If evolution theory were true

  • Thread starter Thread starter abcdefg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
abcdefg:
Can you refute my words? No?
each of my enemy turns away disappointed, I praise God for supporting me during the debate:gopray2:
Click to expand...
A last thought. I never considered you an enemy because that is against what Christ has taught me. My only disappointment is that you consider anyone who disagrees with you as an enemy.
That is what Satan teaches!!
 
40.png
thistle:
A last thought. I never considered you an enemy because that is against what Christ has taught me. My only disappointment is that you consider anyone who disagrees with you as an enemy.
That is what Satan teaches!!
Click to expand...
I agree with Church whole heartedly, from tradition, Bible to current magisterium. yet you don’t agree with Tradition and distort Bible.

While I don’t want to call you “Enemy of Faith”, Church traditionally condemns heretics as “Enemy of Faith”. Does Church follow teachings of Satan?

Your hostility to Apostolic Tradition is overwhelming.
 
40.png
abcdefg:
I agree with Church whole heartedly, from tradition, Bible to current magisterium. yet you don’t agree with Tradition. distorts Bible.

While I don’t want to call you “Enemy of Faith”, Church traditionally condemns heretics as “Enemy of Faith”. Does Church follow teachings of Satan?

Your hostility to Apostolic Tradition is overwhelming.
Click to expand...
So you are saying all the posters in this thread who disagreed with you are heretics??!!
I think you need some phsychiatric help!
 
40.png
thistle:
So you are saying all the posters in this thread who disagreed with you are heretics??!!
I think you need some phsychiatric help!
Click to expand...
All posters don’t agree with me are my enemies in this thread. I can’t say they’re heretics as I have no authority to declare someone as a heretic.
Don’t say something in the name of me, OK? It’s against rules.
 
In my humble opinion, part of the “problem” is that humans have brains that are the size of peas and understanding that is the equivalent of a two-year old’s… [gimme, gimme, gimme].

In my humble opinion, the word “omnipotent” is misleading and erroneous when used to describe God.

God is INFINITE. The word “omnipotent” is totally inadequate and … almost “belittling” when used to describe how GREAT the Infinite God truly is.

I suggest that we meditate on God’s Infinity… in both time, and space… and also in His SIZE and in His creativity and in his generosity and in His imagination and in His number of dimensions.

We humans exist in only three dimensions - four, if we include time.

[How would a one dimensional creature… like one of these little dots… describe a three dimensional universe?]

We humans can imagine hardly anything… space travel in ships or maybe by teleportation with a machine … some people talk about time travel, but have NO IDEA of how that might actually work…

And SIZE!!! God is so infinitely large and we are the eqivalent of the smallest fly speck on the wall. Maybe even less…

And HE condescended to become one of us…

Now, tell me about evolution…
 
40.png
abcdefg:
Where’re other evolutionists?
Click to expand...
I am not quite sure what you mean by “evolutionist”. I accept evolution because the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. I reject special creation as a scientific theory because there is no scientific evidence to support it. Do you have any evidence to show?
40.png
abcdefg:
since Darwinism is no science, why it can be taught in science class?
Click to expand...
The theory of evolution certainly is science so it is fine to teach it in science class. Why do you think that “Darwinism” is not science?

rossum
 
40.png
rossum:
I am not quite sure what you mean by “evolutionist”. I accept evolution because the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. I reject special creation as a scientific theory because there is no scientific evidence to support it.
Click to expand...
40.png
rossum:
The theory of evolution certainly is science so it is fine to teach it in science class. Why do you think that “Darwinism” is not science?

rossum
Click to expand...
MaggieOH supports evolution “theory” and states Darwinism is not science
Not strictly my words, but from one of YOUR pals.
40.png
rossum:
Do you have any evidence to show?
Click to expand...
This thread is about theology (mainly Catholic theology). if you like to discuss about it from a secular point of view start another thread. there’s a thread in secular news forum about it. but it’s better to start another one in apologetics since there’s no news in it.
 
40.png
hecd2:
Jason,
Apologies for calling you Jeremy up the thread. Inexcusable.

This is very interesting - there are few iif any technological solutions that are not prefigured in the biological world. A scanning eye is fascinating to someone who has worked with scanning optical systems.

I think there is room on this thread for the grown-ups to have an exchange, don’t you think? I see that you are using the fact of evolution to figure out conserved developmental features in vertebrate eyes. In particular you are doing work on retinal progenitor cells in zebrafish, animals that can regernerate their retinas That’s cool.

I am particularly interested in the work in your lab on the role of Mueller glial cells (from the lab website). I understand the role of the Notch signalling pathway in cell to cell signalling and cell differentaition, but I don’t understand the precise hypothesis you guys are working on. Is it that Notch signalling regulates the Mueller cells to develop as glial cells rather than neurons so that if the Notch pathway is activated in teleosts then retinal regeneration is blocked? - the idea then being that down-regulation of Notch could lead to retinal regeneration from Mueller cells? Sorry if this is complete garbage - have I understood anything at all?

