M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Huh?
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Or I could simply be enmeshed in the truth.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yes, I’m afraid your demand for proof of evolution is worthless unless you can proved that the theory of gravity is the best explanation for why apples fall and planets circle the sun.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What should be taught in schools?
T
twinc
Guest
So its true after all fish to monkeys and frog to prince are tree relationships and carnivora - twinc
J
John_oxios
Guest
Hello,
Cows and dear come from whales? You believe this because ? An assumption? suggestion? read it after someone mentioned it on a Bathroom wall?
Where’s the verifiable proof?
I know God is God because He showed me He is God, and I’m not.
I tell you what show me verifiable proof a changing of a kind, like say a whale changing into a Cow? Or how about a toad into a prince… not suggestions, not assumptions but factual evidence it has happened.
God bless,
John
T
twinc
Guest
at last we have it in our grasp,truth is to be sought and found in science which relatively changes constantly and what one scientist postulates today is cogently torn down by another scientist tomorrow - no fixed facts,since theories are fixed facts - parallel lines never meet but apparently they do etc,etc - for further info and anomalies see William R. Corliss - twinc
G
grannymh
Guest
I sat under an apple tree. It was very cogent because my head hurt.
J
John_oxios
Guest
Your joking of course! HELLOOO Gravity is not a theory; It is an axiom that apples fall because of gravity, what goes up must come down! Remember Skylab? Gravity brought it down, disprove that!.
How about magnetism ya gonna deny that too?
Are you a protestant convert? Because you argue like one, you blurt out points and then try to change the discussion when it isn’t going your way.
You’re really going to ignore Isaac Newton and his works because
Ever hear of the Laws of Motion?
Law 1 (Look up the other two)
Every body continues in a state of rest, or uniform of motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change tat state by forces impressed on it.
The Law of Motion of Bodies
“Newton’s main interest is clearly to solve the big problem left by Keplar and Galileo, to understand the motions of objects acted onspecifically by the force of Gravity…”
http://cll.mcmaster.ca/multimedia_projects/sample/newton/bodies.htm
Newton tells us that the mathematical law of gravity, as he worked it out, works so well that it undeniably exists and has to be respected. He doesn’t pretend to know its cause.
What Evolution seems to suggest is that we are its cause, and backtracks whichever way it can to ‘prove’ it exists. Bottom line is you can’t avoid gravity, therefore not believing it, isn’t going to help you overcome its effects.
I say, I don’t believe in Evolution because it has to many holes without explanation to believe in. Saying That you try to say i’m wrong by throwing everything including the Kitchen sink to prove me wrong? Again Science is based on evidence which Evolution lacks in theory and physical evidence of!
Basically you’re using circular reasoning, to deter from the facts. Now you want me to explain celestial body rotation and if I can’t explain that, that makes Evolution as is according to you a fact? Is that all you got?
You want to know about Celestial body rotation do it in ‘ye olde’ fashion way, Buy and use a telescope!
‘I must understand in order to believe’ Peter Aberland
What you’re asking me to do is believe, before understanding, and that would be a religious concept.
God bless,
John
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
From what was posted, it seems that the government, via the schools, is teaching that religious beliefs are false. Which seems to be an establishment of anti-religion.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
What causes apples to fall? Gravity causes apples to fall.I sat under an apple tree. It was very cogent because my head hurt.
What is gravity? Gravity is that which causes apples to fall.
J
John_oxios
Guest
Hey Mack,
How about This,
What causes the apple to fall, we call gravity. If you don’t like the word gravity, you can call it whatever you’d like, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Evolution in light of Scripture? I’ll take Scripture, ‘Creationism’
God bless,
John
J
John_oxios
Guest
Lets get the full skinny on St. Anastasias signoff:
In September 2004, the International Theological Commission issued a document, Communion and Stewardship, devoted to explicating the notion of the human being as imago Dei. The commission quotes the papal statement with approval and offers what seems a fair summation of the current scientific consensus: “Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism [the first microscopic life, 3.5-4 billion years ago]. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on Earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution” (No. 63).
