Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Those purposes have been co-opted and may have not been the original intent of the original designer. I may design it simply to do a task without any money or sale to any purchaser. Tinkerers do this all the time.

In any case, science is removed?
 
I reject many of the comments made here. They go against Scripture, Papal statements and other documents. Logic is not involved. We are watching some people sell a product called “evolution.” It is propaganda.

To my fellow Catholics: Get a good book about psychological warfare if you are inclined to see how it’s done. I warn you that it will not be pleasant reading. Only the Church has the complete answer. No one else.
 
buffalo said:
Evolutionism is philosophy.
Click to expand...
Never heard of it, I’m talking about the theory of evolution which is a scientific theory to describe empirical data in biology, archeology, paleontology and many other bona fide sciences.
 
edwest211 said:
I reject many of the comments made here. They go against Scripture, Papal statements and other documents. Logic is not involved. We are watching some people sell a product called “evolution.” It is propaganda.
Click to expand...
Which comments specifically do you reject?

Logic is always involved whether you like it or not, even when you are illogical.

To what purpose do you think we are promoting evolution?
 
buffalo said:
The original language is: aphar (Strong’s #6083): clay, earth, mud, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, powder, rubbish.
Click to expand...
Thank you, didn’t know that, but Adam was made from “adama” in the preceding verse.
 
edwest211 said:
Only the Church has the complete answer. No one else.
Click to expand...
The complete answer to what? Science informs the Church.

As we talked about the Church does not reject evolution absolutely, only certain interpretations and athiests who hijack it to claim God didn’t create humans and so forth.
 
Last edited:
It is not empirically provable. Therefore science when it makes pronouncements crosses into philosophy.

One time events are not empirically scientifically provable. That will always leave it in the philosophy camp.

Revelation is a historical account of this one time event. The Church has always taught Adam and Eve and Eve coming from Adam and no polygenism. Was the Holy Spirit sleeping all this time and now just woke up to tell us we are in error? No, Revelation protected by the Holy Spirit is rock solid and cannot change for it is truth. Science, by its own definition is provisional and changes all the time. I put my faith in the Scriptural account.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
It is not empirically provable. Therefore science when it makes pronouncements crosses into philosophy.
Click to expand...
It is not possible to prove or we don’t have enough evidence yet to convince you?

It is not a pronouncement, it is a theory which explains a great deal in our natural world in a way which makes sense.
 
buffalo said:
Revelation is what science should check itself against.
Click to expand...
Scientists who read the genesis account to get answers to whether a set of bones they found is related to them would be poor scientists.

Revelation doesn’t always read like a scientific paper, which is how you seem to be reading the genesis account.
 
anon65111186 said:
Yes there is mud, clay, but in which sense is to be taken as? Is it literal and dogmatically the only one interpretation? Please show me an authority which supports such a claim.

Mud is pre-existing matter, and is it literal mud or the same mud apes are made of? Or are the apes mud? Could we not take the clay to be those souless animals? What council or Catholic authority refutes that?
Click to expand...
In what mad theological universe can inanimate matter (“dust” and “ground”) be interptreted to mean a living organism? Not even Origen, the King of Allegory, would have been wacko enough to come up with such a ridiculous idea.

Consider Genesis 3:23: “Therefore the Lord God sent him (Adam) forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.” The “ground from which he was taken” is obviously soil - inanimate matter. Even a child would understand the clear, unambiguous meaning of these words - Adam was formed from soil. I would like to know how Catholic theologians can possibly reconcile this verse with the claim that Adam was the offspring of a living creature? Moreover, the Hebrew word “ground” here is exactly the same “ground” that Adam was formed from in Genesis 2:7.
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
That is your central error. The fact that there were Saints, priests and millions of faithful Catholics disproves that it is athiest, for no holy person would belong to such a group. You know that the Catholics were among the first to develop modern science, right?
Click to expand...
I not talking about the scientists who lived hundreds of years ago. I talking about how the scientific community has, since in the midldle of the nineteenth century, been slowly hijacked by the cult of evolution, which is spearheaded by atheists.
To support evolution is not to support the athiest philosophy about God and religion.
Click to expand...
A Christian who supports evolution is divided, because into one ear comes the doctrines of God and into the other ear comes the doctrines of demons.
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
Your bias and prejudice against this rather interesting theory does no service to the many Catholics who dedicate their lives to science, and to finding ways of healing the disunity between science and faith.
Click to expand...
Tales about aliens are interesting too, but it doesn’t mean any of them are true.
No Catholic with any sense would devote their time to a theory that contributes nothing at all to the advancement of science and has no practical scientific use. That would amount to wasting their God-given intellectual talents.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top