What has this to do with apologetics? Well, it’s a partial antidote to the appalling childish behaviour we’ve seen on this thread and the fundamentalist argument that the Theory of Evolution is useless (as well as wrong). But actually, it has no apologetic foundation - I’m just interested.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
Agreed ‘evolution’ has no apologetic foundation! 😃 I’m enjoying the dance between you and Jason. I’ll be polite by allowing you both to continue before I take him for a spin on the dance floor. 🙂

Alec, I’ve been reading articles from your website for almost four years! Your article, **An Introduction to the History and Basic Scientific Concepts in Evolution ** is fantastic. You’re a real hero of mine. 😃

A must read for this thread:
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
 
40.png
abcdefg:
MaggieOH supports evolution “theory” and states Darwinism is not science
Not strictly my words, but from one of YOUR pals.
Click to expand...
You are right, my apologies. Whether or not Darwinism is science depends on what definition of Darwinism is being used. The theory of evolution is certainly science.
40.png
abcdefg:
if you like to discuss about it from a secular point of view start another thread.
Click to expand...
If we assume there can be no difference between God’s word, correctly interpreted, and God’s creation, correctly interpreted, then all “secular” discussion of the scientific evidence also has relevance to determining what is the correct interpretation of God’s word. One thing that seems obvious to me from this thread is that there is disagreement within the Catholic church about the correct interpretation of the various catechisms and other documents. Perhaps the direct study of creation can help to resolve these differences correctly.

Again, apologies for my mistake,

rossum
 
40.png
rossum:
You are right, my apologies.
Click to expand...
You’re one of the nicest evolutionists, aren’t you?👍
40.png
rossum:
If we assume there can be no difference between God’s word, correctly interpreted, and God’s creation, correctly interpreted, then all “secular” discussion of the scientific evidence also has relevance to determining what is the correct interpretation of God’s word. One thing that seems obvious to me from this thread is that there is disagreement within the Catholic church about the correct interpretation of the various catechisms and other documents. Perhaps the direct study of creation can help to resolve these differences correctly.

Again, apologies for my mistake,

rossum
Click to expand...
One thing you said well is science doesn’t contradict theology in other words truth doesn’t contradict truth. If it’s an ambiguous question with no Tradition. for example : Are there aliens? while I think there’s no reason why God should create aliens, I don’t oppose research to find aliens. (at least they’re unable to find one).
evolution on the other hand is different in that Church Tradition directly teaches against it. Tradition is infallible, one should study where evolution is wrong instead of where Tradition is wrong.
 
40.png
wildleafblower:
Agreed ‘evolution’ has no apologetic foundation! 😃 I’m enjoying the dance between you and Jason. I’ll be polite by allowing you both to continue before I take him for a spin on the dance floor. 🙂

Alec, I’ve been reading articles from your website for almost four years! Your article, **An Introduction to the History and Basic Scientific Concepts in Evolution **is fantastic. You’re a real hero of mine. 😃

A must read for this thread:
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
Click to expand...
So much fear for Tradition.
btw how’s your process trying to canonize hecd or phil? (“have a ticket to heaven”, I guess?)
 
40.png
abcdefg:
So much fear for Tradition.
Click to expand...
Oh, brother !! 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛
btw how’s your process trying to canonize hecd or phil? (“have a ticket to heaven”, I guess?)
Click to expand...
How clever. Do please revel in the sound of one hand clapping, won’t you? 😉 :rolleyes:
 
40.png
hecd2:
Jason,
Apologies for calling you Jeremy up the thread. Inexcusable.

This is very interesting - there are few iif any technological solutions that are not prefigured in the biological world. A scanning eye is fascinating to someone who has worked with scanning optical systems.

I think there is room on this thread for the grown-ups to have an exchange, don’t you think? I see that you are using the fact of evolution to figure out conserved developmental features in vertebrate eyes. In particular you are doing work on retinal progenitor cells in zebrafish, animals that can regernerate their retinas That’s cool.

**I am particularly interested in the work in your lab on the role of Mueller glial cells (from the lab website). ** I understand the role of the Notch signalling pathway in cell to cell signalling and cell differentaition, but I don’t understand the precise hypothesis you guys are working on. Is it that Notch signalling regulates the Mueller cells to develop as glial cells rather than neurons so that if the Notch pathway is activated in teleosts then retinal regeneration is blocked? - the idea then being that down-regulation of Notch could lead to retinal regeneration from Mueller cells? Sorry if this is complete garbage - have I understood anything at all?