Naturally, the commission rejects any account that denies God’s role in designing, creating and sustaining the universe, thus excluding the materialism that writers like Richard Dawkins intimately link with evolution. It also argues for special divine intervention in the creation of the first human beings, interestingly identifying this event not with the appearance of the genus Homo 2.5 million years ago but with the emergence of Homo sapiens “in a hominid population of common genetic lineage” 150,000 years ago. This implies that humanity did not arise directly from apes, as popularly believed, but from an existing hominid species. The commission suggests that the development of our large brain and the expansion of its powers (self-consciousness, intentionality, etc.) made the defining difference.
While the language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with regard to Adam and Eve is careful (see Nos. 375 and 390), it is nevertheless open to literalist interpretation: “The account of the Fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man” (emphasis in original).
…The Genesis stories are wonderfully concrete ways of expressing deeper truths, like humanity’s origin in divine intent, our relationship to God, our inherent moral instability, our responsibility to behave ethically and our integration with the natural world. But they are stories, after all. As has been argued for centuries, it is wise to encourage an understanding of Scripture consistent with what we know (or think we know) in the 21st century. Otherwise, Catholicism may begin to seem less and less “realistic” to more and more thoughtful people. That dynamic is a far greater obstacle to religious assent than evolution.
…For me, though, the dialogues’ greatest value lies not in solving particular ethical puzzles, important as that may be. An ongoing engagement with science helps the church present its venerable creed in a form that justly challenges the modern Western mind…americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3996
G
grannymh
Guest
Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I sat under an apple tree. It was very cogent because my head hurt.
Please pardon my late night sense of humor. What made you conclude that an apple had fallen on my head?
Could it be that the trouble with myths and fairy tales regarding scripture is that they brainwash us so that when we read the truth like the reality of Adam and Eve, we immediately conclude that a myth had dropped.
Blessings,
granny :yawn:
R
Robintrinket
Guest
Pope Pius XII addressed this issue in his encyclical Humani Generis. He was Pope, not a “fundamentalist Protestant”. It condemns the modern idea that the Old Testament should only be seen as being symbolic, and clearly says that Adam was a real person who committed a real sin, and that is how original sin got into the world.
In paragraph 22, it says, “For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.”
In paragraph 35, it says, “In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take [positive] sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.” Has anyone disproven the stories in the Old Testament, Adam and Eve, the flood, etc. any more than they had in 1950?
In paragraph 38, it says, “Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament.”
And finally, paragraph 39 says, “Therefore, whatever of the popular narations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things…” So there is the answer to your question; we should not view Adam and Eve and Noah as being only myths.
I encourage everyone to read the whole encyclical, which can be found at: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
In paragraph 22, it says, “For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.”
In paragraph 35, it says, “In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take [positive] sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.” Has anyone disproven the stories in the Old Testament, Adam and Eve, the flood, etc. any more than they had in 1950?
In paragraph 38, it says, “Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament.”
And finally, paragraph 39 says, “Therefore, whatever of the popular narations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things…” So there is the answer to your question; we should not view Adam and Eve and Noah as being only myths.
I encourage everyone to read the whole encyclical, which can be found at: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
R
Robintrinket
Guest
1 Corinthians 1:26-29: “For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to wordly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.”
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, take a physics course.I sat under an apple tree. It was very cogent because my head hurt.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
N0, there was no direct line of evolutionary descent from fish to monkey, or from frogs to princes. But you will find a lot of useful information on the “Understanding Evolutoin” website: evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
Alternatively, you could visit a local institution of higher education some day and visit with a biologist. Ask her or him why they are convinced by the evidence that evolution is the best explanation for biological diversity on earth. If the biologist is a religious person, ask why he or she is not threatened by biology.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No school should teach that religious beliefs are false.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Are you a fan of circular arguments?
- Status