E
edwest2
Guest
I see. And who is this person and how did he find a soul?Based on science, neuroscientist Mario Beauregard would have to disagree with you.
Ed
Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’
- Status
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
H
Hans_W
Guest
Are you talking about the emergence of a rational mind? Yes, that you can study in science. I wouldn’t put in under biology, falls more into sociology and psychology, I guess.
But what is a “rational soul”? A soul is something immaterial and has nothing to do with science. Animals can also think and make rational decisions, without having souls.
F
Faith1960
Guest
F
Faith1960
Guest
Then I guess you’d really have problems if you were in my Bible study, including the book we’re reading that says, among other things, "…there are many elements in the Bible (such as contemporary notions of science and history) which are not directly related to our salvation. So the Bible can have limitations which come from human origins.in particular the OT contains matters that are imperfect and provisional.
The human authors of the Bible were people of their own times in terms of their scientific knowledge."v
G
grannymh
Guest
H
Hans_W
Guest
Science doesn’t say anything about beauty.
Conclusion: “As far as science can tell, there is no such thing as beauty”.
I really can’t follow your reasoning.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Look him up.
G
grannymh
Guest
All the discussions on this thread…
I do get bewildered at times.
Then I realize that the Catholic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters are basic in real life. I do hope that more people will eventually be able to tell the difference between Catholic doctrines and the basic principles found in the Science of Human Evolution. I have presented these differences in this thread; therefore, I hope that some people comprehended them.
By the way, the Science of Human Evolution is not limited to molecular biology.
I do get bewildered at times.
Then I realize that the Catholic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters are basic in real life. I do hope that more people will eventually be able to tell the difference between Catholic doctrines and the basic principles found in the Science of Human Evolution. I have presented these differences in this thread; therefore, I hope that some people comprehended them.
By the way, the Science of Human Evolution is not limited to molecular biology.
T
truetofaith
Guest
F
Faith1960
Guest
T
truetofaith
Guest
I guess you don’t believe the bible’s account that the serpent spoke to Eve?
Satan entered the serpent and caused it to tempt Eve to disobey God & eat of the forbidden tree.
Very simple to understand…why must you question everything in Genesis, Faith?
E
edwest2
Guest
Interesting. Why the emphasis on the OT? Why does it matter that this subject be connected to the Bible or not?
Ed
F
Faith1960
Guest
Emphasis on the OT is because we havent gotten to the NT yet.
I dont understand your second question.
E
edwest2
Guest
Why does anyone make scientific comments about the Old Testament, particularly Genesis? The Church has given us the certainty of truth. Science cannot explain the work of God or that this idea or that is carved in stone. These sorts of threads appear on a regular basis. It is puzzling since science cannot study God.
Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
Personally, I think that the first three [creation] chapters of Genesis, especially human origin and human nature, need more emphasis. This is because major Catholic doctrines, such as the divinity of Jesus Christ, find their source in the actions described in those chapters. Too often, we get caught in the branches of the forbidden tree and thus fail to notice the depth of Genesis 1: 26-27 and Genesis 3: 15. These two references oppose the Science of Human Evolution.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Well a few popes would disagree with you.
H
Hans_W
Guest
Why does every statement on this thread have the word “scientific” attached to it?
We are talking about banal things like: was that serpent talking or not. There is nothing scientific about that.
What is this “certainty of truth”? Please expand on that. That the earth is stationary? That there was a world-wide flood? That evolution didn’t happen? (that would contradict what the last few Popes accepted).
It sounds a bit arrogant to me. Science doesn’t produce any truth, but WE, of course, have the Certainty of Truth. My truth is better than yours.
Science DOESN’T study God. It’s not a limitation, as if theology was something superior. Theology doesn’t study electrical fields or DNA. Does this make it any inferior to science?
G
Gailgirl
Guest
Except it goes against the inspired Word of God. Was the Pope, Darwin, or any other evolutionist there at Creation? No. Yet we do have an eyewitness, and He told us what happened. God always defines His terms, and the word ‘day’ (Yom in Hebrew) means a literal 24 hour day as described in Genesis. There are many who try to make biblical creation fit into some modern scientific or geologic timeframe model. It just doesn’t work. Old earth, Gap Theory, Evolution, Big Bang, etc., just don’t hold up to the truth of Scripture. Those who buy into these theories are also those who ‘pick and choose’ which verses they will accept as authoritive in their lives and it runs the gamut from creation to sexual orientation.
Thank You…Gailgirl
E
edwest2
Guest
I doubt that. And why does a religious leader’s statements matter in this case? It’s the old argument of “If you need a plumber, call a plumber.” I know I would. I would not contact a working scientist to get definitive statements about the Bible.
Ed
- Status