B
benjamin1973
Guest
Maybe the dodo? I’ve recently come across evidence that there may be dodos alive in the world again. 
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Species is a man made classification. I also showed you the wiki definition. DO you agree with this or not? “The evolutionary process by which biological populations evolve to become distinct or reproductively isolated as species is called speciation”
Interestingly enough in the same article: Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species:
“No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation.”[37]
Interestingly enough in the same article: Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species:
“No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation.”[37]
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
That"s the point “environmental changes” triggering all these mutation for millions of plaints and animals species …fire, drought and floods can do none of this.
R
Richca
Guest
The link you provide here quotes St Augustine from his book (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) The Literal Meaning of Genesis in Twelve Books. That’s right, it is a book about Augustine’s ‘literal’ exegesis or interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Accordingly, could you explain what you mean by ‘Saint Augustine argued against a literal interpretation of Genesis. He actually chastised those that did’ when the very book in question concerns Augustine’s literal exegesis of Genesis?
The last part of the first sentence in the quote from the link ‘and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience’ is translated in a newer translation (2002) of Augustine’s work in a full sentence as ‘And it frequently happens that even non-Christians will have knowledge of this sort in a way that they can substantiate with scientific arguments or experiments’. It appears what Augustine is talking about here are ‘certain’ scientific facts or ‘certain’ facts about the natural world that can be demonstrated from science. For example, that the earth revolves on its axis has been demonstrated by science beyond any reasonable doubt; satellites orbit the earth at the same speed of rotation of the earth.
Further, Augustine says in the same book a little after the quote from the link:
‘When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove [Latin; demonstrare] some fact of physical science [Latin; natura rerum veracibus = true nature of things], we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture.’
There is a big difference between what science can tell us about how nature works in the world as it exists now and which can be verified by experiment, and scientific theories concerning the origin of things such as the universe from the Big Bang or Darwinian evolution and the origin of species. Nobody was around to observe these theorized past events nor can they be brought into the lab. It appears some form of ‘microevolution’ can be demonstrated in the lab but even if macroevolution were actually happening, it could not be observed, measured, or put under the test in the laboratory.
Accordingly, certain scientific facts can be of great help for a proper interpretation of the Bible for truth cannot contradict the truth and God is the author of both the Bible and of nature. But that the literal or plain and obvious sense of Scripture should be subjected to an interpretation based on highly conjectural, uncertain, and possibly erroneous so-called ‘scientific theories’ such as the modern Big Bang or Darwinian evolutionism is not what Augustine has in mind in his ‘rules of interpretation’ of Scripture. In such cases, according to Augustine and according to common sense it would appear, the word of God (Holy Scripture) takes precedence obviously if anybody has any respect for the word of God.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
In Augustine’s own day, there were many philosophic or ‘scientific’ theories floating around which in certain respects were similar to various ‘scientific’ or rather philosophic theories of our own day which Augustine argues against with the authority of Holy Scripture. In this vein and in the same book ‘The Literal Meaning of Genesis’, Augustine writes of a more dangerous error for christains than the one that was mentioned previously in his work and in the quote from the link you provide:
“But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren [Latin; Periculosius autem errant quidam infirmi fraters] who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books [Bible] which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up. Turning away in disgust from the unattractive wheat field, they long for the blossoms on the thorn…I have learnt that a man is not in any difficulty in making a reply according to his faith which he ought to make to those who try to defame our Holy Scripture…But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, [Latin; Quidquid autem de quibuslibet suis voluminibus his nostris Litteris, id est catholicae fidei contrarium protulerint] either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. And we will so cling to our Mediator, ‘in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge’, that we will not be led astray by the glib talk of false philosophy or frightened by the superstition of false religion.”
In this vein also, Pope Leo XIII writes in the encyclical, PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, On the Study of Holy Scripture: ‘… provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires’ (#15).
In Augustine’s own day, there were many philosophic or ‘scientific’ theories floating around which in certain respects were similar to various ‘scientific’ or rather philosophic theories of our own day which Augustine argues against with the authority of Holy Scripture. In this vein and in the same book ‘The Literal Meaning of Genesis’, Augustine writes of a more dangerous error for christains than the one that was mentioned previously in his work and in the quote from the link you provide:
“But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren [Latin; Periculosius autem errant quidam infirmi fraters] who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books [Bible] which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up. Turning away in disgust from the unattractive wheat field, they long for the blossoms on the thorn…I have learnt that a man is not in any difficulty in making a reply according to his faith which he ought to make to those who try to defame our Holy Scripture…But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, [Latin; Quidquid autem de quibuslibet suis voluminibus his nostris Litteris, id est catholicae fidei contrarium protulerint] either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. And we will so cling to our Mediator, ‘in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge’, that we will not be led astray by the glib talk of false philosophy or frightened by the superstition of false religion.”
