T
Techno2000
Guest
Right, it’s an illusion created by speculated artistic renderings of images that have been placed into the mind of Man.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
Aloysium
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This may be the image to which you refer. It’s an artist’s rendition of what many anthropologists make of the fossil record.
It suggests that evolution involves transitions, equating what happened during the history of the world to what happens during the course of human development.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Although it is easy to confuse the two, what these images portray are most definitely opposites.
In the first case, there would be nothing actually “evolving” into a human being. The figures represent distinct creatures that lived in their time and had offspring. On the other hand, an individual person “develops” from the moment of conception into childhood, to adulthood, senility and beyond. There is a difference in the morphology of individual life forms, present at different points in the timeline. The morphology of the one person actually changes during the course of their life. It is most likely that in the first image the first five figures are adaptations of the same existential “species”, having different physical forms but being manifestations of one kind of animal. It also seems probable that certain changes were made to their form in order to find the one that would best suit mankind. We are a totally different creature - an eternal, rational soul.
Additionally, Darwinism holds that humanity is a random event in the universe, said to be unlikely but possible given billions of years and lightyears and almost infinite stuff. Development, on the other hand, follows a determined course based on the strict laws of nature, which are built into the shapes of pre-existing molecules, whose behaviour is most definitely not random.
It appears that for evolutionary theories to make sense to people, the process must paradoxically be nebulous and deny the existence of a soul and human spirit. Every predominantly evolutionary creationist description of creation seems to have the spirit and God tacked on to what is essentially a materialistic understanding of life. It is an excellent myth that we can wrap our minds around to justify an atheistic vision.
This may be the image to which you refer. It’s an artist’s rendition of what many anthropologists make of the fossil record.
It suggests that evolution involves transitions, equating what happened during the history of the world to what happens during the course of human development.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Although it is easy to confuse the two, what these images portray are most definitely opposites.
In the first case, there would be nothing actually “evolving” into a human being. The figures represent distinct creatures that lived in their time and had offspring. On the other hand, an individual person “develops” from the moment of conception into childhood, to adulthood, senility and beyond. There is a difference in the morphology of individual life forms, present at different points in the timeline. The morphology of the one person actually changes during the course of their life. It is most likely that in the first image the first five figures are adaptations of the same existential “species”, having different physical forms but being manifestations of one kind of animal. It also seems probable that certain changes were made to their form in order to find the one that would best suit mankind. We are a totally different creature - an eternal, rational soul.
Additionally, Darwinism holds that humanity is a random event in the universe, said to be unlikely but possible given billions of years and lightyears and almost infinite stuff. Development, on the other hand, follows a determined course based on the strict laws of nature, which are built into the shapes of pre-existing molecules, whose behaviour is most definitely not random.
It appears that for evolutionary theories to make sense to people, the process must paradoxically be nebulous and deny the existence of a soul and human spirit. Every predominantly evolutionary creationist description of creation seems to have the spirit and God tacked on to what is essentially a materialistic understanding of life. It is an excellent myth that we can wrap our minds around to justify an atheistic vision.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Your last paragraph sums things up well. That we share a common ancestor with apes is only an assumption. It might be argued we do, but that may be due to the fact that we share similar body plans. Otherwise, man is much, much more than material.
M
mVitus
Guest
Adam descending from a pre-human doesn’t necessitate denying the soul. Evolution speaks only to the physical body. Not the immaterial soul.For evolutionary theories to make sense the process must be nebulous and deny the existence of a soul and human spirit.
E
edwest211
Guest
This conflicts with Divine Revelation - the primary stumbling block.
M
mVitus
Guest
If it conflicted with revelation for Adam to be descended from living material, Pope Pius XII’s allowing for its discussion would’ve been revoked.
E
edwest211
Guest
You are bringing up the wrong thing. Living material does not equal hominids. God can raise the dead but he couldn’t use living material to make Adam?
“37. 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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”
“37. 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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”
M
mVitus
Guest
Again, I’m not saying God couldn’t have made Adam from literal dust. It’s that I believe He didn’t. There’s a difference.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Do you believe God made fish, bread and wine out of nothing, as the Bible says ?Again, I’m not saying God couldn’t have made Adam from literal dust. It’s that I believe He didn’t. There’s a difference.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
What does “descended from living material mean”?If it conflicted with revelation for Adam to be descended from living material, Pope Pius XII’s allowing for its discussion would’ve been revoked.
We are each descended from human beings, from Adam. At the same time my entire body is constituted from what was living matter at some point, animal or vegetable, except for the salt I sprinkle on my fries, I suppose. Our digestive tract also requires bacteria to assist in that process.
