M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
A truth found in science will never contradict a truth found in faith for there is only one truth.
- Status
L
LSK
Guest
I find it unbelievable that there is even a debate. Catholic belief allows for a faithful obedient member of the Holy Mother Church to consider the possibility of evolutionary concepts being a part of God’s plan of creation. The fact that so many people find the idea of a Creator to be objectionable, to me, reveals a fear. It is a fear that, when they die, they are going to discover that they were wrong to reject God and then there is going to be one big ol’ OOPS on their part.
So, like a child that gets angry when a parent insists on the truth, those who get angry at us who say, “Science and the Truth are not enemies” are like spoiled children.
This is, of course, just my opinion.
So, like a child that gets angry when a parent insists on the truth, those who get angry at us who say, “Science and the Truth are not enemies” are like spoiled children.
This is, of course, just my opinion.
B
buffalo
Guest
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I totally agree with all of you that truth cannot contradict truth. However, I feel that the evolutionists are much more closed-minded than us intelligent design advocates because evolutionists won’t even listen to our side of it and refuse to let the theory go despite its lack of evidence. I am fine with believing in evolution if it is the truth, but so far the evidence for it being a true theory is wanting to say the least. Read my other posts and listen to the lectures on them. If you can absolutely disprove what they say, then I’ll believe evolution to be true, otherwise I will continue with my traditional Catholic interpretation of the Creation. 
R
Rebecca_New
Guest
Catholic Dude:
This is a great quote! You sure didn’t monkey around with that reply!
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Darwin himself wrote this in the original edition of Origin of Species:
“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”
He also wrote this:
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” :yup:
:banghead: <Darwin
Furthermore, Darwin also said this regarding irreducible complexity:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”
He also wrote this:
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” :yup:
:banghead: <Darwin
Furthermore, Darwin also said this regarding irreducible complexity:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
O
Orogeny
Guest
You didn’t mention the Grand Canyon and I didn’t say you did. I used the Grand Canyon because it is a canyon that formed over a long period of time unlike the erosion around Mt. St. Helens.
Only to someone who doesn’t know any better. That is my point. A geologist would never confuse the two. If you want to discuss geology, please be at least a little informed on the subject.
The geologic community is not embarassed by this. It is not unusual for an idea to be rejected initially until there is enough evidence to support it.
You are EXACTLY right. Scientists do this all the time. Once the data is presented to support the controversial idea, though, the scientific community will accept it. But your observation is correct. That is why it is laughable when I read other posters making assertions like evolution is just a dogma with no evidence. I guarantee you that when you propose a new idea to the scientific community, you better have the evidence to back you up or you will be rejected.
No, it is not presented as an explanation of the origin of life. Evolution does not even deal with the origin of life.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
I agree with that. ID, however, doesn’t allow for that because once something is declared “designed” or “irreducibly complex”, what is the point of further research.
Peace
Tim
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Everyone should listen to this:
download.rbn.com/ewtn/g2ewtn/download/odaudio/cct_11.ra
Either just click it to listen (you need RealPlayer) or right click it and choose “Save Target As…” to save it to your computer.
You will need to start the talk at 6:00 minutes because it repeats itself.
download.rbn.com/ewtn/g2ewtn/download/odaudio/cct_11.ra
Either just click it to listen (you need RealPlayer) or right click it and choose “Save Target As…” to save it to your computer.
You will need to start the talk at 6:00 minutes because it repeats itself.
O
Orogeny
Guest
I’m not promoting science by consensus. How do you feel about restricting science to only those things that are not defined as “designed”?
Newer is better? How about newer is better for the current environment? Evolution does not quantify something as better or worse, only as beneficial.
You and I agree on this. The origin of life is still very much a mystery. That is not to say, however, that the origin of life will never be found.
If the designer is not God, then why in the world would you want that taught. That is certainly no better and, in my opinion, worse than athiesm because it would imply a designer other than God.
Evolution is certainly falsifyable. Is ID?
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
So is science. No need to deviate from the subject material.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Why do you think the Pope accepts evolution?
From this link bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm:
“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.”
Peace
Tim
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I wouldn’t say that the pope believes in evolution. He certainly doesn’t believe in traditional darwinian evolution because to do so would be contrary to the Catholic dogma that there was actually an Adam & Eve.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Thanks. I put the colon at the end but forgot to put a space between it and the link.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
He certainly does believe that God was involved, but based on this quote “While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.”, I would say that he does accept the physical evolution of humans. Obviously, that doesn’t include the evolution of souls.
