How to have strong faith in a world of Carbon dating, Dinosaurs, Science, Atheist Debaters

[NonTimendum]

Carbon dating has not been shown to be inaccurate, and isn’t the only method we have used to determine that the planet / universe is really, really, old.

Evolution is pretty much a settled subject. We have a fairly extensive fossil record showcasing the development of what eventually became the human body. We have also observed micro-evolution within our lifetime.

Most of science is not bull. Some “science” is bull, but most of it is based in sound observation and study.

Carbon dating is very unconvincing.

It’s a settled subject because it is absolutely absurd. It supposes thousands of mutated generations with half formed but still useless organs were somehow more capable of surviving than their unmutated brethren who did not possess these energy consuming but useless organs. It is also a metaphysical impossibility and also the ‘evolution of man’ has been, I believe, declared a heresy. Catholics are bound to reject it.

Sound observation and study… Dont make me laugh.

 

[Wesrock]

… the ‘evolution of man’ has been, I believe, declared a heresy. Catholics are bound to reject it.

That’s not true. We are bound to reject understandings that reject that there was a first true man and woman, original sin, and the transmission of that sin.

But the basic premise of evolution doesn’t rule out any of those. The science of evolution offers no commentary on the soul or sin, neither ruling it out or proving it; it’s silent. Please be careful not to misrepresent what the Church teaches.

 

[commenter5]

Carbon dating is a crock. Evolution is laughably stupid as a theory. 90% of “science” is complete BS designed to make you doubt and make uneducated people feel smarter because they believe the “right” things (which loosely translates to some article they read about the hadron collider on Facebook)

It is very easy to trick superstitious people. Most of these atheists are very superstitious.

Best policy is to understand our ideas about the world could be wrong, but the Word Of God cannot be wrong. Once you free yourself of this antitheistic desire to corraberate the Word of God with the words of men, you will feel a lot better about your doubts, you will be liberated from an impossible burden and your faith will grow much stronger. You dont need a second opinion when God tells you something.

Did you miss your lecture today, “A southern baptist view of the phrenology of the negro”?
(Any idot should be able to tell that this is satire.)

 

[NonTimendum]

That’s not true. We are bound to reject understandings that reject that there was a first true man and woman, original sin, and the transmission of that sin.

But the basic premise of evolution doesn’t rule out any of those. The science of evolution offers no commentary on the soul or sin, neither ruling it out or proving it; it’s silent. Please be careful not to misrepresent what the Church teaches.

Evolution of man does not allow for first man first woman.

 

[NonTimendum]

Did you miss your lecture today, “A southern baptist view of the phrenology of the negro”?

Wonderful refutation there. In shocked that conservatives dont believe you people are real Christians.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Carbon dating is very unconvincing.

It’s a settled subject because it is absolutely absurd. It supposes thousands of mutated generations with half formed but still useless organs were somehow more capable of surviving than their unmutated brethren who did not possess these energy consuming but useless organs. It is also a metaphysical impossibility and also the ‘evolution of man’ has been, I believe, declared a heresy. Catholics are bound to reject it.

Sound observation and study… Dont make me laugh.

Simply stating that it’s unconvincing doesn’t actually make it inaccurate. Unless you have evidence of it being unreliable, you’re simply rejecting things that don’t suit your preconceived notions.

… I can’t even begin to address the problems in this… your understanding of evolution rivals that of a newborn. The mutations which are helpful are the ones that survive. As for having tons of useless appendages and genetic tidbits… have you ever studied the human genome? We are full of useless genetic **** that no longer serves a purpose. Take the gallbladder for instance. It’s used to digest grass… which we haven’t really done as a species for a few dozen millennia. Also, evolution has not not been declared heresy. In fact, there’s an entire encyclical dedicated to the subject and how it is compatible with the Catholic faith.

