Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[The_Barbarian]

What did the Lord say? Is that not relevant?

You seem outraged that He didn’t say what you want. As you learned, the word “eretz” means “land” and can mean anything from the territory that is Israel, to just a piece of land somewhere.

Please try to be rational - and literate.

Hmm… you won’t take a Catholic source, that has been approved by the Church. You won’t accept the fact that the word translated as “earth” doesn’t mean “the whole world.” That doesn’t sound like rationality or literacy to me. Isn’t it time you accepted the teaching of the Church?

BTW: Does a nihil obstat and imprimatur guarantee that a work will authentically present the teachings of the Church?

I can go with the Church’s authority, or with your say-so. Not much of a choice, um?

For a Catholic who wants to understand the teachings of the Church, the place to start (and to constantly refer back to) is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Hmmm… nowhere does it say that there was a literal worldwide flood. Want to try again?

How about ignoring His word - like Gen 7:19, 9:11?

I don’t think you think of it as “ignoring His word.” Possibly more like “improving.” You substituted “whole world” for “earth” (actually “eretz”, which does not mean “whole world”) And it seems, since floods have often wasted the earth since then, that God meant that he would not again wipe out human life.

That OK?

No, I don’t think your improvements are a good idea. Let’s go with it as it was written.

 

[Namesake]

PHILIPP:

Well if science is so indifferent [namesake]

Since you included me in this post I feel free to respond to that portion in which I was mentioned.

Science is indifferent to the concept of a creator. That doesn’t mean that science is antagonistic to the concept of a creator. That doesn’t mean that individual scientists are not antagonistic toward the concept of a creator. Some probably are. Many are not. That is neither here nor there.

All it means is that science isn’t interested in the concept of a creator. I really believe that you would prefer that science stays out of the God business. Scientists aren’t very good at discerning God within their science, but they are very good at discovering material truth. It is totally objective.

 

[Philipp]

Barbarian observes:
Since there’s no scriptural evidence for a worldwide flood, and no scientific evidence, you’d be discussing fairytales.

Noah didn’t say that. No where in Scripture does he say it.

God didn’t say it, either. In the original language, “the earth” was written as “eretz”, which just means “land.” It can mean “hereabouts”, a specific region ("eretz Israele, the “land of Israel”) and various other things.

From the Catholic encyclopedia:
**The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a certain part of the earth. Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal, and this opinion is defended even in our days by some conservative scholars (cf. Kaulen in Kirchenlexikon). But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:
(1) The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned.

Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.**
newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

PHILIPP: Your reference was the most complete discussion of the various factors and references associated with the flood noted in the Bible. I thank you for that.

However from my field and lab experiences I think that the flood was universal geologically and disagree with the conclusion (1) The geographical universality of the Delluge may be safely abandoned. Not a fairy tale. I suspect it happened before later catastrophes such as the Missoula Flood of Montana and perhaps the Siberian one which appear to have been the quick melting of the 1000 foot thick glaciers. More thories worthy of intense discussion,

I think that we must always remember that the Moses account was the inspired word of God eventhough many scholars place the Babylonian account well before the Biblical account.

(1) Moses was given the exact time and length of the flood. Why? Because He [God] knew [He knows all things right?] that there would be many crude accounts of the flood world wide that would eventually be found by achaeologists and anthropologists.
(2) But the Jews were His chosen people so He told Moses, his fathful servant in Egypt and the Sinai, just how it happened - the Fountains opened first, then it rained [see previous post by this writer].
(3) How would Moses have known all those little details if it had not been given him many perhaps1000’s of years later by the Creator of the universe and all kinds of life forms who was there when the universal flood happened?
(4) I just can’t believe Moses felt a need to indepentently make up such a story with such accurate details.
(5) Since we all have free will, God is perhaps testing us to believe in his word sooooo I believe in the account given by Moses.
(6) He has also blessed me with being allowed to see the many fossil human footprints and one human handprint with dinosaur ones, viewing the many depictions of dinosaurs from around the world and having friends and associates who have taught me much about the C-14 dating method with its accuracy, precision, and its flaws, how dating fossils supports catastrophism and the many flaws in radioisotopic dating dating that makes it a useless chronology tool.


God bless

 

[The_Barbarian]

PHILIPP: Your reference was the most complete discussion of the various factors and references associated with the flood noted in the Bible. I thank you for that.