Peace
Tim
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Likewise, don’t forget about what’s said on this link:
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/pope-evo.htm
On the morning of Sunday, April 24, 2005, during his Coronation ceremony homily Pope Benedict XVI made a clear indication that he is distancing himself from the theory of evolution. Translated from the Italian, the pope stated:
“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed , each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”
To help get the point across even better, the pope used a play on words. According to Fr. Brian Harrison who knows Italian and heard the pope speak, the words translated in English as “is willed” are the Italian words “é voluto.” The word in Italian for “evolution” is “evoluzione.” Hence, the intended pun was: we are not the product of “evoluzione” but the product of divine “é voluto.”
Moreover, if the pope were not giving an indication about his reservations concerning the theory of evolution, he simply could have said that we are all willed and loved by God, but to preface this with a denunciation of evolution means that the pope wanted to put in opposition the Christian viewpoint of a created universe over against the haphazard world of chance espoused by evolutionary theory.
Those of us who know the pope are not surprised at this sudden turn of events. Members of our Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation met with the then Cardinal Ratzinger in October 2002 and explained to him the scientific evidence against evolution and the scientific evidence for creation, evidence that prior to our visit the Cardinal had not been made aware.
Thank God we have a pope who is willing to take a critical look at the claims of modern science. Please continue to pray for him that God enlightens his mind.
Robert Sungenis
Advisory Board of the Koble Center
4-25-2005
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/pope-evo.htm
On the morning of Sunday, April 24, 2005, during his Coronation ceremony homily Pope Benedict XVI made a clear indication that he is distancing himself from the theory of evolution. Translated from the Italian, the pope stated:
“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed , each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”
To help get the point across even better, the pope used a play on words. According to Fr. Brian Harrison who knows Italian and heard the pope speak, the words translated in English as “is willed” are the Italian words “é voluto.” The word in Italian for “evolution” is “evoluzione.” Hence, the intended pun was: we are not the product of “evoluzione” but the product of divine “é voluto.”
Moreover, if the pope were not giving an indication about his reservations concerning the theory of evolution, he simply could have said that we are all willed and loved by God, but to preface this with a denunciation of evolution means that the pope wanted to put in opposition the Christian viewpoint of a created universe over against the haphazard world of chance espoused by evolutionary theory.
Those of us who know the pope are not surprised at this sudden turn of events. Members of our Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation met with the then Cardinal Ratzinger in October 2002 and explained to him the scientific evidence against evolution and the scientific evidence for creation, evidence that prior to our visit the Cardinal had not been made aware.
Thank God we have a pope who is willing to take a critical look at the claims of modern science. Please continue to pray for him that God enlightens his mind.
Robert Sungenis
Advisory Board of the Koble Center
4-25-2005
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I think that you should listen to the Real Audio file that I put a link for above. IT is criticized for imposing a religious philosophy on science, but the individual giving the talk explains how Darwinian evolution is just as guilty at committing this folly. Darwin’s Origin of Species was more philosophical than scientific. It’s all part of the materialistic mindset of the end of the 19th century.
Z
zian
Guest
Your description “newer is better” implies a common misperception of what evolution says. New species are not “better” (in some metaphysical sense perhaps(?)); they are better adapted to some circumstance that allows them to have improved survivability and reproducibility. There is no “arrow of direction” to evolution, that guarantees the success of future adaptations in a particular direction.
Yes, it is difficult to discuss the origin of life, since we cannot go back in time and observe how it happened on this planet. We can collect some material evidence of past events, however, and evolution gives us a framework for understanding how this continuum of evidence fits together.
Evolution is easily falsifiable; find me bonafide evidence of modern humans existing in Pre-Cambrian rock strata, or similar evidence, and evolution can not be true.
Z
zian
Guest
We’ve come along a little bit since Darwin’s day, seems to me, Darwin’s own misgivings about the fossil record in his own day notwithstanding. One of these realizations is that fossilization is an exceedingly rare event. Just because something dies and falls to the ground does not me that it will become a fossil.Darwin himself wrote this in the original edition of Origin of Species:
“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
Read this again with my emphases, won’t you?:Furthermore, Darwin also said this regarding irreducible complexity:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Could be a tall order, I think.
- Status