible that homo-sapiens probably live along with those species.

There was also another evidence that the “supposed” ancestor of a dinosaur.

Another article states,

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Fossils found in the United States show dinosaurs lived along side their ancestors for tens of millions of years, disproving long-held theories assuming they quickly replaced their predecessors, according to a new study.

Source: news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070720/sc_afp/uspaleontology;_ylt=AoglPFKDOuwwLuuFklCFi597hMgF

Notice the similarity in both position.
 
hecd2 said:
Scientifically nothing is *proven, *but that doesn’t mean that science doesn’t provide a vastly superior way of learning about the natural universe than reading the bible.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
Scientifically many things are proven. It is the difference between emperical science and theoretical science. Emperical science it is based upon what is observable and repeatable. A lot of proven science goes into the car you may drive. If we used the thoretical science with assumptions and weak statistical analysis like that of evolution to design you car, it would be a death trap. We should be careful when it comes to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture and rely upon emperical science not theoretical science.
 
Teflon93 said:
Well, the dogma question is easily resolved—just post a link to the dogmatic teaching.
Click to expand...
Sure it’s dogmatically the way we aproach and interpret Scripture. Should the way we approach Sacred Scripture change? If we do change this we end up in the heresey of moderism.

The link to Pope Leo XIII’ Encyclical on the study of Sacred Scripture is:

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

It’s a good read.
 
orionsbelt said:
You have a noble goal that I agree with.

However, I think trying to counter the use of evolution as a means to destroy faith in God with arguments against evolution is the wrong approach.

A better approach is to show how faith and science are compatible. Then whether someone believes in evolution (or any other fact/theory) becomes irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I’m late to this thread but I agree 100 (or is it 1000) percent. The question that must always be asked if somebody brings up some connection between evolution and faith is, So What? That should quickly unearth all kinds of hidden (and erroneous) assumptions that can then be dealt with.
 
Ahimsa said:
Is that infallible?
Click to expand...
The Pope is saying unless you know otherwise believe what the Bible says. I don’t see how it could lead you in the wrong direction, so I would say it’s an infailable approach to Sacred Scripture. When evolution is proven true then you depart from the literal and obvious meaning but not before. What if evolution is once and for all proven wrong? For years a good portion of the Church would have misinterpreted Scripture and that’s a failure. Since it is true no mater how you look at it, evolution or no evolution, special creation or no special creation, It’s infailable.
 
Lately, I’ve noticed a lot of anti-Christian commentary and it’s centered around evolution. Any hint that anyone doesn’t believe and you are branded a secular heretic.

I can observe gravity in action.
One doesn’t need to get up too high to see the curvature of the earth.
Having studied chemistry, I know mixing chemical A with chemical B will have a certain reaction.

Believing in evolution is not necessary for salvation. But, when it is used to promote Naturalism, Atheism and other isms that are clearly anti-Christian, I think something other than science is going on.

God bless,
Ed
 
Abira said:
If it was as simple as that we wouldn’t be having multiple debates on the subject.

the point is not what we DON’T know…but what we DO… we do know that scientists generally agree on the 63 million year gap…despite it not being 100% proven (as few things are)… we do know that Genesis allows for a reading on evolution…I can find a really good post in another thread if you want me to PM you… we do know that evolution can be influenced in a lab using animals with v short life spans… using the surroundings to effect colour and size etc over generations of their lifespans…

we do know that no modern man has been found older than current records…and yet the skills God has given us have allowed us to find remains much, much, much older than this…

how do you accountfor this? it is not enough to say we can’t be 100% sure… there is a general bank of evidence that you haven’t engaged with

so I agree that nothing is proven…but you cannot ignore the facts around us just because we can’t be 100%…scientifically 100% doesn’t happen very often. Most of our recent history isn’t 100% accurate and that’s in the past few hundred years.

The fact that you are discussing this on CAF also proves that belief in evolution does not stop a belief in God… many people here believe in both.

S
Click to expand...
There is evidence that humans have existed with Dinosaurs. The amont of dust on the moon is not consistent with the amount of time the moon is believed to have existed. Fluids specialists in France have shown that the mechanism of laying down rock layers is simultaneously not over eons of time. This is consistent with the layers laid down when Mount St. Helen’s blew. There is evidence that Granite was created instantaneously. Polonium halos in the rock should have dissipated, if there was slow cooling as scientists say. The problem is that the same scientists that believe in the 63 million years ignore all this data. You can’t have an honest discussion when this information is being ignored.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top