In this vein also, Pope Leo XIII writes in the encyclical, PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, On the Study of Holy Scripture: ‘… provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires’ (#15).
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Fair enough.
- There was no single catalyst.
- The environment did not trigger any mutations.
Then for one reason or another, there becomes a less than satisfactory population of insects. Maybe the number of plants has increased out of proportion to the increase in the number of insects; maybe the number of insects has decreased due to bad weather or disease; maybe another species has arrived and the insects now visit both. Whatever the cause, this becomes your “environmental catalyst”. Being more attractive now carries with it a definite advantage, and any plants lucky enough to be born with mutations for brighter petals, stronger scent or tastier nectar enjoy a distinct reproductive advantage. They produce more offspring, and more of the next generation carry the beneficial genes. The previously satisfactory version is less often visited, and produces fewer offspring. After a hundred generations, the plant is almost unrecognisable from what it was before.
That’s how it works. I expect you knew that really.
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
Have you actually read any of Augustine’s literal exegesis of Genesis 1-3, Scott2? You might find that your idea of literal and Augustines’ are not exactly the same. Augustine’s literal exegesis of Genesis 1 contains elements of what could be called allegory no doubt, but this was his ‘literal’ exegesis of Genesis 1. Whether some of his exegesis conforms to the intent of the sacred writer or not is certainly debatable, other Fathers of the Church had different opinions, but his exegesis is not against the Catholic Faith as a whole and it is well worth reading. Augustine had a very penetrating mind and a knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures that it could probably be argued that is unmatched by any single christian in the history of the Church. He was certainly gifted with the Holy Spirit in his knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures. At the same time, he was not infallible.
Augustine was not so bold as to claim that his exegesis of Genesis 1 was the only correct interpretation. He says this himself. He was well aware of the literal exegesis of Genesis 1 of St Ambrose who baptized and educated Augustine in the christian faith, St Basil the Great, and others. He does not criticize their interpretations as if his alone was the only correct one. He supports his own opinion with arguments drawn from other texts of Scripture and it appears one can detect some Platonic or other philosophic influence. Augustine respected Holy Scripture for what it is, the inspired word of God, and God himself is an impenetrable mystery.
‘“For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” …So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God…For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God…’ (1 Cor. 2). Accordingly, unless we ask either God himself or the sacred writer of Genesis 1 himself, various difficult texts in Genesis 1 can be variously explained within reason. For example, Augustine understood the six days work of creation as one day or as a simultaneous creative act; Ambrose, Basil, Damascene as 24 hour days; other fathers of the Church understood the days not as 24 hour days but as some unspecified period of time taking from Scripture, for example, ‘with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4). The discoveries of modern science obviously lend support to the interpretation that the days of the creation narrative specify some indefinite time.
Have you actually read any of Augustine’s literal exegesis of Genesis 1-3, Scott2? You might find that your idea of literal and Augustines’ are not exactly the same. Augustine’s literal exegesis of Genesis 1 contains elements of what could be called allegory no doubt, but this was his ‘literal’ exegesis of Genesis 1. Whether some of his exegesis conforms to the intent of the sacred writer or not is certainly debatable, other Fathers of the Church had different opinions, but his exegesis is not against the Catholic Faith as a whole and it is well worth reading. Augustine had a very penetrating mind and a knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures that it could probably be argued that is unmatched by any single christian in the history of the Church. He was certainly gifted with the Holy Spirit in his knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures. At the same time, he was not infallible.
Augustine was not so bold as to claim that his exegesis of Genesis 1 was the only correct interpretation. He says this himself. He was well aware of the literal exegesis of Genesis 1 of St Ambrose who baptized and educated Augustine in the christian faith, St Basil the Great, and others. He does not criticize their interpretations as if his alone was the only correct one. He supports his own opinion with arguments drawn from other texts of Scripture and it appears one can detect some Platonic or other philosophic influence. Augustine respected Holy Scripture for what it is, the inspired word of God, and God himself is an impenetrable mystery.
