Benadam, I agree with what you say about Adam embodying humanity. I meant that we are genetically linked in greater or lesser degrees of proximity with all other livig things (98% genetic commonality with chimpanzees, for example). Alec could comment on this with greater precision and clarity.I guess that depends on what you believe Adam is. I believe Adam is all humanity embodied. I already believe in the great antiquity of our species and our kinship with all other life that is formed of this earth. I didn’t know that different species were linked genetically.
Steve, to take your assertions in order,Again, just wild guesses. I don’t believe any of that bologna and neither will my kids. The fossil record does not exist and the only plausible mechanism for the laying down of rock layers that I have seen is simultaneously. This has been domonstrated in the laboratory. I tend to look at things from an engineering perspective and if the mechanism can’t be fully understood I don’t believe it. I have very little respect for evolutionary science. It doesn’t produce a useful product that enhances human life it just goes for more grant money, our tax dollars at work, what a waste.
Steve40, it sounds like you’re implying the usual bogus rhetoric from the young earth creationist playbook about “origins science” and “operation science,” a totally bogus distinction. The U-shaped canyons in which glaciers now sit are the same U-shaped canyons carved by glaciers over hundreds of thousands of years. The layers of the Grand Canyons were laid down over tens of millions of years, just as rivers today are laying down lawyers of silt and gravel that will become – tens of millions of years from now – new strata.There is a difference between the mechanism and the result. I believe that gravity exists just as much as I believe that humanity exists, but the mechanism of how gravity happens and how original human life happened are both not proven, theoretical. One thing to keep in mind and something that can be confusing to people, is that in one case it is a question of what happened in history and in the other it is something that is happening all the time, so the comparison between the theory of the mechanism of gravity and the theory of evolution do not have a one for one correspondence.
Doesn’t bother me in the least since you don’t seem to understand much if any science.Based upon your reaction you have little scientific credibility with me as well.
You’re welcome.Thanks for wishing me peace.
Really? Are the layers of sediment that are being mined for oil and gas as we speak still being deposited?The deposit of the Mississippi River is the type of deposit I am talking about. The deposit in the delta is simultaneous layers layed down, not millions of years per layer.
Great, now we can discuss that lab experiment you seem to be refering to. Where in the stratification that developed during the study was the volcanic ash layer deposited? Hmm? Think about that for a second. There are many, many places in the world where you have ash layers bounded both above and below by sedimentary layers. How did that happen if all the sedimentary layers were laid down simultaneously?The same thing was observed with Mt. St. Hellen only there the laying down of layers of sediment was with air flow, but in either case fluid dynamics supports the laying down of simultaneous layers not each layer over millions of years. There is no millions of years mechanism, model or observable experiment that can be performed in a lab for the laying down of rock layers.
So, to be consistent, you don’t believe in gravity at this time, only the observed results of something called gravity?As for gravity. I believe in the result of gravity. I will believe in a mechanism of gravity when it is proven.
So you believe that life has evolved but you don’t accept descent with modification. That’s fine. I am interested in your alternative mechanism and whether or not descent with modification totally bogus or is it just one part of your mechanism.There is a difference between the mechanism and the result. I believe that gravity exists just as much as I believe that humanity exists, but the mechanism of how gravity happens and how original human life happened are both not proven, theoretical.
Death of the soul not the body comes by way of sin. The soul is not subject to evolutionI don’t want to sound glib, but this is all very simple. The scripture says that death came through man via sin. Evolution, “theistic” or otherwise, says that man came into the world through death. The two are simply not compatible and it is time that The Catholic Church wake up, show a little back bone, and reject this notion. The Church needs to reject evolution outright for the sake of her members and the whole world.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.Those 100,000+ biologist will someday be dead. Where will their wild butt-head theory be then. God will still be God and what He said will still be what He said. Why do you want to believe the gueses of men instead of the Word of God?
