Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a m

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The material world is compatible with the spiritual world.
The spiritual world is not compatible with the material world.

This is the simple reason for all the confusion in the name of natural science.
 
Ye gods, what idiot mentioned 140 people? Oh, it was me.
You might have mentioned it, but I feel you would have taken it from some reference.
Now look what you’ve done, Bradski. You’ve confused people like Eric who seems to think there was a specific point in history when one day humans split from…whatever it was we split from. And there was about 140 of us all looking at each other and wondering what to do next.
How do you reconcile this reply with a previous statement you made?
There wasn’t an original couple as a single breeding pair would require brothers and sisters to breed to continue the line. The minimum number of couples to ensure a healthy lineage is around 70.
**The only way this works is that at a particular time (let’s say at 4:30pm on April the 3rd in some given year), God decided that, **yeah, we are now evolved enough to be classed as human, so everyone born from that moment onwards would have a soul.
Are you making up a different set of rules for Adam and Eve, and the story of evolution?
And you are going to what? Ask the mods if they can ban the subject of evolution again? Well, OK. If it means that you’ll stop banging your head against the wall then I’m all for it.
The mods have let this thread run, and I prefer to gently disagree, I have seen too many drunks bashing their heads against walls and windows.
 
The material world is compatible with the spiritual world.
The spiritual world is not compatible with the material world.

This is the simple reason for all the confusion in the name of natural science.
Materialists believe there is no spiritual world but they cannot explain how matter became aware of itself or anything else! It is significant that knowledge like charity begins at home… 🙂
 
How do you reconcile this reply with a previous statement you made?
Forget the 140 people Eric. I only mentioned that to emphasise that one needs quite a lot more than 2. I am not saying that there were a specific amount of humans at any one time.

The terms used in human geneology are not fixed such as from one particular date there were no more Austrolapithicus and the next day there were homo habilis wandering around. If you look at the human family tree, yes you will see abrupt lines indicating the change from one to the other. But these changes, extremely subtle changes, happened over hundreds of thousands of years.
 
To reduce** all **human behaviour to physical evolution is unChristian and atheistic because it implies that we lack free will and moral responsibility…
You conflate the spiritual soul with behavior. Evolution does not. It is silent on the soul, but behavior is linked inseparably to physicality, and for many one of the most useful aspects of evolution is how our behaviors evolved.

Twenty years ago, JPII said evolution was “more than an hypothesis”. He spoke of “a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines”, the convergence of which “was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory”.

More recently, Pope Francis reaffirmed that “Evolution in nature does not conflict with the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings who evolve.”

CCC 159 is apt. And, as posted several times now, for all who have eyes to see, Catholic universities teach evolution.

It may eventually dawn on creationists that no one cares who you judge. We belong to Christ, not to internet posters.
 
Forget the 140 people Eric.
140 people never had any meaning for me in the first place, it was your argument. Maybe you need to forget it rather than me.
I only mentioned that to emphasise that one needs quite a lot more than 2. I am not saying that there were a specific amount of humans at any one time.
Ok, but you are confusing me,.
The terms used in human geneology are not fixed such as from one particular date there were no more Austrolapithicus and the next day there were homo habilis wandering around. If you look at the human family tree, yes you will see abrupt lines indicating the change from one to the other. .
That seems to fit in with your 140 people at 4.30 pm on a given day, or does it?
But these changes, extremely subtle changes, happened over hundreds of thousands of years
Are you confusing yourself? You are certainly confusing me. I know I am wrong, but it sounds like these 140 people rapidly appeared over hundreds of thousands of years at 4.30 pm on a given day.

Thankfully, I trust God created the heavens and the Earth, it makes more sense to me.
 
That’s beside the point. Both events are equally against modern science. Actually, a talking donkey is probably more against modern science than a global flood.
Science looks for evidence. We know that donkeys can make sounds. We know that humans can mis-hear sounds. We know that some writers tell fictional stories. All of that means that science ignores stories of talking animals. There are many of them in many different cultures, and science ignores all of them. Aesop’s Fables do not present a threat to science and do not get a great deal of attention from science.

There is direct scientific evidence against a recent global flood. If the evidence existed, then science would not have problem. For example, science accepts the evidence for a snowball earth where the planet was covered by (frozen) water. That is accepted because the evidence supports it. Noah’s Flood is rejected because the evidence is directly against it. Scientists does not always ignore the Flood legend because YE creationists sometimes try to have their non-science taught in science lessons in schools. Science will react strongly when someone wants to teach non-science in a science lesson.

rossum
 
I wonder how many CAF participants say “Hi Honey. How is your supernatural today?”
 
You conflate the spiritual soul with behavior. Evolution does not. It is silent on the soul, but behavior is linked inseparably to physicality, and for many one of the most useful aspects of evolution is how our behaviors evolved.

Twenty years ago, JPII said evolution was “more than an hypothesis”. He spoke of “a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines”, the convergence of which “was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory”.

More recently, Pope Francis reaffirmed that “Evolution in nature does not conflict with the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings who evolve.”

