C
cornbread_r2
Guest
When might this have occurred?
- Status
F
Farsight001
Guest
Your post suggests you know about all this evidence already, in which case, I don’t feel the need to go to the library and pour through scientific journals for hours to find what we both already know exists. Perhaps you could comment on what you think the assumptions are, though? And why you think it matters that we’re not bacteria.Originally Posted by Farsight001 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
No. At best Benedict holds an agnostic position on the subject. He was expressing personal opinion, not binding doctrine. He happens to be incorrect, too. Its quite possible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to confirm evolution. It happens all the time.
I put in bold the flimsy statements which need the research citations. Plural, because you declared “It happens all the time.” Now if you are referring to research on fast acting bacteria, I would still appreciate your citations since it would be interesting to compare it with other forms of animal life. Thank you.
However, I do not believe that Pope Benedict considers you and me as bacteria.
Perhaps, it is time to inject some common sense when talking about our first, sole parents. A bit of common sense would reveal that those mountains of evidence have foothills of assumptions.
F
Farsight001
Guest
How is it a better solution? It’s not even a properly fleshed out complete concept, let alone a 150 year old theory with literal warehouses full of supporting evidence.
G
grannymh
Guest
No. For obvious reasons about family stability.
H
hazmat
Guest
any links on that?
G
grannymh
Guest
Emphasis mine.
Please tell us what is the theological and real truth about Adam and Eve in the very first three chapters of Genesis.
You can skip the part about the world not being 6000 years, I am only interested in you explaining your comment.** “It should be read as theological and real truth”**
Thank you.
G
grannymh
Guest
“Evidence that **could **produce” ???
The first two things that Catholics should question about “claims” are the evidence and the methods. So how are you describing the “evidence”?
B
buffalo
Guest
No, incest between parent and children is intrinsically evil, between siblings it is not. As time went on that allowance was lifted.
B
buffalo
Guest
So the ECF’s and the Church for 2000 years got it all wrong? Is that your claim? Was the Holy Spirit sleeping during this entire period?
B
buffalo
Guest
** 
how many times I have heard this
**
Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling
more…
how many times I have heard this**
Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling
Code:
Gut feelings may trump good old-fashioned facts, and even religious beliefs, when it comes to accepting the theory of evolution, new research suggests.
"The whole idea behind acceptance of evolution has been the assumption that if people understood it, if they really knew it, they would see the logic and accept it," study co-author David Haury, an associate professor of education at Ohio State University, said in a statement.
K
karaleigh
Guest
I think science has proven the soul is alive and physical. The soul is the positive and negative energies a person produces…doing good, doing bad, etc. Scientifically it can be proven by X-Ray.Taken when the examined person has either preformed a good deed or a bad deed, the aura fluctuates. Science uses this method to prove of a physical soul. The aureola is the religious name for the living soul, and has been depicted for centuries in religious art.
:hey_bud:
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Perhaps during one of the genetic bottlenecks.
G
grannymh
Guest
Originally Posted by Farsight001 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
No. At best Benedict holds an agnostic position on the subject. He was expressing personal opinion, not binding doctrine. He happens to be incorrect, too. Its quite possible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to confirm evolution. It happens all the time.
Emphasis mine
When Catholics are faced with flimsy general comments similar to what I put in bold, they can assume that some kind of experiments have taken place. We need to respect the efforts of scientists. The questionable theory works great in many areas of life. I am totally grateful for the medical advances due to molecular biology and related sciences, including computer technology.
Catholics can also assume that anything involving today’s popular biological theory will have been somewhere in some kind of media. This or that has been confirmed is great for sound bites and bringing in advertising dollars. Science news can often be found on internet news outlets. Catholics should not hesitate to ask for citations, even if the citation turns out to be a creative story in a popular magazine.
There are various types of “breaking news” formats when it comes to science. Most of them in print or on the internet will be a reporter’s story about the research. A science editor usually has a more in-depth approach. One needs to remember, that the writer chooses what to write. The choice can vary from basic info to the writers’ personal wishes.
Some websites will post the “abstract”. The abstract serves as a general summary of the research. Some are more informative than others. Some will give the goals of the researcher. The benefit of the abstracts is that they are written by the researcher and not by an interpreter of the research. One does not need to faint when a website prints the entire research paper with mysterious graphs. We need to keep in mind that the researcher put a lot of effort into her or his project and we should respect that. What follows are some general ideas regarding current research.