Here Here! I agree wholeheartedly. The Church loses its Moral Power in the world when it has fanatics who are serving their personal needs at the expense of the Church, spewing nonsense that makes the Church appear idiotic. Since the Church has spoken both on the issue of evolution, and on the issue of fundamentalism, these stubborn folks are only on some personal mission to have things their way.Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Ah but now the question of the day (STS) is who actually wrote that? I purposely didn’t credit it.Here Here! I agree wholeheartedly. The Church loses its Moral Power in the world when it has fanatics who are serving their personal needs at the expense of the Church, spewing nonsense that makes the Church appear idiotic. Since the Church has spoken both on the issue of evolution, and on the issue of fundamentalism, these stubborn folks are only on some personal mission to have things their way.
Augustine, De Genesi ad literam (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis), 1.19Ah but now the question of the day (STS) is who actually wrote that? I purposely didn’t credit it.
Is the suspence biting?
It was Saint Augustine circa 400 AD who wrote that. And here’s my source: pibburns.com/augustin.htm
Now that’s an interesting claim, Doug50. It might be plausible if the soul is conceived of as some sort of separated “substance” that is plugged into the body at some point, but I don’t know that Christians are obliged to commit to such a dualistic metaphysics.The soul is not subject to evolution
its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/evolution.htmlNow that’s an interesting claim, Doug50. It might be plausible if the soul is conceived of as some sort of separated “substance” that is plugged into the body at some point, but I don’t know that Christians are obliged to commit to such a dualistic metaphysics.
Petrus
the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God
Thanks, IDoug50 – this is interesting. I certainly accept the special dignity of the human person within God’s creation. What I wonder about is three related matters:
(1) How can we metaphysically understand or envision the whole-person nature of humanity in a non-cartoonish, non-dualistic sort of way? In other words, how do we conceive theologically of the soul-body relationship? Cartesian dualism has no place in this discussion.
(2) Are we to think of a discrete dividing line in human evolution, such that a human population in the range of the 10,000-member genetic bottleneck (mentioned by Alec a few pages ago) could contain within it two individual suddenly endowed with a “soul” when their otherwise identical parents, siblings, and others of the community were not?
(3) Are all conceptions of human parents endowed with a “soul,” including those so chromosomally scrambled that they result in spontaneous abortion?
These considerations are not irrelevant to the question of whether or not the soul evolves with the rest of the human person.
Petrus
Inthecloud, I don’t know the document in question. However, someone just sent me a quotation relevant to our discussion about the tiresome subject of Catholic creationism:I can not believe we are debating Young Earth Creationism in a Catholic site, …I thing B16 already spoke on the matter when some neofacist tried to introduce the creationism in italian schools. Can somebody found the document?
You think this is bad, wander over to Catholic Living- Spirituality and see what they did to my plea for respect by folks on either side of these contentious issues. I was basically told to get off the site.I can not believe we are debating Young Earth Creationism in a Catholic site, I thought that nonsense belongs in a evangelical fundie site.
I thing B16 already spoke on the matter when some neofacist tried to introduce the creationism in italian schools. Can somebody found the document?
Tiber nazis? I wonder if they are recent converts; those folks tend to be on the fascist wing, compared to those of us who have been within the church for 50+ years. You are right – charity can be sorely lacking here!I’m just sick at heart. I’ve never in my entire life met Catholics like this. I spent weekends on retreats with nuns, i’ve traveled for weeks on end with nuns, studied under priests who were theologians, been part of tons of discussions about abortion, gay rights, evolution, and on and on and never never have I been treated with such hatred and condenscending arrogance as by folks on this site. I have no idea where they come from. Hopefully this is their limited and only real voice. The church is doomed if they gain control.
Don’t be too sure. Their faith and zeal is admirable. Too many of us are like Martha. We run around, occupying ourselves with this or that. Only one thing is needed: to become a Saint. We should all be more like Mary, and stop wasting our time in these fruitless debates.The church is doomed if they gain control.
And saintly women as well?May the Lord have mercy on us all, forgive us our sins, and grant control of His most Holy Church only to saintly men,
.