What Pope John Paul said (translated into English from the French by the Vatican Newspaper) was:
What Pope Pius actually said in the encyclical was:It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.
You may be pushing it’s not forbidden to talk about it a bit to far and into the area of acting as if it were proven fact. But then, I truly don’t understand what you mean when you suggest that Adam was descended from living material.
- For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
from hugh fareyBesides human beings, has the universe or the earth in its billions of years of history ever produced an axe …[etc.]
Because this is a fact of reality.Why “besides human beings”? We are an integral part of the “universe or the earth”. We are the part that can make axes and computers.
from hugh fareyfrom Richca
I think we can safely assume that the inanimate universe and its forces is not going to produce by itself the artifacts, even the simplest, made by human beings …
I don’t follow you here. I’m not assuming or trying to demonstrate that the inanimate universe and its forces produced human beings who produce tools, art, and so on. I said nothing of the sort. The theory of evolution itself is what is in question on this thread. The circular reasoning here which you mention comes from assuming a priori the evolution of human beings from inanimate nature (first sentence) which you make but which I did not make. And than, by applying to me an evolutionary premise which you make but which I did not make, you think I’m arguing in circles and trying to demonstrate your own premise.The inanimate universe and its forces produced human beings, who produce tools, art and so on. To make such a distinction between human beings and the rest of the universe is to assume something which you are trying to demonstrate. It may sound logical, but it is an entirely circular argument.
According to the catholic faith and sound philosophy, the inanimate universe and its forces did not produce human beings. Presently, the Church allows for some possible ‘evolutionary’ process in the production of the human body but the spiritual human soul with its spiritual powers of intellect and will is immediately created by God. The rational and spiritual human soul is not a product of any kind of material/physical evolutionary process and a human being is a composite and a unity of soul and body. Now, the artifacts, tools, art, and so on that are made by human beings are derived from his created spiritual powers of intellect and will, and again, these powers are not products of the material/physical universe which is at least one reason why and which we observe in nature that the inanimate physical world as well as the brute animals do not and can not produce the artifacts whether simple or complex that human beings do.
I agree that the human manufacture of watches and televisions and so forth are utterly trivial compared to the vast array of life and species of organisms or animals and their wonderful and highly complex design and order. But that this wonderful display of life and diversity of highly complex organisms came from completely inanimate material and unintelligent and inanimate causes and forces of nature begs a few questions.From Hugh_farey.
No. From completely inanimate material, following God’s impeccable design, has arisen the vast panoply of life. This is something compared to which the human manufacture of watches and televisions is utterly trivial.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
Consider the following.
We attribute the production of human artifacts whether simple such as an axe or more complex such as watches and televisions which irrational nature does not produce to man’s intelligence and to the application of his will. But a human being’s intelligence and will are wholly spiritual powers which are immediately created by God for each human being and through which we are principally created in the image and likeness of God. So, human artifacts are principally a product of spiritual principles acting on, organizing, and forming materials or matter and various forces or qualities associated with matter in the production of material human artifacts. In a word, human artifacts are a product of human intelligence which is a wholly spiritual and immaterial faculty or power. Accordingly, if watches and televisions and such like are utterly trivial compared to the highly complex design of animals, and further, that watches and televisions are a product of human intelligence which is a wholly spiritual power that has nothing to do with the laws of physics, or of chemistry, or of the forces of physical nature, or of matter, than how reasonable is it to suppose that these same unintelligent laws of physics, chemistry, forces of nature and matter produced by itself the highly complex animals to which watches and televisions are trivial?
‘All creatures are compared to God as artificial things to an artificer…Whence the whole of nature is like an artifact of divine art’ (St Thomas Aquinas)
‘Natural things depend on the divine intellect, as artificial things depend on the human intellect’ (St Thomas Aquinas)
Consider the following.
We attribute the production of human artifacts whether simple such as an axe or more complex such as watches and televisions which irrational nature does not produce to man’s intelligence and to the application of his will. But a human being’s intelligence and will are wholly spiritual powers which are immediately created by God for each human being and through which we are principally created in the image and likeness of God. So, human artifacts are principally a product of spiritual principles acting on, organizing, and forming materials or matter and various forces or qualities associated with matter in the production of material human artifacts. In a word, human artifacts are a product of human intelligence which is a wholly spiritual and immaterial faculty or power. Accordingly, if watches and televisions and such like are utterly trivial compared to the highly complex design of animals, and further, that watches and televisions are a product of human intelligence which is a wholly spiritual power that has nothing to do with the laws of physics, or of chemistry, or of the forces of physical nature, or of matter, than how reasonable is it to suppose that these same unintelligent laws of physics, chemistry, forces of nature and matter produced by itself the highly complex animals to which watches and televisions are trivial?