‘“For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” …So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God…For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God…’ (1 Cor. 2). Accordingly, unless we ask either God himself or the sacred writer of Genesis 1 himself, various difficult texts in Genesis 1 can be variously explained within reason. For example, Augustine understood the six days work of creation as one day or as a simultaneous creative act; Ambrose, Basil, Damascene as 24 hour days; other fathers of the Church understood the days not as 24 hour days but as some unspecified period of time taking from Scripture, for example, ‘with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4). The discoveries of modern science obviously lend support to the interpretation that the days of the creation narrative specify some indefinite time.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Exactly, which is why so many species died out in the aftermath of the impact. The environment had changed too fast for evolution to deal with.Techno2000:
It doesn’t. What species do you think went extinct and came back?
rossum
rossum
What do you mean by… “died out” ?
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
Much has been written and will continue to be written concerning the Genesis 1-2:1-3 or 4 creation narrative and its interpretation. But was it the sacred writer’s intention to give a ‘scientific’ and exact historical account of the beginning of creation, its formation and completion by God? I don’t think so (he had overriding theological concerns) nor is it really necessary especially to his immediate audience and the culture of his time. In this sense, however long God’s creative activity lasted til the creation of man or in what exact historical order the work of the 6+ days came about upon which he rested on the ‘seventh’ day, I think is of minor detail to the theology that it is all the work of God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, the seas and everything in them. At the same time, since the whole narrative and, indeed, the whole Bible is inspired by God and is the word of God, then we should treat every word and text of the Bible as such and as we revere the body of the Lord in the eucharist and not pass over it lightly. Not intending to give a precise historical narrative does not necessarily mean no historical narrative.
Much has been written and will continue to be written concerning the Genesis 1-2:1-3 or 4 creation narrative and its interpretation. But was it the sacred writer’s intention to give a ‘scientific’ and exact historical account of the beginning of creation, its formation and completion by God? I don’t think so (he had overriding theological concerns) nor is it really necessary especially to his immediate audience and the culture of his time. In this sense, however long God’s creative activity lasted til the creation of man or in what exact historical order the work of the 6+ days came about upon which he rested on the ‘seventh’ day, I think is of minor detail to the theology that it is all the work of God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, the seas and everything in them. At the same time, since the whole narrative and, indeed, the whole Bible is inspired by God and is the word of God, then we should treat every word and text of the Bible as such and as we revere the body of the Lord in the eucharist and not pass over it lightly. Not intending to give a precise historical narrative does not necessarily mean no historical narrative.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Rapid catastrophic events do not occur in the lab. Fire, floods, tornadoes, asteroid impacts and other things figure into a dynamic environment. And they occur a lot faster than evolution which cannot cope in time. Any interruption with the current evolutionary flow slows things down or stops them altogether.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
How do you know there were… plant’s scent is not very strong, its colours not very bright, and its nectar less than delicious ?
T
Techno2000
Guest
Vague speculation
E
edwest211
Guest
Evolution has got a lot of maybes. A bit too many.
R
rossum
Guest
A
Aloysium
Guest
Good job!
Thanks.
T
Techno2000
Guest
die out
— phrasal verb with die US /dɑɪ/ verb [ I ] present participle dying, past tense and past participle died
to become less common and finally stop existing:
Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago
die out
1. to become less common and finally stop existing: 2. to become less common…
dictionary.cambridge.org
T
Techno2000
Guest
When the last dinosaur finally bit the dust, did the ground soak up its DNA and birds popped up out the soil…I don’t get it.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Of course general descriptions of evolutionary processes are vague. General descriptions of anything else are vague. If I say “A dog is a furry four-legged pet animal,” that’s pretty vague.
You sound like a man who’s prepared to read actual scientific papers with real details, and discuss their merits. Challenge accepted? Are you willing to actual exert a little intellectual effort to understand some scientific papers, and refute the very specific and detailed observations they entail?
You sound like a man who’s prepared to read actual scientific papers with real details, and discuss their merits. Challenge accepted? Are you willing to actual exert a little intellectual effort to understand some scientific papers, and refute the very specific and detailed observations they entail?
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Obvious strawman argument is obvious. Nobody has said that the “last dinosaur finally bit the dust.”
T
Techno2000
Guest
Sure if you can find me some that are unbiased .
- Status