Please Help Me

  • Thread starter Thread starter JosephSharon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JosephSharon

Guest
I’m sure that there are a million threads on here with similar content, but please bare with me. I need your help.

You know the diagrams that show drawings of supposed animals progressing from apes to Man? Can you please tell me whether any of the characters in the drawings besides the final product have actually been proven to have existed? Or are they merely hypothesized to have existed?

Besides “java man”, “lucy”, “peking man”, and “neandtherthaal man” - which I can explain away - have there been any skeletons of alleged evolutionary predecessors to Man that have been discovered?

If the answer is “yes”, please, for the love of God, do not respond to this thread. Please only weigh-in if you have an answer that I want to hear.

Thank You
 
why ask a question then ask only for answers when you want to hear?

if you’re tying to make a point, why not just save everyone’s time and make the point?
 
If the answer is “yes”, please, for the love of God, do not respond to this thread. Please only weigh-in if you have an answer that I want to hear.
Do you want to win an argument, or are you looking for truth?
 
No, it is not sarcastic!

I want to know the truth, but not if it upsets me.
 
No, it is not sarcastic!

I want to know the truth, but not if it upsets me.
Well, the truth hurts sometimes. Evolution is really not a FACT it is a theory. The supposed skeletons people have found all appear to just be dead monkeys; at least, that’s what I’ve seen and heard. Personally, I don’t care. Whether it was Creation like in Genesis or Evolution, I know God was in command of it.
 
I think you need to understand the Church’s position on evolution according to the Popes:

msnbc.com news services
updated 2:55 p.m. ET July 25, 2007

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
Benedict also said the human race must listen to “the voice of the Earth” or risk destroying its very existence…
“We all see that today man can destroy the foundation of his existence, his Earth,” he said in a closed door meeting with 400 priests on Tuesday. A full transcript of the two-hour event was issued on Wednesday.
“We cannot simply do what we want with this Earth of ours, with what has been entrusted to us,” said the pope, who has been spending his time reading and walking in the scenic landscape bordering Austria."

God has created the universe in His infinite power, and created man by putting His spirit into us.
 
Pope Pius XI wrote on evolution, the Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict

Pope John Paul II, on the 23rd of October, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact, tacitly acknowledging that man evolved from the apes while teaching that at some period in history God gave souls to humandkind, that leap from animal to human.

VATICAN CITY, OCT 23, 1996 (VIS) - In a Message made public today to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, meeting this week in the Vatican in plenary session, the Holy Father recalled that Pope Pius XI, who restored this academy in 1936, called this group of scholars “the Church’s ‘scientific senate’” and asked them “to serve the truth.”
The Pope expressed delight on the plenary’s theme on the origin of life and evolution, “a basic theme which greatly interests the Church, as Revelation contains, for its part, teachings concerning the nature and origins of man.” If the scientifically-reached conclusions and those contained in Revelation on the origin of life seem to counter each other, he said, “in what direction should we seek their solution? We know in effect that truth cannot contradict truth.”

John Paul II, noting the academy’s “reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium,” observed that “in the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications make new questions arise. The Church can grasp their scope all the better as she knows their basic aspects.”
He pointed to the Church’s magisterium on the question of the origin of life and evolution, citing in particular Pius XII’s 1950 Encyclical “Humani Generis” and the conciliar Constitution "Gaudium et Spes."The Pope drew the academicians’ attention to “the need for a correct interpretation of the inspired word, of a rigorous hermeneutics. It is fitting to set forth well the limits of the meaning proper to Scripture, rejecting undue interpretations which make it say what it does not have the intention of saying.”

“‘Humani Generis’,” he stated, “considered the doctrine of ‘evolutionism’ as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis. … Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. … The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.”
He continued: “The elaboration of a theory such as that of evolution, while obeying the exigency of homogeneity with the data of observation, borrows certain ideas from the philosophy of nature. To tell the truth, more than the theory of evolution, one must speak of the theories of evolution. … There are thus materialistic and reductionist readings and spiritual readings.”

