Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cont

God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam’s glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. For they saw [Fol. 5a, col. 2] the image of his face burning with glorious splendour like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal. And when he rose at full length and stood upright in the centre of the earth, he planted his two feet on that spot whereon was set up the Cross of our Redeemer; for Adam was created in Jerusalem. There he was arrayed in the apparel of sovereignty, and there was the crown of glory set upon his head, there was he made king, and priest, and prophet, there did God make him to sit upon his honourable throne, and there did God give him dominion over all creatures and things. And all the wild beasts, and all the cattle, and the feathered fowl were gathered together, and they passed before Adam and he assigned names to them; and they bowed their heads before him; and everything in nature worshipped him [Fol. 5b, col. I], and submitted themselves unto him. And the angels and the hosts of heaven heard the Voice of God saying unto him, “Adam, behold; I have made thee king, and priest, and prophet, and lord, and head, and governor of everything which hath been made and created; and they shall be in subjection unto thee) and they shall be thine, and I have given unto thee power over everything which I have created.” And when the angels heard this speech they all bowed the knee and worshipped Him.
 
[The Making of Eve.]

And God cast a sleep upon Adam and he slept. And God took a rib from the loins on the right side of Adam, and He made Khâwâ (i.e. Eve) from it: and when Adam woke up, and saw Eve, he rejoiced in her greatly. And Adam and Eve were in Paradise, and clothed with glory and shining with praise for three hours. Now this Paradise was situated on a high range of hills, and it was thirty spans–according to the measurement of the spirit–higher than all the high mountains, and it surrounded the whole earth.
 
Glark said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Since what you call pseudo-science is in fact science, it is accurate to say that you have a distrust of science. You can’t just redefine your problems away.
Click to expand...
Real science is based on facts and empirical evidence - you know, stuff that can be put to the test. Since evolution is largely based on a preconception (that life on earth evolved from microbes), conjectures and assumptions - that cannot be put to the test - it easily qualifies as pseudo-science.
Click to expand...
The “preconception” you speak of was the result of observation which led to a hypothesis, which is how all science develops.
 
It is something God can do and did. Science is unconcerned with binding doctrine.
 
Prove it.
You have stated as fact many times random mutation.
Prove it.
 
Last edited:
Pope Pelagius I

I confess … that all men from Adam onward who have been born and have died up to the end of the world will then rise again and stand “before the judgment-seat of Christ,” together with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of the man (… )
 
Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Responsum of June 30, 1909

Whether, in particular, the literal historical sense (sensus litteralis historicus) may be called in question (vocari in dubium possit), where it is a question of facts narrated in these chapters (ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis) which involve the foundations of the Christian religion (quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt), as are, among others, the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special [or, particular] creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man (formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine); the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity and immortality; the precept given by God to man in order to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine precept under the persuasion of the devil in the guise of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from the aforesaid primaeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Saviour?

Response: In the negative (Negative).30
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The “preconception” you speak of was the result of observation which led to a hypothesis, which is how all science develops.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. The idea that humans evolved from simpler creatures has been around since well before Christ. Atheists will always believe that life as we know it evolved from microbes - with or without any “observation”. Having rejected creation as a possiblity, they have no choice but to believe that’s what happened. Evidence for it is irrelevant for the belief to be held. The only “evidence” they need is, life exists.
 
Last edited:
To those pope quotes in general, why not quote modern popes that have spoken about evolution without condemnation of it, other than if people idolize it.

This is one of the reasons I left this conversation before. It devolves into a small, but vocal group of people essentially saying, at least it feels like this to me, that if you see evolution as reasonable: you’re an idiot that’s going to he’ll and no, the Church not condemning evolution and recent popes don’t matter because Christ’s Church that He said the gates of hell would not prevail against is being prevailed against. And even though you believe in God you’re denying God even though you actually aren’t.

If you disaggree with the science, fine, I really don’t care anymore. But it infuriates me when people ignore what the Church has explicitly said, such as that we CAN take Genesis allegorically, and try saying people are heretics for taking Genesis allegorically.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
How long do you think Adam was in the deep sleep? 1 minute, 1 day, 1year, 1000 years? or more?
Click to expand...
Dunno, but if I had to make a good honest judgement, I would say about at least a few minutes to a couple hours, maybe even half a day. When people go into surgery and go under it’s usually at least that to a half a day. Sleep is about 8 hours roughly.
buffalo said:
[The Creation of Adam.] Book of Jubilees - Yes I know it is non-canonical, but this may shed more light on it)
Click to expand...
Hehe never heard of it until now, but one interesting point in it is “According to him, Hebrew was the language originally spoken by all creatures, animals and man, and is the language of Heaven. After the destruction of the tower of Babel, it was forgotten until Abraham was taught it by the angels.” That’s another interesting theory.

I studied classics (Latin, Greek, and Hebrew) at Ave Maria University, but I was thinking of going into the priesthood. Do you think we should incorporate more Hebrew into our faith lives? Especially since Jesus spoke it and Aramaic.

On topic, I think that the very fact that we don’t have a observers account, but a recounted generalization of events, leaves it open to find out the details through any means, be it science or private revelation, to fill in the details.
 
mVitus said:
he Church has explicitly said, such as that we CAN take Genesis allegorically
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how you mean this but it is most not what I understand. There are very strict criteria to any evolutionary understanding that must be adhered to in order to be consistent with the Catholic faith.

Genesis works allegorically in describing who we are ontologically, and as the first revelation of the Word of God, it has much to say about our damaged relationship with Him. At the same time it is historical although written in a style that differs from the modern approach. That God created one first man and that from him, we became two, the first parents of all humanity.

You may want to post your references so that they can be discussed.
 
mVitus said:
the Church has explicitly said, such as that we CAN take Genesis allegorically,
Click to expand...
That’s right, but after looking at the definition of allegorical, it seems that allegorical is supposed to used in a spiritual sense. There is nothing spiritual per se about evolution, though maybe we are missing the spiritual side of it. Maybe evolution has a deeper spiritual meaning, like how one can evolve from a sinner without grace, to one with grace, which are two different species of human (allegorically).

From the Catechism:

According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.
The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction.”
The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.
 
Last edited:
Anatomically men have different ribs than women.

Hands are also different.

As for the narrative does it need to be explicit for us to know what it means? (Genesis)
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
You forgot to mention the part that says God made Adams body from inanimate matter, and that God told Adam he would “return” to inanimate matter when he died (one cannot “return” to inanimate matter if one never was inanimate matter. If Adam was the offspring of a living creature, he was never inanimate matter).
Click to expand...
All animals were once inanimate matter: “Let the earth bring forth…” The earth is inanimate matter, so all animals, proto-humans included, came originally from inanimate matter: earth.

Your interpretation may differ, but your interpretation appears to differ from that of the Catholic Church as well.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top