Actually, it wasn’t that much. Bible scholars have a lot more to say about it.

However from my field and lab experiences I think that the flood was universal geologically and disagree with the conclusion

What do you think the best geological evidence for an universal flood would be?

Not a fairy tale. I suspect it happened before later catastrophes such as the Missoula Flood of Montana and perhaps the Siberian one which appear to have been the quick melting of the 1000 foot thick glaciers.

The evidence shows that the scablands were caused by the melting of an ice dam that then catastrophically failed.

Not familiar with the Siberian example. I’ll take a look.

I think that we must always remember that the Moses account was the inspired word of God eventhough many scholars place the Babylonian account well before the Biblical account.

You would expect peoples around the middle east to have known about the flood, and apparently, most of them did have traditions consistent with a flood there.

1. Moses was given the exact time and length of the flood. Why? Because He [God] knew [He knows all things right?] that there would be many crude accounts of the flood world wide that would eventually be found by achaeologists and anthropologists.
   (2) But the Jews were His chosen people so He told Moses, his fathful servant in Egypt and the Sinai, just how it happened - the Fountains opened first, then it rained [see previous post by this writer].

Most likely, the flood story is allegorical in many parts. The idea of taking in all the animals that existed, and keeping them alive for over a year, with only eight people to tend them, is patently absurd, as a literal story.

He has also blessed me with being allowed to see the many fossil human footprints and one human handprint with dinosaur ones,

So far, even most creationists have walked away from the man tracks stories. They made the “Answers in Genesis” list of “Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use.”

viewing the many depictions of dinosaurs from around the world

We know that the long-necked “dinosaur” pictures, for example, were taken from “dragon bones” which were actually of a fossil giraffe.

and having friends and associates who have taught me much about the C-14 dating method with its accuracy, precision, and its flaws,

C-14 is not used for fossils, since its half-life is far too short to be useful for that purpose. However, many other isotopes do work well. Recently, one accurately placed the date of the eruption that buried Pompeii.

how dating fossils supports catastrophism

Tell us about that.

and the many flaws in radioisotopic dating dating that makes it a useless chronology tool.

Since it has been checked with known dates, it seems rather pointless to deny that it works.

 

[edwest2]

Since you included me in this post I feel free to respond to that portion in which I was mentioned.

Science is indifferent to the concept of a creator. That doesn’t mean that science is antagonistic to the concept of a creator. That doesn’t mean that individual scientists are not antagonistic toward the concept of a creator. Some probably are. Many are not. That is neither here nor there.

All it means is that science isn’t interested in the concept of a creator. I really believe that you would prefer that science stays out of the God business. Scientists aren’t very good at discerning God within their science, but they are very good at discovering material truth. It is totally objective.

Science is totally objective? When was this?

perc.ca/PEN/1992-05/review2.html

It’s always been under one influence or another.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Memaw]

Well I ain’t buying that the earth has only existed for 6,000 years. I accept that the earth at one point had dinosaurs. There is plenty of evidence in favor of it. And scientists do have the ability to carbon date their findings and come up with an estimate of how old it is. Does any of that deny that God started the whole process? Of course not. We’re just interested in how He did what He did. Science does not contradict religion. It supplements it.

As long as science is TRUTHFUL and doesn’t contradict GOD, its very useful and interesting. BUT NOT when it leaves God out and fills the gaps with fables.

 

[Memaw]

More to the point, neither Scripture nor the teaching of the Church tells us that it did cover the whole earth. The doctrine of a worldwide flood is the addition of those who are not satisfied with God’s word.

As you saw, He did not say it did. Nor does the Church teach that it did.

Did you note this on the site I quoted and linked for you?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV. Published 1908. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

You should believe God, instead of adding things to His word to make it more acceptable to you.

You seem to be pretty handy at telling us what the Church teaches, claiming it goes along with your notions.

God instructed Noah in how to build the Ark, (detailed instructions) (then it took him approx. 150 years to build it.) Then HE instructed him to take aboard two of every kind of bird and animal, male and female, so that after the flood the world could be repopulated. Information from :"The Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon S.J. Imprimatue, Joseph T. O’keefe, Vicar General, Archdiocese of Nwe York, December 13, 1979.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You seem to be pretty handy at telling us what the Church teaches,

Spent a lot of time as a child and high school student in CCD. And I was in high school during Vatican II, so I learned a great deal from following those proceedings.