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that current research has gone beyond determining ancient population sizes. Often there is a reference and corresponding footnote referring to earlier published research. Or, the researcher may have redone some genetic-type research and because of 21st century technology the results vary. Regardless of the population estimates going thousands of years backwards, there is someone who will say that the population estimates do not allow for Adam and Eve.
It is not necessary to directly challenge a population estimate or the assumptions used to arrive at that figure. What is helpful is to keep in mind how difficult it must be to get hard data from every place on planet earth, every day of the year. How far did the Toba event reach? Was there a dry season every year. Did plagues occur? How many children did each breeding pair have. What is the length of a generation? What part did genetic drift play in smaller populations?
In regard to the real existence of Adam and Eve, there are only two answers to all the questions. The usual answer is that it is improbable that two first parents existed. The important answer is that while Adam and Eve’s reality may be improbable, the correlative truth is that their reality remains possible.
The possibility of Adam’s existence becomes greater because of his superior intellective abilities due to his spiritual soul. Also, God blessed the fertility of Adam and Eve. Even though the “garden” was closed, there are still many places on earth which could shelter a young family apart from the larger population of subhumans.
Today, there are surveillance cameras everywhere. When one says that a mountain of evidence makes Adam and Eve improbable, we can think about the lack of cameras thousands of years going backwards. We can remember that the nitty-gritty of assumptions and estimates can be valid for a particular area and a particular time on earth but cannot be used to cover every event, everywhere, every day of thousands of years.
Common sense tells us that Adam and Eve are definitely possible.
E
edwest2
Guest
I can’t think of a single scientific paper that confirms it experimentally. The Pope, as head of the Church on earth, is a former university professor and bears a great responsibility. This was not an offhand remark or an opinion but a conclusion that he presented to Catholics. I accept it fully.
Peace,
Ed
F
Farsight001
Guest
That only tells us you haven’t noticed them. Honestly, I come across such studies without even looking for them. The only way not to know about them is to not go anywhere near anything that might even remotely touch on the subject.
It was, as a matter of fact, a personal opinion. By it’s very nature, it was a personal opinion, whether right or wrong. Don’t tell me it’s not an opinion.
As for him being a former university professor - yes, in theology. If he was a professor of biology, you might have something, but he is no more formally educated on the subject of evolution than a toaster. He is not God, and yet you seem to accept every opinion he expresses on any subject, as though he were. His personal opinion is not binding and he is no more likely to be right than anyone else just because he’s pope. It’s not an ex cathedra statement, and even if he claimed it to be, it wouldn’t, because whether or not scientists have experimentally proven evolution is not a matter of faith or morals. I feel as though you misunderstand the pope’s very purpose in being in making such a claim about him.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Not a single thing you said was a response to the post you quoted. Please try again.
G
grannymh
Guest
Emphasis mine.
Good point. Adam’s free act of disobedience is not often recognized as the connection to Christ’s free act of obedience. Thank you.
G
grannymh
Guest
As you posted, the Fall did occur. So what are the Catholic, not Protestant, doctrines related to it?
I do not have sound on this computer; however, I noticed that Father referred to the Book of Genesis which has 50 chapters. The Fall occurs in the first three chapters so those are the chapters one needs to check for Catholic doctrines regarding Adam…
From your point of view, what are the truths regarding the Fall?
G
grannymh
Guest
How about going back to your post 138 which is the one I was replying to?
Here is what you posted there.
“Your post suggests you know about all this evidence already, in which case, I don’t feel the need to go to the library and pour through scientific journals for hours to find what we both already know exists. Perhaps you could comment on what you think the assumptions are, though? And why you think it matters that we’re not bacteria.”
Now I see the confusion. My response started with another quote from you. Then I responded to your post 138. I talked about where scientific research can be found since you didn’t feel the need to go the library. As for the assumptions, I did address ones that I see as important. I will address more assumptions later, but these are enough to chew on at the moment.
Oops, I didn’t answer your last request “And why you think it matters that we’re not bacteria.” It matters because if I were bacteria, I wouldn’t be able to read your posts.
R
ringil
Guest
That it happened, and that Original Sin, at least in the Latin Church’s way of expressing it, passes down to each human. The Eastern Church’s do not treat this matter in precisely the same way theologically, I understand, but both ways of explanation are said to be Truth.
And if you can’t hear the link then it makes it difficult to discuss with you. I don’t due research regarding internet discussions as it’s not important enough for me.
- Status