D
dshix
Guest
I agree with your position.
The point I was making is that evolution is neither proven true nor false. No one can tout it as absolutely true, nor can anyone state they it is absolutely false.
In this entire universe, why are humans that special in God's eyes?
- Status
The point I was making is that evolution is neither proven true nor false. No one can tout it as absolutely true, nor can anyone state they it is absolutely false.
T
tonyrey
Guest
In your daily life do you regard persons or even animals as if they are your prey?
A
Aloysium
Guest
A single cell, totally human, contained in and one with a human soul was the origin of the person writing this post.
S
Skadi
Guest
More like goals, but when I was a kid and we would play Hide and Seek on those warm summer nights I was in my elementIn your daily life do you regard persons or even animals as if they are your prey?
S
Skadi
Guest
I agree, im not pro abortion if thats what your thinking.
S
Skadi
Guest
How do we know we arnt just brains in tanks with our every sensual impulse fed to us by computers? This is the point in the debate about what constitutes proof where you either have to just say “proven beyond all but the most fantastic possibilities” or nothing can be known absolutely.
Im not saying its proven that man arose from single celled lifeforms, Although our available evidence strongly suggests it. However, there is an overwhelming amount of proof that evolution is happening as we speak. New species have emerged even within the last 100 years.
To say the existence of evolution is unproven is false, to say that the evolutionary path or lack there of that brought man to his current state is not known definitively beyond doubt is correct. Scientists have good ideas, but its not know definitively.
C
clem456
Guest
The true/false of evolution is a very steep hill to climb. There’s an important point to consider here, because these discussion frequently seem to go off into the absurd when people use the term evolution in wildly different ways.
Evolution is not theology, it is science. Accepting the concept of evolution does not exclude accepting a creator. After accepting evolution, a person must take a step of faith to either exclude a creator or believe in one. Many people think that if you say “evolution is a fact”, that means you are necessarily saying “There is no creator”. That’s not the case. Faith and science are not incompatible.
In the realm of science (which the Church appreciates very much), the observation that things evolve through mutations etc…is indisputable. Organisms change. Period. They develop, usually (always?) toward complexity. So there is nothing wrong with accepting that all life evolved from a single cell organism. That doesn’t mean that single cells have souls. God tells us he breathed life into Adam and Eve. Fair enough, I’ll take God at his word. How God specifically created Adam and Eve is his business, not mine. We know God is very patient, if he wished to let his creation come to it’s fruition over a few billion years, who are we to dispute him? Time is nothing to him.
If anyone has trouble accepting evolution, take a look at your parents, and look at your children. Look at how organisms develop immunities over time. Take a look at the fossil record. Look at modern agriculture, Con agra is evolving new strains of grain every day. Nature has always done this process naturally. Denying that things evolve is like denying the sun rises in the east. It is easily observable. God gave us reason so we might use it wisely through observation and thought. He also wants us to accept him as our all powerful creator. The two things are not incompatible.
Why do most of these discussions go off into the ridiculous? Because evolution is something that scientists should be discussing in science journals, not something that should be debated as if it’s an article of faith. It’s not an article of faith, it’s science. On the other hand, believing there is no creator is an article of faith. Believing we do have a creator is also an article of faith. Evolution is an observation about the world around us., not an article of faith.
In a science journal, a person could argue with the scientists about their data collection, and their observations, but it would be kinda pointless because evolution is very easily observable science. Attempts to discredit the science always amount to “you’re all lying”.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Skadi and Clem,
I would love to respond. to the particulars of your posts.
However, I will simply say that you have not sufficiently defined the words you are using. The meaning is so vague and differs from person to person, that there is no point in engaing in a discussion about it unless you do so. I do not believe we can do so here.
The bottom line is we were created from one man, there is original sin, Christ is our saviour.
If your philosophy has no room for the Truth, it is wrong, however which way you choose to argue your point.
I would love to respond. to the particulars of your posts.
However, I will simply say that you have not sufficiently defined the words you are using. The meaning is so vague and differs from person to person, that there is no point in engaing in a discussion about it unless you do so. I do not believe we can do so here.
The bottom line is we were created from one man, there is original sin, Christ is our saviour.
If your philosophy has no room for the Truth, it is wrong, however which way you choose to argue your point.
C
clem456
Guest
Yes, Ok,
And why are you referencing my post here? I specifically was careful with the term evolution, I did not argue a philosophy, and I agree 100% with Catholic doctrine.
And I’m not willing to argue the scientific facts. That’s appropriate on a science forum, not here.