God instructed Noah in how to build the Ark, (detailed instructions) (then it took him approx. 150 years to build it.) Then HE instructed him to take aboard two of every kind of bird and animal, male and female, so that after the flood the world could be repopulated. Information from :"The Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon S.J. Imprimatue, Joseph T. O’keefe, Vicar General, Archdiocese of Nwe York, December 13, 1979.

The evidence does not rule out a large regional flood. Indeed, there is abundant evidence for a huge flood that created the Black Sea, at that time. The major error fundamentalist revisionists make, is confusing “eretz” (meaning “land”) for “the whole Earth.”

You’ve rejected Scripture in favor of fables.

 

[elt1956]

Many of those babies are NOT dead till they remove the stem cells. They are tiny but living. Some are made just for that purpose. And You cannot kill one human being, no matter how small to save the life of another human being, no matter how sick. How barbaric to think thats good. There really are some things worse than death. Thats what I mean when I say some educated people are leading us down the wrong path. Education does not always = Wisdom. True FAITH in GOD = Wisdom.

I am agreeing with Memaw here. If one believes that human life begins at conception and the immortal soul is given by God to an individual at that time, (if you don’t, when does it begin and when is it given?) then the use of embryonic stem cells is a sin, no matter what scientific good may come of it.

 

[Memaw]

Spent a lot of time as a child and high school student in CCD. And I was in high school during Vatican II, so I learned a great deal from following those proceedings.

The evidence does not rule out a large regional flood. Indeed, there is abundant evidence for a huge flood that created the Black Sea, at that time. The major error fundamentalist revisionists make, is confusing “eretz” (meaning “land”) for “the whole Earth.”

You’ve rejected Scripture in favor of fables.

Last time I looked the earth was made of land. The major error evolutions make is confusing “eretz,” or for just a little spot of land, for the whole earth.
You’ve rejected Sacred Scripture for fables.

I’m gonna wait and let God tell me the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH and NOTHING but the TRUTH.

My, My, you musta been an exceptional child to have learned all about Vatican II in CCD as a high school student. . And there were soooooo many false teachings about Vat. II at that time, that is is taking YEARS for the POPES, John Paul II and Benedict XVI to get the truth to us. Paul VI said he felt his head was on a bed of thorns at night, he was suffering so, from all the false interpretations that went on during that time.
You are amazing!! Now I hope you will spend as much time and energy learning the TRUTH about Vatican II.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Last time I looked the earth was made of land.

And tanks are made of steel. But a nail isn’t a tank thereby.

The major error evolutions make is confusing “eretz,” or for just a little spot of land, for the whole earth.

The Bible says “eretz Israel” for “the land of Israel.” You think Israel is the whole Earth?

Barbarian observes:
You’ve rejected Sacred Scripture for fables.

I’m gonna wait and let God tell me the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH and NOTHING but the TRUTH.

He’s telling you the truth now; you just aren’t willing to accept it.

My, My, you musta been an exceptional child to have learned all about Vatican II in CCD as a high school student.

We had a pretty good CCD program; our priest took the older high school kids. It was a rather good preparation.

And there were soooooo many false teachings about Vat. II at that time, that is is taking YEARS for the POPES, John Paul II and Benedict XVI to get the truth to us. Paul VI said he felt his head was on a bed of thorns at night, he was suffering so, from all the false interpretations that went on during that time.

Fortunately, we got to discuss all those issues and the controveries. He was quite willing to show us the issues and the disagreements, as well as settled dogma.

You are amazing!!

Not really. I was really interested, and our priest instilled a love of God in us.

Now I hope you will spend as much time and energy learning the TRUTH about Vatican II.

I think I’ll stay with the magisterium on this one. Nothing personal.

 

[edwest2]

Spent a lot of time as a child and high school student in CCD. And I was in high school during Vatican II, so I learned a great deal from following those proceedings.

The evidence does not rule out a large regional flood. Indeed, there is abundant evidence for a huge flood that created the Black Sea, at that time. The major error fundamentalist revisionists make, is confusing “eretz” (meaning “land”) for “the whole Earth.”

You’ve rejected Scripture in favor of fables.

