Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allyson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddy said:
This is like Groundhog Day. Every morning I wake up and see the same ol’ same ol’ arguments from the usual suspects.

Sometimes I honestly despair.
Click to expand...
Yep. I am at this point too. I said yesterday that it is clear that there is disagreement. This whole conversation devolved from productive to disorganized when the Catholic fundamentalists joined in.
 
Last edited:
Allyson said:
40.png
Freddy:
This is like Groundhog Day. Every morning I wake up and see the same ol’ same ol’ arguments from the usual suspects.

Sometimes I honestly despair.
Click to expand...
Yep. I am at this point too. I said yesterday that it is clear that there is disagreement. This whole conversation devolved from productive to disorganized when the Catholic fundamentalists joined in.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid it’s par for the course in these parts. And it does nothing for the Catholic faith. I can well imagine someone joining the forum to learn more about the church and happening on this thread. They may well have some doubts about how to reconcile HG with the science and so join in. And what do they find?

Catholics who think the world is a few thousand years old, who believe in ‘kinds’, who reject scientific theories which they patently don’t understand. People who think that burning witches was a good idea.

I left my church when I was quite young. And my doubts were sown by fundamentalist ideas. Sunday school stories that were accepted as being the literal truth. It might have led me to dig deeper but I was too young to do so. That came much later. But anyone coming across these views in a mainstream catholic forum may well bail out and not return.
 
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis since the modern synthesis has run out of explanatory power based on the workings of the cell found in recent years. Some are saying even the EES cannot fix what is so broken. This is an interesting time and we will see what will develop in the next few years. One thing for sure- they will throw a whole bunch of money at it before they convert.
 
“Catholic fundamentalists.” When all else fails, start calling people names.
 
buffalo said:
Snowflakes are natural patterns like waves in the sand. Design contains code and/or symbols and patterns.
Click to expand...
Huh? Are natural patterns designed then? Are snowflakes intelligent effects of an unintelligent cause? is DNA?

Not sure what you are trying to say.
 
I’m not moving anywhere. I’m not a sloppy Catholic or some ‘fundamentalist.’ God created, end of story. Eve did not evolve. Again, God created.
 
Dovekin said:
Huh? Are natural patterns designed then? Are snowflakes intelligent effects of an unintelligent cause? is DNA?

Not sure what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...
Natural patterns do not contain or transmit a code. Symbols, maps, codes, languages do. They require a sender, a receiver and a decoder. They are always products of a mind.
 
Last edited:
That cannot be ignored, but it is. One more reason to not accept evolution as presented here.
 
gama232 said:
“Catholic fundamentalists.” When all else fails, start calling people names.
Click to expand...
I call it like I see it. I put forward solidly Catholic view, and the response is insistence on Biblical literalism in understanding the creation story. Yes - that is bending fundamentalist.
gama232 said:
I’m not moving anywhere.
Click to expand...
Move on. As in move on from defining the day in Genesis.
gama232 said:
I’m not a sloppy Catholic or some ‘fundamentalist.’ God created, end of story. Eve did not evolve. Again, God created.
Click to expand...
Who is being sloppy here? You seem to be completely ignoring the parts of HG that allow that human evolution can be seen as consistent with Catholic teaching.
 
Freddy said:
And it does nothing for the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
Most interesting. (from a lieing creationist source - not) Started out with more complexity? Oh my.

Research suggests that evolution sometimes meant becoming simpler, not more complex​

Loading…

phys.org
 
buffalo said:
Ok- which one to focus on.
Click to expand...
No need. You claimed that: “up until recently the creation week has been continually taught and understood as 6 days by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church” and asked “Yes or No.” The answer to your question is No.
 

Royal Society Meeting - Modern Synthesis is Broken​

Read a report on the Royal Society Meeting

“The Modern Synthesis, while undoubtedly productive for a time, is a misconception of reality that has reached the limits of its explanatory power. The problems are fundamental. No amount of cosmetic surgery is going correct them.”

“To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species. It is collaboration in its various forms that causes biological evolution. Hence I’m sur prised by calls for extending the neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis. You can’t extend something that is broken. Surely what is needed now, after 65 years, is using the empirical evidence to develop a new paradigm for biological evolution.”

"If you want the definition of the Modern Synthesis, take a look at how Neil deGrasse Tyson explains evolution in the 2014 remake of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series. Tyson, an astrophysicist, is unaware that he is misinformed, as are most in science, academia, government, literature, the arts, and the public by this outmoded theory of evolution."

“Shuker tried to interrupt but Noble held his ground:
‘No, YOU need to listen. I used to think exactly like you. I embraced the reductionist mindset for years. When I got out of school I was a card-carrying reductionist. Reductionism is powerful and it’s useful. I am not dissing it. Many times we need it. But it is not the whole story.’ Noble described how bacterial regulatory
networks rebuilt those genes in four days by hyper-mutating, actively searching for a solution that would give them tails and enable them to Nind food. Natural selection did not achieve that. Natural genetic engineering did.’”

“It’s appropriate that this meeting is being held at the Royal Society, whose motto, we were reminded yesterday, is “Nullius in verba”: Accept nothing on authority."

“Not one whit of empirical evidence shows that new species arise from the neo-Darwinian mechanism. To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species.”

Loading…

www.envevo.org
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top