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

[edwest2]

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.

Humani Generis?

“36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

Junk DNA is not junk.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4870183/

The human genome is far more complicated than once thought, and as the level of complexity increases, it becomes obvious that it did not order itself.

Ed

 

[reggieM]

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 think, as the article stated, evolutionary science rejects the existence of a single first couple, human man and woman. Yes, we can bring various interpretations - but that is outside of science.

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).

Yes, that is fine but science does not make that distinction. Evolution speaks only of humans and evolution claims that the difference between human and animal is physical mutations preserved by natural selection for the benefit of reproductive success and survival. We can say differently, but in so doing, we’re rejecting the scientific explanation of the origin of man and (correctly, in my opinion) replacing it with our own.

(If you’'re approaching it as a Thomist, the distinction is in the immortal soul due to a rational intellect).

Yes, I would agree - but as above, evolutionary science makes no provision for this and claims it can recognize the difference between human and animal based on fossils alone (which cannot tell us the presence of a soul). If we’re all agreeing that the evolutionary science is wrong, that’s an important point,

 

[Roseeurekacross]

It’s ok to have carbon dating and dinosaurs. These are also creations of God.

 

[reggieM]

St. John Paul II’s document stated that we can accept some aspects of evolutionary theory but not all.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

A wise pastor laid this to rest for me. He said that the Church has not defined whether man’s body had evolved. Man’s soul, on the other hand, could not have evolved and is a gift of life from God. End of conflict in my mind,.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

It’s the media, the education, the science, the large community of athiests with tons of video’s all over youtube putting doubt in our mind’s.

Surely it was easier to have faith in the past compared to now, is our generation therefore going to get a greater reward given that all these things go against us?

People say it’s wrong to ask for a sign, but i’m struggling to have faith after learning the things i did at school and on youtube via documentaries.

I admit that my frame of mind upon asking this question is fustrated and angry.

I haven’t read this entire thread.

Carbon dating only goes back 50 thousand years with any accuracy. There are much more advanced methods for dating beyond that.

Dinosaurs are God’s creatures too. They existed. We have skeletons. The Bible discusses great creatures swimming in the seas.

Scientist does not equal atheist, anymore then accountant, dressmaker, politician, doctor equals atheist.

I think it would be incredibly difficult to hold faith in an era where you were killed for professing your faith, then now , in western nations.

Peacenmercy why not try a little theological reflection. Look for God in the small and the ordinary in your daily life, and look for how God is acting in your daily life. It’s a reciprocal process. Live in God , washing dishes, walking, eating, sleeping, interacting.

 

[Wesrock]

I think, as the article stated, evolutionary science rejects the existence of a single first couple, human man and woman. Yes, we can bring various interpretations - but that is outside of science.

Yes, that is fine but science does not make that distinction. Evolution speaks only of humans and evolution claims that the difference between human and animal is physical mutations preserved by natural selection for the benefit of reproductive success and survival. We can say differently, but in so doing, we’re rejecting the scientific explanation of the origin of man and (correctly, in my opinion) replacing it with our own.

Yes, I would agree - but as above, evolutionary science makes no provision for this and claims it can recognize the difference between human and animal based on fossils alone (which cannot tell us the presence of a soul). If we’re all agreeing that the evolutionary science is wrong, that’s an important point,

I think you’re conflating peoples interpretations and extrapolations of data with the scientific method. Just because the empirical data provides no commentary and is limited to the quantifiable doesn’t mean it needs to be understood in a materialist sense. So-and-so scientist making materialist inductions isn’t the same thing as the empirical data that suggests evolution. Empirical data made through the scientific method doesn’t make the claim that humans and animals are distinguished by only a few mutations. It’s data, it makes no claims. Men speaking of what we can quantifiably say (if I’m being charitable) state that genetically this may be so. Men speaking from a materialist philosophy go further, but that’s not equatable with the idea of evolution in general.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

True. And we are called to build a strong relationship with Him - a friendship. He has all of the answers to the universe. He is even smarter than atheistic scientists. That is hard to imagine, I know. But immersion in the Faith - prayer, Bible, sacraments, apologetics, growth in virtue, adoration – will serve us far better than atheistic ideologies on Judgement Day.

Seriously reggae,

Are you saying the profession of scientists are all atheists? Where, then, does that leave our Holy Father, Pope Francis, also a scientist.

 

[reggieM]

Seriously reggae,

Are you saying the profession of scientists are all atheists? .

Yes, I firmly believe that all atheistic scientists are atheists.

 

[edwest2]

This issue is brought up here on a regular basis. Based on that alone, anyone can show that an “acceptance and reinforcement” view is being imposed. Believe it? You’re fine. Don’t believe it and get ready for trouble. Evolution has no practical use in science.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130111008.htm

Ed

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Yes, I firmly believe that all atheistic scientists are atheists.

Do you believe all scientist are atheists?