(Edited) Genesis, Chapter 7, clearly states the the mountains were covered. It would be a good idea to stop belittling people. Only your love of science shows through. It is in error. And you are trying to lead others into error.

Sincerely,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Genesis, Chapter 7, clearly states the the mountains were covered.

“Mountains”, in the area of the flood, were not much more than hills. None of this is indicative of a worldwide deluge, which is why the Church does not teach that it was. As you see, the mistranslation of “eretz” (“land”) for “the whole world” is at the root of the error.

It would be a good idea to stop belittling people.

In reality, Ed, only you can really belittle yourself.

Only your love of science shows through.

Nature is part of God’s creation, and is therefore good. It is, as you have seen, the way He does most things in our world. Accepting His creation as it is, is part of accepting and loving Him.

It would help a lot if you could do that, Ed.

 

[drpmjhess]

(Edited) Genesis, Chapter 7, clearly states the the mountains were covered. It would be a good idea to stop belittling people. Only your love of science shows through. It is in error. And you are trying to lead others into error. Sincerely,Ed

Ed, you are the one leading others into error by proposing a literal reading of the flood myth. Forty days of rain could not produce enough water to cover Mt. Everest at 29,035 feet! And forget the non-existent fountains of the deep – they are from the sincere imagination of the geologically ignorant redactor of Genesis 1-11.

There are no fountains of the deep; the interior of the earth is filled with magma, not with water (check on Earth’s core on Wikipedia. Learn to read scripture with an eye to what it means: God’s love and care for creation is so great that God would have saved animals (though not plants) even from a great flood.

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

You apparently have your own version of God. He does not appear to be the God of the Bible. Science is a tool used by men. It is not the Word of God.

Your posts never put God first. For you, it is always science first.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Memaw]

And tanks are made of steel. But a nail isn’t a tank thereby.

The Bible says “eretz Israel” for “the land of Israel.” You think Israel is the whole Earth?

Barbarian observes:
You’ve rejected Sacred Scripture for fables.

He’s telling you the truth now; you just aren’t willing to accept it.

We had a pretty good CCD program; our priest took the older high school kids. It was a rather good preparation.

Fortunately, we got to discuss all those issues and the controveries. He was quite willing to show us the issues and the disagreements, as well as settled dogma.

Not really. I was really interested, and our priest instilled a love of God in us.

I think I’ll stay with the magisterium on this one. Nothing personal.

Vatican II is infallible and is in the magisterium. Nothing personal. but I am also amazed at the knowledge of your priest when practically everyone else was confused. I was studying under a priest too and he was very knowledgeable but that was right after the Council and just before all the Confusion started. I was in there from the beginning and I read the 16 Documents of Vatican II probably before most Catholics even knew what they were. I read and studied Humanae Vitae right after it was in print, (givin to me by my priest to study. ) I taught CCD for 20 years from pre-school to adults, and for several years in a 5-day Catholic school who’s pastor insisted on faithfullness to the Teaching magisteriunm of the Church. I taught Baptismal classes. I belong to Catholics United to the Faith All this during the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. When things got really confusing for most…I could go on but I think thats enough. I TRUST THE CHURCH to bring us through ever situation this world can throw at us and I always will.

 

[drpmjhess]

You apparently have your own version of God. He does not appear to be the God of the Bible. Science is a tool used by men. It is not the Word of God. Your posts never put God first. For you, it is always science first.God bless,Ed

Ed, does your version of God not love the world? Does your version of God not endow humans with reason to employ in discerning truth? Your last post did not put God first; it began with the word “You.”

 

[edwest2]

Science is not the Word of God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Science is not the Word of God.

Of course it’s not. And the word of God does not contradict what we know to be true about the way the world works. It would be extraordinary if the Bible purveyed falsehoods, such as asserting – contrary to all knowledge we have from geology – the the earth is hollow and filled with “fountains of the deep.”

 

[edwest2]

It would interesting, very interesting, to me to see the Bible defended with the same level of assurance and p(name removed by moderator)oint accuracy as so-called scientific conclusions and theories.

Apparently, here, casting a shadow of doubt on science is heresy. But to cast a shadow of doubt on the Holy Bible - sure, go right ahead.

“Man does not live by bread alone but by every word of God.” Jesus Christ, Luke 4:4

God bless,
Ed