What has this to do with apologetics? Well, it’s a partial antidote to the appalling childish behaviour we’ve seen on this thread and the fundamentalist argument that the Theory of Evolution is useless (as well as wrong). But actually, it has no apologetic foundation - I’m just interested.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
Hi again Alec,

I’ve noticed Jason Meyers has been on-line at least several times today and hasn’t yet answered your questions. Let’s hope he’ll return tomorrow. You stated to him, “I am particularly interested in the work in your lab on the role of Mueller glial cells (from the lab website).” Is there a website?! 🙂 Jason, may I please see the website. (Or instant message me with it.) I’m looking forward to our waltz. I promise not to step on your toes. 😉

A warm ‘thank you’ in advance to you both for the upcoming exchange of information. It’s thrilling and refreshing to have two scientists willing to share their knowledge with this website. I’m thrilled beyond belief! And your display of patience reminds me of my mums. She was and still remains in my heart and mind forever and ever, a saint. Never an unkind word passed Mother’s lips, always patient, soft and gentle. I see a flicker of her within you both. You both have the patience of a saint! 😃 As far as I’m concerned, you’re the chosen ones with a ticket to heaven! You see, I believe, St. Michael the Archangel has been keeping his eye on you guys. 😉

And again thanks, Alec, for your exceptional article, An Introduction to the History and Basic Scientific Concepts in Evolution. You’ve made it easy for even a layperson to understand. 👍

evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

Happy New Year to everyone! May the Holy Spirit of God be with you every step of the way, uplifting your spirit and filling your heart with love & joy. . :love:
 
abc << So much fear for Tradition. btw how’s your process trying to canonize hecd or phil? (“have a ticket to heaven”, I guess?) >>

Yeah I noticed that. St. PhilVaz, and St. Alec of EvolutionPages, I like the ring of that. We having nothing to fear from Tradition or modern science. I agree. The Church and traditional doctrine and theology tells us who we are (made in the image of God) and Who did it and why while science tells us how we got here (by evolution). See especially Catechism 159, 283-284 once again and Ratzinger’s commentary on Genesis (he was head of doctrine in the Catholic Church at the time he wrote that, appointed by John Paul II).

Further while your sense of humor is not lacking, your grammar and spelling has not improved, and English is apparently not your native language. Please don’t tell me it is. Prove me wrong and please write one complete grammatically correct and understandable sentence. 😃

Maybe you are an "anti-evolution bot" created by AnswersInGenesis or Kent Hovind. That would explain some things.

Phil P
 
40.png
abcdefg:
You’re one of the nicest evolutionists, aren’t you?👍

One thing you said well is science doesn’t contradict theology in other words truth doesn’t contradict truth. If it’s an ambiguous question with no Tradition. for example : Are there aliens? while I think there’s no reason why God should create aliens, I don’t oppose research to find aliens. (at least they’re unable to find one).
evolution on the other hand is different in that Church Tradition directly teaches against it. Tradition is infallible, one should study where evolution is wrong instead of where Tradition is wrong.
Click to expand...
Actually it is NOT Tradition which is infallible.
What is infallible is Church Dogma as defined by the Magesterium based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
 
40.png
thistle:
Actually it is NOT Tradition which is infallible.
What is infallible is Church Dogma as defined by the Magesterium based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Click to expand...
Then show me why Roman Catechism and Baltimore and council decisions are not dogmas.

a little late, but:
muộn một chút, nhưng:

Happy New Year!
Chúc mừng năm mới! (Vietnamese equivalent)
 
abc << Happy New Year! Chúc mừng năm mới! (Vietnamese equivalent) >>

I knew it! Vietnamese is your native language, right? That explains it. I apologize for my earlier comments about your English. But please you would do well to study the science behind evolution before condemning it. I don’t think you’ve done that yet.

As far as I know, Catechisms are not dogma, but they do reflect dogma when they quote the Ecumenical Councils. Councils and the Popes define dogma. I’ve answered your appeals to the Councils (namely Lateran IV, Florence, and Vatican Council I) for a “six days” of “creation week” from Sungenis in this closed thread. The Council of Cologne which Sungenis also cites does appear to reject a “spontaneous” evolution, but that is a local not ecumenical council. Both the modern Catechism and Vatican Council II have NO problem with faith and modern science.

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church sums up my position on Catholic dogma on creation. Dogma pertains to faith and morals only, evolution is a scientific issue and stands or falls on the scientific evidence.

Phil P
 
40.png
wildleafblower:
I’ve noticed Jason Meyers has been on-line at least several times today and hasn’t yet answered your questions. Let’s hope he’ll return tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I decided not to reply to the thread as it was quite off topic for the thread, so I just sent it via private message. I’m more than happy to talk about research, biology, etc., but I hate to see threads ending up wildly off topic. Especially when the interesting discussion gets swamped out… That said, I’m all for interesting discussion of science and theology!
JRM
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
abc << Happy New Year! Chúc mừng năm mới! (Vietnamese equivalent) >>

I knew it! Vietnamese is your native language, right? That explains it.
Click to expand...
See how fast you rush to decision? I never told you I can speak another language and you simply don’t think I can speak a third language to end up with the wrong answer. you try to judge things without taking in all possiblities. so goes that evolution “theory”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top