CCC 159 is apt. And, as posted several times now, for all who have eyes to see, Catholic universities teach evolution.

It may eventually dawn on creationists that no one cares who you judge. We belong to Christ, not to internet posters.
It may eventually dawn on creationists and anti-creationists that there is a difference between the material world and the spiritual world. One is flat.😉
 
You conflate the spiritual soul with behavior. Evolution does not. It is silent on the soul, but behavior is linked inseparably to physicality, and for many one of the most useful aspects of evolution is how our behaviors evolved.

Twenty years ago, JPII said evolution was “more than an hypothesis”. He spoke of “a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines”, the convergence of which “was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory”.

More recently, Pope Francis reaffirmed that “Evolution in nature does not conflict with the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings who evolve.”

CCC 159 is apt. And, as posted several times now, for all who have eyes to see, Catholic universities teach evolution.

It may eventually dawn on creationists that no one cares who you judge. We belong to Christ, not to internet posters.
It remains a fact that to reduce** all **human behaviour to physical evolution is unChristian and atheistic because it implies that we lack free will and moral responsibility…
 
You conflate the spiritual soul with behavior. Evolution does not. It is silent on the soul, but behavior is linked inseparably to physicality, and for many one of the most useful aspects of evolution is how our behaviors evolved.

Twenty years ago, JPII said evolution was “more than an hypothesis”. He spoke of “a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines”, the convergence of which “was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory”.

More recently, Pope Francis reaffirmed that “Evolution in nature does not conflict with the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings who evolve.”

CCC 159 is apt. And, as posted several times now, for all who have eyes to see, Catholic universities teach evolution.

It may eventually dawn on creationists that no one cares who you judge. We belong to Christ, not to internet posters.
There is zero evidence of human behavior being linked only to physicality. That reduces human beings to biological robots that respond to outside stimuli, reproduce, or not, and die. You can replace human beings in the above sentence with birds, insects or butterflies, but we are not.

It may eventually dawn on some people that the Biology textbook is missing crucial information and can only present a materialist view of reality. We were all willed by God and will return to God.

From the Catechism:

God creates by wisdom and love

"295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created."142 Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all”; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made."143

Ed
 
It remains a fact that to reduce** all **human behaviour to physical evolution is unChristian and atheistic because it implies that we lack free will and moral responsibility…
. . . God creates by wisdom and love . . .
Some thoughts on the above:

We exist in the present. It is in the moment, that we perceive think and act, and because what is happening is not disconnected from what was and will be, we can come to know where we are and where we were, and be able to predict with a certain accuracy what will happen in the future. This happens because, in an ever-changing now, we have a view of the past through its remnants: our memories, books, photographs, artifacts, bones, and going further back, fossils. We have some idea as to how things work within the timeframe of our search. The assumption is that there exist constant relationships between things that are just that - constant, irrespective of time. An example is the speed of light; we cannot know but it seems reasonable to believe it was always so. Some things change, and they do so as a result of factors which underlie the change and are outside the change. In terms of nature, they can be said to be eternal, albeit not transcendent to it; they are nature.

We know the universe was different at the time of the Big Bang because we know something of the basic structure of matter and we can follow its history back in the sky. We surmise that at some point at the beginning of the universe, space did not exist, nor did the sub-atomic, but all this did start and grow. And, it did so in a step-wise fashion: atoms, stars and galaxies, molecules, living beings and finally us.

As an atom is more than the light of which it is formed, so too is a living soul from its material base. An atom is one, an amoeba is one, we are one being able to see, feel, think and act, made of many parts but one being. The point of contention here has been about how it is that we as persons emerged on earth.

A biochemical understanding approaches life in terms of the properties of molecules containing Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. Within that field of study, we examine the ways that simple to very, very complex molecules interact to form living cells, tissues and organisms, structurally and physiologically. Applying this knowledge to ourselves and our origins sheds light on our participation within the material world. If we exclude any other influences but the physical of which we are aware, life cannot be but a fluke, a random occurrence of substances coming together in very unique and extraordinarily unlikely ways. Some people are satisfied with this response, believing this is how it works. But, there is another issue with that approach, and that is the beingness of creatures. Why your dog a dog, something more and different than a mere vast collection of swirling organic processes? And, if that in fact that were its true reality, where does the illusion of dog exist? In which realm, if the physical world were all there is.

We can posit the existence (if that word applies) of a nonmaterial external primordial cause bringing into existence at the beginning of the universe, the constants of nature that are necessary for the possibility of all the diverse forms of life. But, we are faced with the improbability of and no way to explain the growing complexity that we see in the progression of organisms from unicellular, to plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and us, here discussing the matter of our being. The idea of a supreme clockmaker, offering the initial push that set the universe in motion, having somehow, through no known process, most definitely not randomness, planned for this unlikeliest of happenings and remaining totally transcendent is not rational.

There are other possibilities; perhaps it is the universe which creates itself in every moment. The supreme identity and eternal mind flowers as the growing complexity of evolution, being and not being.