 

[reggieM]

I think you’re conflating peoples interpretations and extrapolations of data with the scientific method. Just because the empirical data provides no commentary and is limited to the quantifiable doesn’t mean it needs to be understood in a materialist sense. So-and-so scientist making materialist inductions isn’t the same thing as the empirical data that suggests evolution. Empirical data made through the scientific method doesn’t make the claim that humans and animals are distinguished by only a few mutations. It’s data, it makes no claims.

Yes, exactly. It is the evolutionary scientific community that makes various claims. In fact, the data does not even say that evolution occurred. It’s just data. If we want to bring a Catholic interpretation to the data, let’s recognize that it conflicts with that of the evolutionary science community.

Men speaking of what we can quantifiably say (if I’m being charitable) state that genetically this may be so. Men speaking from a materialist philosophy go further, but that’s not equatable with the idea of evolution in general.

If we accept Dr. Kemp’s proposal (and other Catholics have proposed similar), there is no way that science can declare when the first human beings appeared on earth. Because science cannot determine when God infused souls into non-humans. The soul is not something that science can directly observe. There is nothing in science that can say the soul exists. Thus, science could never know when the first humans appeared on earth. Two identical fossils could be of a human and non-human except for the existence of a soul.
This radically conflicts with evolutionary theory which proposes that it knows when the first human beings appeared - and it supposedly knows that by physical, scientific evidence alone.
Science cannot even define what a human being truly is.
There can be no evolutionary gradualism between human and animal.
As St. John Paul II said - there is an ontological leap between the two and science is blind to that.

 

[reggieM]

Do you believe all scientist are atheists?

What do you think?

 

[Wesrock]

Thus, science could never know when the first humans appeared on earth.

It can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint when the ontological leap was made, other than perhaps by getting data on when the leap is demonstrated in the culture with language, music, etc… though it wouldn’t be definitive.

But I think it can more easily determine when physiological humanoids emerged, and spread, and the numbers. Even when certain physiological species of men came to be (eructus, habillus, neanderthals, homo sapiens…). Those are quantifiable, if true.

 

[NonTimendum]

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.

This is a remarkable case of cafeteria science. Evolutionary “science” of MAN is incompatible with Catholic dogma, so the only way to accept both is to make up silly events that have no Biblical or “scientific” basis. Better to accept one or the other and not sit on the uncomfortable fence.

I do love the idea of a theological monkey with language, society, technology, and rationality but no soul though. A wonderfully cruel and deliciously arrogant belief. Evolution is silly, evolution of Man is abominable.

 

[reggieM]

It can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint when the ontological leap was made, other than perhaps by getting data on when the leap is demonstrated in the culture with language, music, etc… though it wouldn’t be definitive.

But I think it can more easily determine when physiological humanoids emerged, and spread, and the numbers. Even when certain physiological species of men came to be (eructus, habillus, neanderthals, homo sapiens…). Those are quantifiable, if true.

The ontological leap falsifies evolutionary gradualism. It’s an intervention by God into nature. Those are a couple of hot-button statements for some Catholics because it means we have to stand against some scientific interpretations. I think it carries many more implications because we have to be willing to state that most of the evolutionary biology community is wrong on this fundamental issue. I’m not pressuring you or anyone else to say that, but I just want to point it out.

 

[Wesrock]

The ontological leap falsifies evolutionary gradualism. It’s an intervention by God into nature. Those are a couple of hot-button statements for some Catholics because it means we have to stand against some scientific interpretations. I think it carries many more implications because we have to be willing to state that most of the evolutionary biology community is wrong on this fundamental issue. I’m not pressuring you or anyone else to say that, but I just want to point it out.

Falsifies is a strong word. Gradualism applies to evolution as a whole, not just man, and there’s no declaration that it’s wrong here. And certainly, the intelligence of humanoid species could still gradually improve, given that much of human consciousness is physiological. An alternative to gradualism is puntuated equilibrium, anyway.

 

[edwest2]

Do you believe all scientist are atheists?

Most leading scientists are:

nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Falsifies is a strong word. Gradualism applies to evolution as a whole, not just man, and there’s no declaration that it’s wrong here. And certainly, the intelligence of humanoid species could still gradually improve, given that much of human consciousness is physiological. An alternative to gradualism is puntuated equilibrium, anyway.

“Punctuated equilibrium”? Really? Stephen Jay Gould. I don’t buy it. Evolutionary psychology is an even worse idea.

Ed

 

[reggieM]

Gradualism applies to evolution as a whole, not just man, and there’s no declaration that it’s wrong here.

Gradualism in evolution would mean what we discussed - that the difference between animal and man is one of physical mutations alone. That by mutations, a non-human becomes human. This is done through one or many mutations, gradually as a population changes due to inheritance. This is what all the mainstream evolutionary literature states.

And certainly, the intelligence of humanoid species could still gradually improve, given that much of human consciousness is physiological. An alternative to gradualism is puntuated equilibrium, anyway.

I think I know where you’re going with this, and I’ve seen it too many times from my beloved fellow Catholics … but I’ll just say …
You see the truth. You’ve even expressed it somewhat. But when it comes to drawing that dreadful conclusion, you back away. You can’t bring yourself to say that the evolutionary biology community is simply wrong on this point. Am I right?