How does the church explain dinosaurs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dustdev14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phil19034 said:
Nor is that what intelligent design (which the type of evolution the Church allows) teaches.
Click to expand...
As a matter of definition, from reading your posts you’re not a proponent of intelligent design, but theistic evolution. (Just as I am.) ID is similar to evolution, but in the way LaMarckism is similar. Theistic evolution says the natural processes God created were able to create things like eyes without special intervention. ID says that at certain points He had to make a major change like introducing a full modern eye at one point instead of a gradual change. (As someone who used to think I was in favor of ID because I thought that was the same as theistic evolution, I just wanted to share that.)
twf said:
this very Protestant pseudo-science drives souls away from the Church.
Click to expand...
This. Quoted for truth.
ChristMyLife said:
I’m oversimplifying, but look up his EWTN sessions and watch them sometime if you want a perspective coming from both a brilliant scientist and faithful orthodox Catholic POV.
Click to expand...
Another source you might like is thomisticevolution.org . It has a series of essays written by four priests and is well done in my opinion.
 
mVitus said:
As a matter of definition, from reading your posts you’re not a proponent of intelligent design, but theistic evolution. (Just as I am.) ID is similar to evolution, but in the way LaMarckism is similar. Theistic evolution says the natural processes God created were able to create things like eyes without special intervention. ID says that at certain points He had to make a major change like introducing a full modern eye at one point instead of a gradual change. (As someone who used to think I was in favor of ID because I thought that was the same as theistic evolution, I just wanted to share that.)
Click to expand...
Thanks!

I’m actually agnostic to it, as we will never know until we are face to face with God. I believe God used one of the two, theistic evolution or intelligent design. But, I’m not willing to select one over the other.
 
He’s talking about the book of Genesis. Not that God couldn’t have created evolution
 
The micro and macro-evolution distinction is bogus.

Here let me show you.

Hvre let me show you.

Hvrv lvt mv show you.

Rvrv lvt mv bhow yiu.

Rvpv hvv uv bhqt hjr.

See how that sentence began with microevolution, and through consistent microevolution became something totally new?

The same sort of principle applies to biology, except on a very large timescale and very wide geographic distribution.

The micro/macro evolution distinction is part of bogus creation pseudo-science. No reputable biologist makes that distinction because it’s unnecessary. They all hold only to microevolution - which eventually leads to “macro-evolution.”
 
Last edited:
Exactly. It’s the same “alphabet”… all life on earth is driven by the same “letters” rearranged in countless different ways. If you accept microevolution, which has been empirically demonstrated, then you accept evolution…
 
bveritas said:
Darwinian evolution is atheistic pseudo-science.
Click to expand...
Actually, Darwin was not an atheist. Darwin theorized that all life originated from single celled animals in a warm pool. When asked where the single celled animals (life forms) came from, Darwin’s answer was, "the Creator.’ It has been subsequent scientists that have infused Darwin’s origin of the species with an atheistic bent.
 
The Bible is not a science book. From the fossil record, we know there was a time when all life was in the sea, and mostly populated by trilobites. And there are other periods where one species was dominant. Knowing those things does not profit us spiritually, so the Bible does not need to cover them.
 
Actually, I really have to wonder about the truth of that statement. After all, I have always been told that “The Flintstones” was NOT a documentary.😄😉
 
Y’know, the Bible may not be a science textbook, but I tell you it’s uncanny how much the outline of Genesis 1 lines up perfectly with the basic outline of what science teaches happened.

For something written 3,000+ years ago, it’s amazing how it jibes so well with modern science. No other ancient creation account comes anywhere even nearly as close.
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Totally 90s thing
 
That may be opinion of Fr. Ripperger, but there are plenty of other priests who do not find human evolution incompatible.
 
The fact that so many people are unable to recognise that God made the world, and so the world is from the same source as scripture. Both are equally from God so both have equal authority.

The Catholic Church saw this as far back as Galileo, and has been careful to avoid repeating that error. Some Protestant denominations have forgotten this, and it is a pity to see some Catholics also repeating the error, when their church has learned that lesson, and is careful to avoid repeating it.

rossum
 
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Your Church has learned; you apparently have not. You would do well to follow your Church in this.

rossum
 
Is it too late to ask that this thread not turn into another evolution debate?
 
Fauken said:
Is it too late to ask that this thread not turn into another evolution debate?
Click to expand...
Maybe change the thread title to: “How does the church explain dodos?” They are more extinct than dinosaurs, and do not present so much of an issue to the strict Genesis literalists here.

$0.02

rossum
 
ChristMyLife said:
The micro and macro-evolution distinction is bogus.

Here let me show you.

Hvre let me show you.

Hvrv lvt mv show you.

Rvrv lvt mv bhow yiu.

Rvpv hvv uv bhqt hjr.

See how that sentence began with microevolution, and through consistent microevolution became something totally new?

The same sort of principle applies to biology, except on a very large timescale and very wide geographic distribution.

The micro/macro evolution distinction is part of bogus creation pseudo-science. No reputable biologist makes that distinction because it’s unnecessary. They all hold only to microevolution - which eventually leads to “macro-evolution.”
Click to expand...
I really enjoyed that.
 
Why is it so easy to accept all the implausible biblical myths about the creation of the earth and man and reject the possible truth that we were genetically modified from the primitive sub-humans by some advanced, million year evolved race of beings, perhaps as an experiment? This doesn’t deny Gods creation, it just moves it back in time and begs the question, who created the advanced civilization that is responsible for us in our present form?
 
Vonsalza said:
really enjoyed that.
Click to expand...
@Vonsalza totally off topic but what’s your opinion on Fr. Seraphim Rose?

As far as his faith and morals are concerned, I consider him to have lived a Saintly life and I have no problem at all venerating him as a Saint.

But geessssh… His writings MaDonne! Talk about crackpot… He espouses a bizarre neo-Gnostic doctrine called “aerial tollboths” which makes even the most extreme medieval Catholic descriptions of Purgatory seem very sober. And don’t even get me started on his creationism and conspiracy theories…

What’s disturbing is how many internet hyperdox seem to have made him their patron.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top