A
anon65111186
Guest
That’s possible, but it isn’t explicit and it certainly isn’t clear that omission of carnivores equals there shouldn’t be or wasn’t any.
- Status
A
anon65111186
Guest
Though I don’t know you, to be honestly frank with you, you seem like you are rebelling against the Church, not a righteous reformer or the like, though I do understand that you think you have all the right answers about evolution and everyone of us that disagrees with you is wrong.
For me I wish you or another person of your position would give some really reasonable and convincing arguments for why evolution is so wrong. Arguments like it’s from the devil, it’s essentially atheistic, it’s of no practical use, it can’t explain today’s animals and so forth just fall flat on me. They seem like losing arguments, even if I tried them myself.
So, what is the one reason evolution is absolutely wrong and you are right? The one reason that makes all other reasons superfluous?
K
Kei
Guest
The Arians were heretics (if they continued despite reproach by the council).
The Church Herself cannot teach error infallibly.
What is your authority to say the catechism is corrupt? Because it allows for evolution?
The Church Herself cannot teach error infallibly.
What is your authority to say the catechism is corrupt? Because it allows for evolution?
A
anon65111186
Guest
Sure, it does seem at odds at first glance, “I will blot out man” seems like it could mean all men, and “ all the mountains under heaven sound exactly like the whole globe, until you realize that it could just mean the visible sky, which stretches for what, 7 miles or so in every direction, or however far human eyesight and the horizon are.
It also says all men, all flesh on the earth, which could be all the earth in their knowledge, which was smaller than our map of the world, it doesn’t say all flesh on all of the earth, which is clearer.
Every living creature obviously doesn’t include some, like Noah for one, so obviously that isn’t universal.
Anyhow, the Fathers of Church were unanimous in not going for the universal interpretation, and the Church today holds to that.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
I have come across Maxwell’s but never evolutionary equations.
Only cutting edge scientists realise the potential of Darwinism I suppose; no one else does.
Seriously, It is nothing more than a mould into which scientific facts are twisted providing modern man with the mythos that now defines our place in the universe. It has great practical use as the zeitgeist of a humanity needing to express the meaninglessness of its existence. Darwinism doesn’t so much lead people to atheism but provides those increasing numbers with a coherent vision of a world without God.
A
Aloysium
Guest
We have no nonspiritual nature. The spirit is what we are. When we behave like animals, we are in fact demonic.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
But it doesn’t have to be a world without God or evolution without God. Darwinism cannot give such a vision of a godless world by omitting talking about him than the theory of gravity leads people to disbelieve in a God filled universe because it explains things without God.
Science is not to blame, but rather those who don’t believe in God. If they believed in God in the first place the theory leading them here or there wouldn’t matter because they had faith.
A
anon65111186
Guest
But if I took that to be true I would classify my material nature along with its animal instincts for survival and so forth as spiritual, but clearly we share that with the apes and the dolphins.
To say the spirit is what we are to the exclusion of anything material would be to deny that we are a union of body and soul. We are obviously not spiritual mist floating around with no form, we have a concrete material nature. That nature is the same one animals have, there is nothing different in them except for the DNA and difference of species. Therefore we have a material animal nature as well as a spiritual one.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
I want to add to this even though I already answered it. There’s an idea in the theory of mind, the philosophical zombie or “p-zombie.” The question is this: just by watch a person, can you know for sure that they are really experiencing the world much like I do, or is the person a complex machine that acts AS THOUGH it’s aware, but in fact it really isn’t?
This will soon be a very important issue. At some point in our lifetimes, there will be an AI so complex that it can largely mimic behavioral responses, especially online. It will convince people that it is human. The next question will be: “Should it have rights?”
I very much believe that such a data collection isn’t actually aware: it really is just a machine. But to most evolutionary biologists, a person is a complex machine: a collection of materials interacting according to the physical rules of nature.
What is 100% COMPLETELY MISSING is any real description of what mind is, how to tell whether this or that physical object might have one, and even evidence that such a thing as experience (read: qualia, i.e. “what it’s like to experience _____”).
To me, the nature of mind is a much more compelling argument for God than evolution. That’s because we are fine judging animals purely by their physical attributes and behaviors-- but MIND is something everyone believes in but nobody can see.
