C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Yep, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, as for vids i like this one
youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
- Status
youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
A
akoso
Guest
That’s a very good point. Too often I find people refuting the concept of evolution because of the big bang theory, concepts of abiogenesis, and other similarly unrelated concepts.
I also find people using this type of logic:
“If evolution exists, it should explain x → but it doesn’t work in that case → therefore evolution is all wrong”
I find that very frustrating, because any attempts to describe evolution using very basic and obvious cases are always ignored and attention is put back to the very complex picture of the first organism or evolution on an extremely large scale (i.e. millions of years).
S
StAnastasia
Guest
They should be handled separately. However, as a theologian I find the Big Bang, abiogenesis and other tangentially related concepts to be rich sources for reflection on the theology of creation. Abiogenesis is no threat to me, as we already have it scripturally reflected in the words “let the earth bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24).
StAnastasia
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Yeah, it also says man came from the dirt, and women came from a mans rib.
See this is what im tallking about when i say you are picking and choosing. You can’t dismiss most of genesis as symbolic, then pick out one line that at best very very loosely supports your side (as “let the earth bring forth living creatures” could mean anything!) then cliam the bible “scripturally reflected” abiogenesis.
Surely you must see the hypocrisy?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No, I don’t see it. I’m not a biblical literalist!
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Then why are you claiming “as we already have it scripturally reflected”!!
You can’t have it both ways, you can’t pick and choose parts of genesis that you feel you can twist to “scripturally reflect” science.
Gee out of the 1000’s of lines i can pick one that could be loosely interpreted to support abiogenesis.
J
josie_L
Guest
“The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).”
“As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.”
J
josie_L
Guest
Firstly, science can make us better understand Genesis. Secondly, the Church has always claimed faith and reason are necessary for knowing Truth. Hence, science is a means for deriving truth which the Church welcomes.
G
GraceDK
Guest
What do you define as fun? Is it lasting joy and peace of mind and soul? Is it true love?
Or do you mean empty pleasures while you take risks on the behalf others, like in drinking and having casual sex?
If you are very interested in finding answers I advocate two things: Go to places where miracles are worked out. See if it happens. I have seen it before my eyes, so I believe. People are raised from the dead, blind are healed, lame walk, cancer tumors go away, depressions and mental illness diasapear… ad most important: hearts and lives are changed… all in the name of Jesus.
If you are not willing to “come and see”. I suggest to you two books: “The New Testament”, and “mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis ( Be careful with this one. I know a guy who used to be an agnostic socialist who called religion “opium for the people” like Marx did… until he read that book by Leewis
oh and by the way he started to learn about what Catholic sexual etchics really are and how he had missed out on the truly beautiful aspects of love and sexuality during his teen years… that’s another story).Then, if the evolutionary theories appeal to you I also suggest to you this… It might give you a good laugh and make you reflect:
youtube.com/watch?v=bBQG62a7jsw&feature=related
(This youtube vid is made by OnceAnAtheist)
Peace to you
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
LOL faith and truth? You joking?
A
akoso
Guest
I think the OP’s comment about having fun was just to set the tone that this is just an open debate about some of the ideas posted. I don’t think that one line was to be extended to the context of casual sex or drinking (which I didn’t know was a problem, since you didn’t mention the word “excessive”).
I don’t see how a miracle proves evolution to be true or not. It’s an isolated event.
I watched the first two parts of this fellow’s videos. They seem like a prime example of how creationists argue the big bang theory. Just so you know, I don’t believe the big bang theory to be correct. But at the same time, proving that the big bang theory is incorrect doesn’t prove anything about God or anything else. Creationists go about it all wrong when they try to prove creationism as being right by disproving other theories. If I can prove that 2+2 does not equal 5, then that does not prove that 2+2 equals 4. It doesn’t prove anything other than it not equaling 5, but certainly leaves the door open for all of the other infinite possibilities.
It also irks me that every time people try to have a go at evolution, they do so only by talking about man descending from apes or other long-term aspects of evolution. I still have yet to hear a sound argument against the ideas of natural selection, adaptation through mutations, or any of the other fundamental aspects that comprise the theory of evolution.
J
josie_L
Guest
You think you can hide behind sarcasm (and disdain) to win your argument.
B
Benjamin8o8
Guest
When I was gone from these threads for a while, IYou think you can hide behind sarcasm (and disdain) to win your argument.
ve been watching quite a few atheist videos (on youtube) and let me asure you that most of them are full of satire. It is a very good technique to "refute" or should I say, run way from a Christian argument when theyre sarcastic. So no, they can`t.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Faith is necessary for knowing Truth?
Thats not even worth answering. Faith in the religous sense is belief that is not based on proof.
How on earth can a belief not based on proof be necessary for knowing the truth. In fact given the amount of different religions that people believe based on faith, most of the people must be incorrect. For no matter if one fo them was correct the sum of the others would out number the people who were correct. So no matter which way you look at it most (probably all) people with faith are wrong.
Evidence is what is necessary for knowing the truth.
Oh and the reason we are sarcastic is because most of the arguments are so intellectually feeble they don’t warrent a proper response.
J
josie_L
Guest
Yes, I’ve noticed this too. And notice also how they never bother to give us a real explanation for why their worldview is correct as much as they’re concerned with attacking our beliefs.
C
curioosbadger
Guest
Im gonna go out on a limb and guess this is the youtube video youre referring to?
youtube.com/watch?v=VWGbmNzb7fE
but yeah, without pursuit of facts and the ability to demonstrate that what is said is true; then people just have a pile of opinions. even if some of those things out of sheer coincidence happen to be facts, people still need to be able tell the “my loan costs me $$$ every month” facts from the “house prices always go up” myths, or else it could ruin the world economy… whoops, too late
youtube.com/watch?v=VWGbmNzb7fE
but yeah, without pursuit of facts and the ability to demonstrate that what is said is true; then people just have a pile of opinions. even if some of those things out of sheer coincidence happen to be facts, people still need to be able tell the “my loan costs me $$$ every month” facts from the “house prices always go up” myths, or else it could ruin the world economy… whoops, too late
J
josie_L
Guest
So you have proof that God doesn’t exist? Furthermore, in all religions there is a common moral ground with the belief that God does exist. This speaks volumes as it is evidence that a natural moral law does exist and it comes from a God that certain people have perceived throughout history with varying degrees of understanding and validity.
P.S. And if our arguments are intellectually feeble then why engage us in debate?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Charles Darwin, I agree with you that the logical conclusion of most religions’ exclusionary views is that the large mass of humanity will eventually wind up spending “eternity” (whatever that is) in someone else’s hell!
But please note that not all of us who are Catholic accept the old “no salvation outside the church” dictum.
B
Benjamin8o8
Guest
to extand Josies question, I also would like to add: if a great amount of people started to believe in Santa Clause or start worshiping aliens, I don`t think I would spend so much time debating against them as atheist attempt to debate Catholics and religions influenced by original Christianity (ie Islam, Christian sects and others).
- Status