“The magisterium of the Church is directly interested in the question of evolution because this touches upon the concept of man, … created in the image and likeness of God. … Pius XII underlined this essential point: ‘if the origin of the human body is sought in living matter which existed before it, the spiritual soul is directly created by God.’ Consequently, the theories of evolution which, as a result of the philosophies which inspire them, consider the spirit as emerging from forces of living matter or as a simple epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are moreover incapable of laying the foundation for the dignity of the person.”

“Consideration of the method used in diverse orders of knowledge allows for the concordance of two points of view which seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure with ever greater precision the multiple manifestations of life and place them on a timeline. The moment of passing over to the spiritual is not the object of an observation of this type, which can nevertheless reveal, on an experimental level, a series of very useful signs about the specificity of the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of the awareness of self and of its reflexive nature, that of the moral conscience, that of liberty, or still yet the aesthetic and religious experience, are within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology extracts from it the final meaning according to the Creator’s designs.”

MESS/ORIGIN LIFE:EVOLUTION/ACAD VIS 961023 (660)
 
Is this supposed to be a sarcastic thread?
I don’t believe Joseph is being sarcastic. He is feeling insecure about the debate and doesn’t want to lose faith in God. That’s what I read in his question. I just answered my granddaughter’s worries on the matter this week so had the information to hand.
 
I’m sorry, but i’m not looking for the Church’s position on the issue.

I have a specific question that I am asking here because I am likely to get a response from someone with my bias.
 
God made everything. Someday I hope to understand how. However, HOW isn’t really very important to me and I think alot of people expend alot of energy worrying over something that is not foundational.
 
PLEASE answer my question, someone.

I asked a very specific question!
 
It is my understanding that the drawings from ape to man are theoretical, drawn by those who definitely believe in that kind of evolution and want to impress others to believe it also.

If they had definite proof of any of the so called intermediary stages, they would be publicizing and proving it all over the place.

As for myself, I don’t bother my head about that, as I have read the encyclical “Humani Generis” which explains how one’s faith can undersand this theory in light of God’s creation.
 
If the answer is “yes”, please, for the love of God, do not respond to this thread. Please only weigh-in if you have an answer that I want to hear.
The world doesn’t work like that son. People aren’t going to tell you something just because that’s what you want to hear. Unless of course, they’re a politician.

If you don’t want to know what a Catholic believes, or why a Catholic believes what they believe about this subject, why are you on a Catholic forum? Wouldn’t it make more sense to go to a forum geared more specifically to biology and evolution?

The answer to this question is that it’s a theory. Science and Engineering are based on theory. You choose a hypothesis and then you set out to do a series of tests that will support or refute that hypothesis. For instance, you can’t prove gravity because you can’t see gravity - but we [the human person] have developed a mathematical formula that describe it’s behavior as it acts on objects. (Depending on different variables.)

And really, even our explanation of gravity is limited because once the mass of the object is very very very small, or very very very large, things don’t act as described in the widely used and most common formulas. Thus more formulas are required to describe the new behavior.

The same thing goes for developing the microchips that run everyone’s computers, phones… well they run just about everything these days. As the size of the technology (transistors) becomes smaller (.18microns >) the behavior of the electrons (current) moving through the devices (transistors) aren’t acting as they always have. This is a serious design problem!

Now who cares about gravity and design problems of microchips? Very few people. These are just examples to put the question into perspective.
 
I don’t believe Joseph is being sarcastic. He is feeling insecure about the debate and doesn’t want to lose faith in God. That’s what I read in his question. I just answered my granddaughter’s worries on the matter this week so had the information to hand.
I guess so, but just the way he worded the topic made me wonder if he was serious. I thought it sounded like he was kind of mocking and treating us like we were ignorant. I don’t know where he is in his faith, so I won’t judge. But I’ve come across my fair share of sarcastic atheists, etc. so I’m always on guard I suppose. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top