You could even say that whenever I believe another human being thinks and feels as I do, I’m exhibiting faith in the reality of that person’s sentience.
R
rossum
Guest
Your source has misunderstood the implications of “random” here. Here, ‘random’ does not mean ‘uncaused’. There are already known causes of mutations: radiation, some chemicals and viruses. What is random is the effect of the mutations
Mutation together with natural selection can easily explain genetic novelty and complexity. Mutations throw in a lot of changes, your “genetic novelty”. Natural selection selects those changes which are beneficial in the environment. If complexity is beneficial, then complex changes will be selected; if simplicity is beneficial then simplicity will be selected.
As to evolutionary transitions, there is a good example of an evolutionary transitions to a new species due to a single recent mutation: see Marbled Crayfish. That happened about 25 years ago.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Catholics do not enjoy that freedom. Being a Catholic means submitting to the Magesterial teaching of the Church. But if there is no agreement about ultimate authority, and you can call the Church corrupt, maybe Genesis is also corrupt. Why do you accept the Bible as an authority, but not the Church?LeafByNiggle:
I am a Catholic, therfore I can question what I perceive to be false and misleading teaching going on in my Church. And in my opionion, the Catechism contains some false and misleading teachings regarding origins science and the interpretation of Genesis.
But I don’t know why you are complaining. The Catechism does allow for your private interpretation of Genesis.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
I’m going to ask you to consider that, quite the contrary, it is the spirit which is real and makes everything tangible; and it is matter that is more of a mist in comparison. As a brick is unrestricted by a fog, walls are no obstacle to the spirit. What makes this moment alive is not the matter that the experience contains, but the spirit that it informs.
Matter is a simple form of being, whose information, “processed” trillion-folds, becomes a constituent part of the one whole being that is the person.
One of the problems with dualities, be they Cartesian (subject-object) or Thomasian (spirit-body) is that they do not truly exist. The reality is a relationship between self and other in the first case, and the person in the latter. The spirit is the organising principle for the body-in-the-world. It is at the core of who we are, unchanging as it incorporates matter that is other into its bodily form. DNA is simply information that helps in the actualisation of that process.
In a way it can be said that all is mind. And Mind can be understood as Existence, Triune in nature, a self-other relationship, perfect as Divine Love. God brings into being all that is, as His object, reflecting His glory, ultimately destined to become love itself.
Matter is real as a form of being lower on that ontological hierarchy and was created first. Then came simple life forms, plants, animals and we ourselves, each a new creation in time. We are constructed using the information contained in each lower material level, as well as that which belongs to the angels.
No, we did not evolve. We are not a species of hominid outside the vivid, somewhat horrific, imagination of modern man. This illusion will pass. We had a beginning; we were created perfect. We fell and now are on a journey to reconciliation with God.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
I see genetics, an attempt to understand adaptation, but no evolution here. That’s one of the major issues that people seem to have with evolutionary theory, that it has co-opted science to propagate a myth about human origins.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I guess I’m just contrary, nice image btw; not wanting to spoil the joke, I would put it that God first created “light” and from that first matter, then went on to create the relationships that are the physical manifestation of electromagnetism.
I guess I’m just contrary, nice image btw; not wanting to spoil the joke, I would put it that God first created “light” and from that first matter, then went on to create the relationships that are the physical manifestation of electromagnetism.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Over an over I am producing links showing we are learning that mutations most likely are not random as you claim. Some of them are actually programmed. You can deny all you want, but that is the direction this is going.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is the direct you are going, that’s for sure.
R
rossum
Guest
Mutations are random with respect to their effect. They are not random with respect to their causes. Which sort of random are you criticising here? Cause or effect?
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
I agree; it would be your regular collection of teratogens, those physical factors, including simple noise in the system, that cause genetic mutation, like having no sun screen, getting too many CT scans, hepatitis c and papilloma viruses, and so forth. That’s the problem.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why is that a problem?rossum:
I agree; it would be your regular collection of teratogens, those physical factors, including simple noise in the system, that cause genetic mutation, like having no sun screen, getting too many CT scans, hepatitis c and papilloma viruses, and so forth. That’s the problem.
- Status