They do?Most Catholics do believe in evolution. Despite atheist claims, Catholicism and science can in fact go hand in hand. The big bang theory was first thought up by a Jesuit Priest after all
There is no scientific evidence for the soul, although some try to connect human development with the soul which cannot be examined by science.
Thanks for the endorsement.
You should probably re-read what I said, because you seem to have not understood a single word. Also, you can loose the patronizing attitude youāre using to try to anger me. Itās not going to work.Thanks for the endorsement.
Give me your three best from the IDvolution resource page that support your claim they oppose IDvolution.
I am not ashamed to be and ID proponent and dialoguing here. IDvolution is a philosophy and there is no censureship on the free expression of ideas. It is based on Revelation and the latest science. Anyone will quickly see references to peer reviewed papers.
Anyone is welcome to specifically argue and make REAL arguments against it not āhit postsā such as this.
Iāll let it restā¦if we continue another thread will be shut down.
Good idea. Run away when you know you have no ground to stand on.
I believe there is no past, or rather the past exists only as an element of the imagination, of a particular metaphysics. Derrida argues that the whole concept of historicism is founded upon logocentrism. The competing narratives/fictions/fact-ions/myths of evolution and creation are just that.
I know the stuff, thanks.The Catholic Church deals with the whole person including the spiritual soul.
For some extremely interesting reading, check out paragraphs 355 - 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Warning ā
This CCC section contains some heavy stuff, so it is advised to keep dark chocolate nearby.
Blessings,
granny
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
You are right. Currently.
False. Organic chemistry that allowed for the origin of life required a reducing atmosphere on the Earth, or at minimum, a neutral one. In todayās oxidizing atmosphere such chemistry would be impossible outside currently living beings themselves. The oxidizing atmosphere was created by life, so life itself effectively ensured that new life currently cannot arise from scratch.
SaintPatrick333;8996709:
[Headlineope says evolution canāt be proven]
I added the headline title myself so some one can quickly asses what the article is about.
But my understanding is that nothing in science is ever āproven.ā At most it can be supported by evidence (by being successful at making predictions, providing explanations for observations, so on). Also itās possible for some one to believe something is true without being able to prove it. So I donāt think the article contradicts SaintPatrick333ās statement
Greater diversification is represented in the number of species. Survival of the fittest does not imply that new phyla will appear from nowhere. We are not becoming less diversified, we are becoming more āfitā for our environment. For example, if mammals went extinct tomorrow by an asteroid, a snake who buries himself underground will find a new world in which predators no longer remain.
Earth was an extremely hostile environment 4 billion years ago! Here is an experiment which attempted to recreate conditions of early Earth. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment) My issue with your statement is that it seems you are assuming Earth has always been like this. Letās say, for the sake of discussion, that early Earth had an extremely large amount of methane. The early forms of life (which would be nothing more than simple chemical reactions) would be like a plantās photosynthesisā¦ or perhaps imagine Earth as a piece of bread which eventually mold grows on. It would āfeedā off of the methane but releasing a byproduct. Letās say this byproduct was oxygen, which would thus be released but remain close to the planet due to gravity. Rock minerals are dense and heavy, so the byproduct oxygen would be above the rock, or āatmosphere.ā
No because evolution doesnāt tell us how life begins. That is a completely different field of science! (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) Evolution only tells us how life changes and adapts, not how it is originated. This is something I believe Darwin was unaware ofā¦ only because this field was still vague or unknownā¦ not saying it still isnāt though
I suggest reading into Earthās early atmosphere. Scientist have actually discovered small marine multicellular organisms, in the present, that doesnāt use oxygen. It isnāt answers, but it helps understand how life works.
As stated above, evolution does not explain how life āsprings forth.ā It simply explains the changes or adaptations about the life that has already sprung forth.
That is a philosophical conclusion, karlaa.
In fact, it does no such thing.
Considering the human nature which we inherited from the first human being, Adam, genetic changes or adaptations or whatever are not always vicious. Consider the human immune system as one which can benefit from positive genetic changes.
Adaptation not part of evolution? Genetic potentialities? Are you implying that before there was land animals, the marine life had the āgenetic potentialityā to have legs and walk!?
Yes after billions and millions of years, the genetic code has become very complex and is subject to genetic disorders. However, the first DNA sequences were much simpler. This is why evolution explains the change to the genetic code.
Grannyās dumb question, number 327. The organic chemistry that allowed for the origin of life ā did it exist everywhere on the planet earth? If yes, what would that conclusion be based on?