Here it is, in its entirety, read it and learn something: Humani Generis, 1950, Pope Pius XII

Instead of being self-assured of your own intelligence and correctness, why don’t you take some time and learn what the religion you profess to believe actually teaches. Frankly, you sound like an atheist pretending to be a Catholic caricature in an effort to make themselves feel more secure about their lack of belief by make believing that all Catholics are uninformed idiots. Did you know that the Church was the driving force behind the sciences up until the modern era, and is still heavily involved in the sciences to this day?

Seriously, spend some time and inform yourself, because you are woefully ignorant and are only giving ammo to the atheists by being intentionally ignorant.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Evolution of man does not allow for first man first woman.

Actually, it does. It only speaks to the mechanics by which the human form was developed. The first true humans as we understand it are those who were first ensouled, Adam and Eve. The point at which they received souls has nothing to do with evolution, and is an article of faith. Again, read Humani Generis.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…one needs to understand the amount of time that I’ve been exposed to the world of science which often consists of many atheist’s looking for answers without a creator.

By orders of magnitude, there are many more scientists WITH religious affiliation than there are scientists who are atheists.

Seriously, the ‘science versus religion’ canard has been substantially refuted and there is a huge body of literature available on the topic.

I suspect that the counter-apologist atheists who try to use this polemic are mostly aiming their arguments at NON-scientific believers rather than occupational scientists who are believers.

 

[PluniaZ]

Modern society thinks it knows what happened thousands, millions and billions of years ago based on less than a hundred years of observations. Any hypothesis about the past is simply not testable.

A testable hypothesis would require us to observe multiple 13 billion year periods, over and over again, and see what residual effects were left in the period corresponding to our own. If the same residual effects were repeatedly left in our period each time, then you could formulate a scientific theory based on the evidence we have observed in the past 100 years.

But since we can’t do anything like that, all the claims you hear about what happened in the past are just rampant speculation.

 

[NonTimendum]

Simply stating that it’s unconvincing doesn’t actually make it inaccurate. Unless you have evidence of it being unreliable, your simply rejecting things that don’t suit your preconceived notions.

Burden if proof is on you, bud.

The mutations which are helpful are the ones that survive.

A non functioning half-formed and useless organ is helpful?

As for having tons of useless appendages and genetic tidbits… have you ever studied the human genome? We are full

of useless genetic **** that no longer serves a purpose.
Profanity is disgusting.

Here it is, in its entirety: Humani Generis, 1950, Pope Pius XII

maybe when I get time.

Instead of being self-assured of your own intelligence and correctness, why don’t you take some time and learn what the religion you profess to believe actually teaches.

what like kindness, charity, and meekness? Id suggest the same to you.

 

[reggieM]

It only speaks to the mechanics by which the human form was developed.

Could you help me with a reference to that idea in the evolutionary literature, please? And some major evolutionary biologists who assert the same about “the human form” and the limits of what evolution did in the origin of man?

Thanks.

 

[Wesrock]

Evolution of man does not allow for first man first woman.

It does. And yes, I’m familiar with the science.

 

[reggieM]

It does. And yes, I’m familiar with the science.

Reference please?

 

[EasterJoy]

I guess the reason I ask this is because I’m a relatively new member of my church, although my mum is a practicing Catholic, I’ve never really had that much insight into Christianity as a whole, I spend years of my life curious about God but have always struggled with faith, one needs to understand the amount of time that I’ve been exposed to the world of science which often consists of many atheist’s looking for answers without a creator.

Simply put, I want to believe in God but I don’t have much faith.

Maybe look up the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, if you need help seeing that there is no conflict between science and faith. Some truth can be reached at by the scientific method; some cannot. You cannot put God to the test.

pas.va/content/accademia/en.html

 

[Wesrock]

Reference please?

For one, the Church has stated
(1) It doesn’t see evolution of man (in general) as contrary to the faith
(2) That there are specific articles of faith we cannot reject in acceoting evolution.

The key point being number two.

I have in mind Kenneth Kemp’s proposal Science, Theology, and Monogenism: www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf

Basically, the first true man and woman are distinguished from the physiologically identical animals they are descended from by the gift from God of a rational soul and intellect, which can’t be an emergent property of purely physical means. I would see this happening at conception, not in the middle of their lives, but not sure Kemp makes that point.