‘All creatures are compared to God as artificial things to an artificer…Whence the whole of nature is like an artifact of divine art’ (St Thomas Aquinas)
‘Natural things depend on the divine intellect, as artificial things depend on the human intellect’ (St Thomas Aquinas)
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Where does it say that? Jesus made wine from water, and he fed 5,000 people starting with a few fish and a few loaves. In neither case did He start with nothing.Do you believe God made fish, bread and wine out of nothing, as the Bible says ?
rossum
E
edwest211
Guest
Even if He started with something, where did the rest come from?
I
IWantGod
Guest
All this over a theory…
I
IWantGod
Guest
Are people still arguing over this point!!!
Wow.
Wow.
E
ericc
Guest
There is no waiting I presume. Unless the earth is totally dead post dino conditions which I doubt. Whatever can live in post dino conditions will just live on. Do the fossil evidences indicate there were a total absence of life after the dino? Not that I am aware of. Life goes on without the dinos. It is not that the earth have to restart life all over again.So, the post dino conditions waited millions of years for evolution to evolve a creature suitable for the post dino conditions ?
E
ericc
Guest
God multiplied fish and bread. He started with “stuff”. Wine? That is mostly water which he readily had. Not saying he couldn’t have created out of nothing, he could but the examples you quoted are not the best illustration of creating out of nothing but of changing something to another or to greater quantities…Do you believe God made fish, bread and wine out of nothing, as the Bible says ?
E
ericc
Guest
Totally true. Just arrange a few artist impressions neatly in a straight line that were conjured from a few fragments of bones, and any sucker can be led to believe that was the actual progression. Unfortunately there isn’t sufficient time to do all that evolution stuff. I am still stuck at Haldane’s Dilemma which has not been proven invalid yet.Right, it’s an illusion created by speculated artistic renderings of images that have been placed into the mind of Man.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Not quite, Richcar.
Your first comment began with the question - have I ever seen [material] earth produce an axe? My answer was Yes, in so far as the earth evolved into humans, and humans produced axes. I do not acknowledge the separation of humans from “the inanimate universe and its forces.” You insist that there is one. You say, neither logically nor theologically: “This is a fact of reality”. If that is your premise, then of course “things that can’t produce axes” have never produced any axes. You cannot use the production of axes by humans as evidence that the universe cannot produce axes unless you assume that humans are not part of the universe, which was what you were claiming in your first post.
You are perfectly correct, that, in response, I claimed that because humans are part of the universe, therefore the universe can produce axes. However, I did not use the production of axes as evidence for my claim.
Now,
Your first comment began with the question - have I ever seen [material] earth produce an axe? My answer was Yes, in so far as the earth evolved into humans, and humans produced axes. I do not acknowledge the separation of humans from “the inanimate universe and its forces.” You insist that there is one. You say, neither logically nor theologically: “This is a fact of reality”. If that is your premise, then of course “things that can’t produce axes” have never produced any axes. You cannot use the production of axes by humans as evidence that the universe cannot produce axes unless you assume that humans are not part of the universe, which was what you were claiming in your first post.
You are perfectly correct, that, in response, I claimed that because humans are part of the universe, therefore the universe can produce axes. However, I did not use the production of axes as evidence for my claim.
Now,
Not entirely. Although the Catholic Church certainly makes a distinction between organisms with souls and those without, it does not deny that hominids may have evolved from earlier primates, and although I agree that currently the teaching of Humani generis has not been superceded as regards two original Homo sapiens , I have, as I have said, no doubt that it will be in a few years, when the science of genetic bottlenecks becomes clearer. Even without a soul, many organisms show remarkable skills of communication and tool-making, etc., of which it can be said that human skills are only quantitively, not qualitively different.According to the catholic faith and sound philosophy, the inanimate universe and its forces did not produce human beings.
It doesn’t beg them, it raises them, and it’s what the paleontological and anthropological departments of universities are spending lots of time and money on.But that this wonderful display of life and diversity of highly complex organisms came from completely inanimate material and unintelligent and inanimate causes and forces of nature begs a few questions.
You seem to clumping all human achievements into “the soul”, which is, I think, unwarranted. I think that even hominids without the “intelligence and will” you attribute exclusively to humans could have evolved much greater capabilities than we observe, if we hadn’t killed them all.But a human being’s intelligence and will are wholly spiritual powers which are immediately created by God for each human being and through which we are principally created in the image and likeness of God. … [etc.]
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.