It is not quite clear how the least connected to the realities of personal existence, the driest, purely intellectual approach to life that is the Theory of Evolution has captured and shackled the modern imagination. It is quite odd that this understanding of our origins, which has nothing to say about personal being or the mind, was heavily influenced by Descartes’ argument that began with and rests on a statement connecting thinking and the awareness of one’s own being.

In the end, we are left to contemplate the revealed truth which puts together all the illusory half responses above, into a true vision of a loving God, as a Trinity, who brings all creation, all time and all space and all beings into existence within His ocean of infinite compassion. He did so as is clearly stated in Genesis, to be understood through the grace of the Holy Spirit who guides us in our relationship with God, along the Way that is Jesus Christ.

TLDNR: What those two guys say in the quotes above.
 
There is zero evidence of human behavior being linked only to physicality. That reduces human beings to biological robots that respond to outside stimuli, reproduce, or not, and die. You can replace human beings in the above sentence with birds, insects or butterflies, but we are not.

It may eventually dawn on some people that the Biology textbook is missing crucial information and can only present a materialist view of reality. We were all willed by God and will return to God.

Ed
Understood King Edwest.

Servant! Burn all the biology textbooks immediately!!
 
Understood King Edwest.

Servant! Burn all the biology textbooks immediately!!
Don’t congratulate yourself.
You understood nothing of what he said.
I don’t get the sarcasm, he’s not telling you what to think.

In what he says, what do you believe to be false?
 
Don’t congratulate yourself.
You understood nothing of what he said.
I don’t get the sarcasm, he’s not telling you what to think.

In what he says, what do you believe to be false?
He basically said that biological text books are missing information regarding ultimate questions that are properly belonging to philosophy.

Why would i find questions about ultimate purpose and meaning in a biology text book?
 
Science looks for evidence. We know that donkeys can make sounds. We know that humans can mis-hear sounds. We know that some writers tell fictional stories. All of that means that science ignores stories of talking animals. There are many of them in many different cultures, and science ignores all of them. Aesop’s Fables do not present a threat to science and do not get a great deal of attention from science.

There is direct scientific evidence against a recent global flood. If the evidence existed, then science would not have problem. For example, science accepts the evidence for a snowball earth where the planet was covered by (frozen) water. That is accepted because the evidence supports it. Noah’s Flood is rejected because the evidence is directly against it. Scientists does not always ignore the Flood legend because YE creationists sometimes try to have their non-science taught in science lessons in schools. Science will react strongly when someone wants to teach non-science in a science lesson.

rossum
I understand, but you do realize there’s direct scientific evidence against a talking donkey as well, right?

Let’s take your previous statement about “measurable present effects” and discuss it for a moment. First of all, not many things in the Bible actually have “measurable present effects,” so it’s a statement that’s more difficult to deal with. We could then, for example, take some of the statements of Christ and claim that there should be miracles in Christianity and that since there are none, it means that Christianity is false. Take the following statements:

“17 These [d]signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”” Mk. 16:17-18 (NASB)

“11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. 12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.” Jn. 14:11-12 (NASB)

“20 And He *said to them, “Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith *the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.” Mt. 17:20 (NASB)

Now, no doubt, the response from theologians will just be to say that these passages all have a different interpretation other than the obvious one, and that therefore we cannot in fact test these passages to see whether or not they are true.

There’s one other thing I’d like to mention. If you hold to the entire “measurable effects in the present” idea, which means that you can believe in the miraculous so long as you can’t test it and find evidence against it in the present, then there’s another thing that you have to reject: Joshua’s conquest of Canaan. The science of archaeology says that it’s a myth and never happened, so this would force you to interpret the book of Joshua allegorically.

ehrmanblog.org/historical-problems-with-the-hebrew-bible-the-conquest-of-canaan/

A final question would be whether or not you consider “literary criticism” a science. If so, then you will end up believing that books in the NT are a mixture of fact and fiction and that some of them weren’t even written by who they say they were written by. You will also believe the same thing about some books in the OT.*
 
He basically said that biological text books are missing information regarding ultimate questions that are properly belonging to philosophy.

Why would i find questions about ultimate purpose and meaning in a biology text book?
Couldn’t you infer questions (and answers!) about ultimate purpose and meaning from a biology textbook?
 
Couldn’t you infer questions (and answers!) about ultimate purpose and meaning from a biology textbook?
Only in the sense that textbooks tell you what, which might prompt the question why. At which point you close the scientific book and open one on philosophy.
 
Biology textbooks are the last word on how we, and all other life, ended up at this point in time. They should not contain philosophy.

So:
  1. Does a human being consist of two integrated parts: physical and spiritual?
  2. If so, does the Biology textbook describe the body and soul?
I submit that nothing but pure materialism is all that can be gained from Biology textbooks.

Ed
 
Only in the sense that textbooks tell you what, which might prompt the question why. At which point you close the scientific book and open one on philosophy.
Wouldn’t the philosophy book use the biology book in order to draw its conclusions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top