Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

[anon65111186]

I think that “changing the Lord’s Prayer” thing was a hoax.

That is another thread altogether.

 

[anon65111186]

before the spiritual disease of Darwinism infected the Church.

Just curious, how and when did you become convinced of such an idea? What book, article did you read, who is it that convinced you so?

Or did you come to that conclusion on your own? What convinced you?

 

[Glark]

No one did more to destroy the missionary spirit of the Church than JP II. Despite our Lord’s Mission Statement: “make disciples of all the nations”, many clerymen now consider “conversion” to be a dirty word. Countless Catholic missionaries endured great suffering and often death in their efforts to bring the light of Christ to pagans - JP II’s “inter-faith” madness made a mockery of thousands of years of holy missionary work and suffering.

 

[edwest211]

The size of this thread and the one before, shows quite clearly that this is a one way only conversation. It is sad in a way but Catholics will continue to believe that science is not all there is. That God clearly intervenes. But that is not scientific, so this insistence pattern will continue indefinitely.

 

[anon65111186]

he was saying Adam was made from inanimate matter

Animals are also made from inanimate matter.

Now just speculation but Genesis does not rule out the possibility that it went
inanimate matter (dust) > animal (missing link species) > adam
adam’s source material (rib) > animal missing link species > eve

 

[Glark]

I have eyes and ears and at least half a brain. It ain’t rocket science.

 

[anon65111186]

God cursed him and said “you are dust” , meaning you are inanimate matter - ie, you are dead. This has two meanings - 1. although physcally alive, Adam was now spiritually dead, 2. Adam’s ultimate fate will be physical death (as when someone says, “you are toast”).

Interesting interpretation but spiritual death is allegorical, because human spirit is immortal.
If Adam was nothing but material literally, he would no longer be human.
The sinful soul still animated the inanimate matter, so either way God is not speaking literally.

 

[anon65111186]

I have eyes and ears and at least half a brain. It ain’t rocket science.

My point is, what did you eyes see and your ears hear to convince you?

 

[anon65111186]

It is sad in a way but Catholics will continue to believe that science is not all there is. That God clearly intervenes. But that is not scientific, so this insistence pattern will continue indefinitely.

I think we can agree that

1. God exists
2. God acts in nature sometimes
3. God also leaves natural laws to run their course (not stopping the law of gravity from acting on a falling rock)
4. The Magisterium and the Catholic Church teach the fullness of the truth in regards to faith and morals, and is sometimes incorrect about science (Galileo for example)
5. Evolution has been hijacked by both Christians and Athiests to do philsophy and theology
6. Theologians and Scientists should stay within their area of expertise
7. Evolution is purely scientific

 

[Glark]

Now just speculation but Genesis does not rule out the possibility that it went
inanimate matter (dust) > animal (missing link species) > adam
adam’s source material (rib) > animal missing link species > eve

You could have fooled me. Like any good theistic evolutionist, you are reading into Scripture whatever you want it to read.

 

[buffalo]

Is intelligent design science?
Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern. For further information, see Casey Luskin’s article on how intelligent design follows the scientific method and Stephen Meyer’s comments on why intelligent design is science.

Is intelligent design simply a response to Darwinian evolution?
No. Contrary to what many people suppose, the debate over intelligent design is much broader than the debate over Darwin’s theory of evolution. That’s because much of the scientific evidence for intelligent design comes from areas that Darwin’s theory doesn’t even address. In fact, the evidence for intelligent design comes from three main areas: Physics and Cosmology, the Origin of Life, and the Development of Biological Complexity. Frequently Asked Questions | Center for Science and Culture

 

[anon65111186]

Glark, it comes down to one of two things

1. Evolution and Theological truth are compatible and not mutually exclusive
2. Evolution and Theological truth are incompatible and mutually exclusive.

 

[Glark]

Reality - the enemy of evolution. It would be pointless me trying to elaborate on that; you wouldn’t understand. If you haven’t woken up the deception by now, you probably never will.

 

[anon65111186]

It would be pointless me trying to elaborate on that; you wouldn’t understand.

I’m asking you how you came to that understanding, what did it for you? If you understand it but can’t explain it, do you truly understand how you came to the conclusion you came to?

 

[Glark]

Who wrote these parts?

I don’t know, but judging by the contents, it looks like a collaboration between fanatical Catholic evolutionists and PAS atheists.

 

[buffalo]

1. Ascension into heaven, walking on water, etc.
2. Another thread but it seems Galileo was wrong
3. No it isn’t. It does not meet the empirical definition. It is philosophy and many have taken it to religion.

 

[Glark]

To an eternal entity like God, billions of years is instantly, it is 0% of God’s lifetime.

You have completley missed my point: Why would a loving God choose a process billions of years of suffering, violence and death when all that misery and horror could be avoided by instead using instantaneous creation?

 

[anon65111186]

Another thread but it seems Galileo was wrong

He was wrong because he go involved in Theology, and his theories could not be proven by the current science of his time. He was vindicated later, because modern science proves that the sun is the center of our solar system.

Ascension into heaven, walking on water, etc.

Yes, that is what I meant. But whether the Genesis account is made to be a miracle in the sense of bending laws of nature is not 100% clear. I’m not denying that it could have been, because I accept God is all-powerful and could have.

No it isn’t. It does not meet the empirical definition. It is philosophy and many have taken it to religion.

So, neither is the theory of relativity, the big bang theory, black holes under that definition.

 

[edwest211]

Regarding point 7. Please stop bothering Catholics here. Just a suggestion.

 

[Glark]

Wrong again. They were made at least 120 hours after the beginning, since they were made on day six.

Lame. When Jesus uttered these words, he wasn’t being super-chronologically-correct - he had no need to be … he was talking about divorce, not giving a history lesson. But no doubt the Jews listening to him knew what he was referring to, as they would have been familiar with the six days of creation in Genesis 1.