L
losh14
Guest
Interesting side note - an academic paper has used a Bayesian approach to astrobiostatistics and calculated that the most likely answer to the question “Is there life beyond Earth?”, given our knowledge of the universe, is a statistical “No.”
The paper by Spiegel and Turner is described here:
news.yahoo.com/alone-universe-analysis-says-maybe-134903658.html
And, if you like that sort of thing, can be downloaded as PDF here (the URL is to the Cornell University library, which houses arXiv database):
arxiv.org/abs/1107.3835
O
oldcelt
Guest
Good post,and, if I’m not mistaken, very much in line with the position of the Catholic Church.
A
Aloysium
Guest
:twocents:
"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).
“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”
Let’s take another view from the Discovery Channel: “According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through mutation of DNA and natural selection.”
"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).
“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”
Let’s take another view from the Discovery Channel: “According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through mutation of DNA and natural selection.”
C
clem456
Guest
This is theology.
Following is the paragraph preceding the one you posted from Humani Generis…The Church’s theology is concerned with God and his relationship to the human soul more so than biology.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
This is science.
A careful reading of all of this indicates that this particular scientific view is not at all incompatible with the Church’s theology. Does the Church endorse this particular science? No, why would it? The Church does not do science. The Church deals with who God is and who we are, not the scientific specifics of how God made us and how we developed chemically and biologically.
The problem we have is when the scientists want to say their research disproves a creator, or when theologians want to tell us science is wrong cause it doesn’t seem to match the literal interpretation of the bible.
C
clem456
Guest
C
clem456
Guest
And I forgot, the topic is banned.
My apologies.
My apologies.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The OP seems to imply we are not justified in regarding ourselves as special in view of our minuteness in the vastness of the universe. Yet size has nothing to do with significance.
Pascal remarked that we are superior to the universe in at least one respect: we know the universe exists but the universe doesn’t know we exist. We can also control ourselves, distinguish good from evil and influence the course of events.
Nor is there any reason why we should be the only creatures God values. There may well be persons elsewhere but they wouldn’t diminish (or increase) our significance. Numbers have nothing to do with significance. The inhabitants of a village are no more and no less entitled to their human rights than the inhabitants of a city, let alone the planet. Why not? There is only one reason which makes the teaching of Jesus stand out in history: we are all God’s children.
The only alternative is that like everything else we are not special in any way because there is no reason why anything exists. That seems to be the prevailing opinion in our secular society but it doesn’t correspond to the way normal people behave. No reasonable person acts as if life is pointless. “By their fruits you shall know them”…
Pascal remarked that we are superior to the universe in at least one respect: we know the universe exists but the universe doesn’t know we exist. We can also control ourselves, distinguish good from evil and influence the course of events.
Nor is there any reason why we should be the only creatures God values. There may well be persons elsewhere but they wouldn’t diminish (or increase) our significance. Numbers have nothing to do with significance. The inhabitants of a village are no more and no less entitled to their human rights than the inhabitants of a city, let alone the planet. Why not? There is only one reason which makes the teaching of Jesus stand out in history: we are all God’s children.
The only alternative is that like everything else we are not special in any way because there is no reason why anything exists. That seems to be the prevailing opinion in our secular society but it doesn’t correspond to the way normal people behave. No reasonable person acts as if life is pointless. “By their fruits you shall know them”…
T
tonyrey
Guest
I forgot to ask what are you hunting for? That makes all the difference in the world!In your daily life do you regard persons or even animals as if they are your prey?
C
clem456
Guest
Thank God we have the small Christ child in a manger to demonstrate this to us.
M
mikekle
Guest
I know we are special in Gods eyes, but when you look at us, it is hard to see…the angels are much more intelligent and powerful than us, even the demons are much more intelligent than us, so it makes you wonder why God would create such a ‘lowly’ race.
Seems to me the angels are more important to God, after all, he saw fit to give them a much greater mind and powers no man could ever wield, why did God not give man these things, if it is true we are more important than the angels?
Seems to me the angels are more important to God, after all, he saw fit to give them a much greater mind and powers no man could ever wield, why did God not give man these things, if it is true we are more important than the angels?
C
clem456
Guest
Equally challenging is
One of our own is favored over the rest of us? We like to think she is “more favored”, resulting in us having less. It causes a bit of envy in me. But
.
I hope I can rejoice that Mary is filled with God’s grace, that angels are God’s unique creation, that God is who he is, cause any little amount of grace he gives me is all I need. It’s cause to rejoice.
- Status