Anyway, this isn’t to say that Kemp’s proposal is absolutely what happened, but simply an example that the current understanding of human evolution is not de facto mytually exclusive with Church teaching. It’s understood through Church teaching, so as not to reject essential dogma about the forst true man and woman, original sin, and the transmission of original sin.

Debate on this point can be saved for a separate topic, but the point is one doesn’t need exclude the other.

 

[Wesrock]

Could you help me with a reference to that idea in the evolutionary literature, please? And some major evolutionary biologists who assert the same about “the human form” and the limits of what evolution did in the origin of man?

Thanks.

Why would it be in the evolutionary literature? It’s a tangential topic to our genetic and physiological history.

 

[reggieM]

For one, the Church has stated
(1) It doesn’t see evolution of man (in general) as contrary to the faith
(2) That there are specific articles of faith we cannot reject in acceoting evolution.

The key point being number two.

I have in mind Kenneth Kemp’s proposal Science, Theology, and Monogenism: www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf

Basically, the first true man and woman are distinguished from the physiologically identical animals they are descended from by the gift from God of a rational soul and intellect, which can’t be an emergent property of purely physical means. I would see this happening at conception, not in the middle of their lives, but not sure Kemp makes that point.

Anyway, this isn’t to say that Kemp’s proposal is absolutely what happened, but simply an example that the current understanding of human evolution is not de facto mytually exclusive with Church teaching. It’s understood through Church teaching, so as not to reject essential dogma about the forst true man and woman, original sin, and the transmission of original sin.

Debate on this point can be saved for a separate topic, but the point is one doesn’t need exclude the other.

Thank you for this. I have seen other ideas of this sort - God infusing a human, rational soul into two non-human animals.

The article does not support your contention (unless I misread your comment) that evolutionary science supports the existence of a first man and woman. In fact, the article you posted states the opposite.

Monogenesis remains as a logical possibility, though one that
seems inconsistent with the scientific evidence…
It seems, therefore, unlikely (on the basis of scientific evidence) that there
was a single first couple which emerged alone from a biologically prehuman
population to become the ancestors of all later human beings. Modern science
suggests not a monogenetic, but a polygenetic, origin for man.

 

[reggieM]

Why would it be in the evolutionary literature? It’s a tangential topic to our genetic and physiological history.

He stated that evolution only speaks of the mechanics of the human form.
So, I want to know where in the evolutionary literature it states that.

 

[Wesrock]

Thank you for this. I have seen other ideas of this sort - God infusing a human, rational soul into two non-human animals.

The article does not support your contention (unless I misread your comment) that evolutionary science supports the existence of a first man and woman. In fact, the article you posted states the opposite.

I didn’t state that science has identified a first man or woman or any such thing, nor do I think it will or needs to. I simply said the science doesn’t exclude a Christian understanding if we distinguish between what a true human is (soul and body) and what an animal is (body only). (If you’'re approaching it as a Thomist, the distinction is in the immortal soul due to a rational intellect).

Anyway, please keep reading, he goes over all kinds of background and seeming objections before making a proposal on how he’d address it.

I’m not asking you to accept evolution, but the mechanics of evolution, genetic history, etc… doesn’t (1) need exclude Church teaching or (2) need be interpreted in a materialist, atheist context.

 

[Dorothy]

Carbon dating is very unconvincing.

It’s a settled subject because it is absolutely absurd. It supposes thousands of mutated generations with half formed but still useless organs were somehow more capable of surviving than their unmutated brethren who did not possess these energy consuming but useless organs. It is also a metaphysical impossibility and also the ‘evolution of man’ has been, I believe, declared a heresy. Catholics are bound to reject it.

Sound observation and study… Dont make me laugh.

The evolution of man has not been declared a heresy. It is possible that at a specific point in time God breathed souls into a man and woman.

Please read the Encyclical “Humani Generis”,…you can focus what is written in in #35,36, 37 and following if you don’t want to read the entire Encyclical.

Peace,

Dorothy