Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[ready]

I’m not sure I really understand what you are asking.

Scientists don’t “elaborate stories” but employ the scientific method to learn about the natural world. Those who try to overstep their boundaries in order to attempt to push their atheist philosophy are, plainly, wrong.

Nothing that is discovered through science can contradict that which is revealed by faith.

But they do to elaborate stories. Darwin gives the field of scientist the strange idea that man shares common ancestry with apes ( that man descended from apes and did not come from only dust/clay/slime of the earth), fossils are found and are then compared to animals and humans. Based on these comparisons and geology, the fossils are seen as proof that man is related to animals by a common ancestor. Everything they find just supports their story. Well what about the story that Adam was made from the dust and Eve from his rib and that they were both perfect humans with supernatural and preternatural gifts - that story goes completely down the drain as you can’t come from dust or a rib and be perfect at the same time as descending from animals!

 

[greg_b]

But they do to elaborate stories. Darwin gives the field of scientist the strange idea that man shares common ancestry with apes ( that man descended from apes and did not come from only dust/clay/slime of the earth), fossils are found and are then compared to animals and humans. Based on these comparisons and geology, the fossils are seen as proof that man is related to animals by a common ancestor. Everything they find just supports their story. Well what about the story that Adam was made from the dust and Eve from his rib and that they were both perfect humans with supernatural and preternatural gifts - that story goes completely down the drain as you can’t come from dust or a rib and be perfect at the same time as descending from animals!

Genesis is not a literal account, for crying out loud, do you people really think Jewish mystics and authors thousands of years ago thought to themselves “you know what? I’m gonna write this account not the way my culture raised me but in a way so that an ignorant American in the future will understand it”

 

[buffalo]

Genesis is not a literal account, for crying out loud, do you people really think Jewish mystics and authors thousands of years ago thought to themselves “you know what? I’m gonna write this account not the way my culture raised me but in a way so that an ignorant American in the future will understand it”

The CCC teaches:

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

Perhaps this may help you:

Toledoths of Genesis

THE KEY TO THE STRUCTURE OF GENESIS
**(A) The Colophon Phrase

…and

** “This is the book of the origins of the heavens and the earth.” Regarding this fact, Wiseman has pointed out:
“We must realise that the ‘books’ of antiquity were tablets, and that the earliest records of Genesis claim to have been written down, and not as is often imagined passed on to Moses by word of mouth.”

 

[dixieagle]

The word “yom” was permitted in 1909 to allow that it had broader uses. Read in context it means a day.

The Six Days of Creation From This Rock Magazine. Read it thoroughly, then read the rebuttal.

Does the 1994 Catholic Catechism Say that
a Symbolic Interpretation of the Creation Story is Now “Official”?
A Response to James Akin

All I have to know is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says “God Himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.” Part I, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article I, No. 337

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p5.htm

 

[dixieagle]

Genesis is not a literal account, for crying out loud, do you people really think Jewish mystics and authors thousands of years ago thought to themselves “you know what? I’m gonna write this account not the way my culture raised me but in a way so that an ignorant American in the future will understand it”

Deep breath, Greg…you’ll bust a gusset!!!

 

[buffalo]

greg_b;5234763:

You agree Eve came from Adam?

You agree polygenism is out?

greg_b - are you going to answer this question?

 

[dixieagle]

But they do to elaborate stories. Darwin gives the field of scientist the strange idea that man shares common ancestry with apes ( that man descended from apes and did not come from only dust/clay/slime of the earth), fossils are found and are then compared to animals and humans. Based on these comparisons and geology, the fossils are seen as proof that man is related to animals by a common ancestor. Everything they find just supports their story. Well what about the story that Adam was made from the dust and Eve from his rib and that they were both perfect humans with supernatural and preternatural gifts - that story goes completely down the drain as you can’t come from dust or a rib and be perfect at the same time as descending from animals!

This makes my head hurt!

Bottom line, very short version: as long as we believe that, at some point, God created Adam, the first man in His own image, and from him, Eve, then we are free to accept scientific findings that point to evolution. You certainly do not have to accept evolutionary theory, but we, indeed, may.

 

[ready]

Genesis is not a literal account, for crying out loud, do you people really think Jewish mystics and authors thousands of years ago thought to themselves “you know what? I’m gonna write this account not the way my culture raised me but in a way so that an ignorant American in the future will understand it”

The Bible is true, as its primary author is the Holy Spirit. I know that Genesis is written in riddled language, but the story built around Darwin’s argument is far fetched to those of us who are able to see that man’s similarity with beasts is no proof whatsover that man shares a common ancestor with them. I am very scientific in my thinking, believe me. That’s why I’ll take the Genesis story of creation over the story built around Darwin’s idea of the origin of man. The origin of man involves God. Science therefore should not occupy itself with making stories that do not include a Creator and Holy Spirit in it, especially when the Bible story is so different from that offered by the natural sciences of paleontology and biology. Science is supposed to describe the purely natural, so there’s something inherently disordered in telling a creation story scientifically. The Creator who trandscends the natural is involved and can not be included in a scientific explanation. In other words, God is in the equation of creation, but can not fit into scientific explanation. How crazy is that? And by the way, the Bible is written to be understood by all men in all the ages of time.

 

[buffalo]

This makes my head hurt!

Bottom line, very short version: as long as we believe that, at some point, God created Adam, the first man in His own image, and from him, Eve, then we are free to accept scientific findings that point to evolution. You certainly do not have to accept evolutionary theory, but we, indeed, may.

God could have created man supernaturally and inserted him into the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening in the universe at the time.

 

[ready]

The CCC teaches:

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

Perhaps this may help you:

Toledoths of Genesis

THE KEY TO THE STRUCTURE OF GENESIS
**(A) The Colophon Phrase

…and

** “This is the book of the origins of the heavens and the earth.” Regarding this fact, Wiseman has pointed out:
“We must realise that the ‘books’ of antiquity were tablets, and that the earliest records of Genesis claim to have been written down, and not as is often imagined passed on to Moses by word of mouth.”

Thank you.

 

[dixieagle]

God could have created man supernaturally and inserted him into the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening in the universe at the time.

Indeed He could have, as He can do anything, at any time.

Afraid we won’t know, this side of heaven, precisely how He did it.

 

[ready]

This makes my head hurt!

Bottom line, very short version: as long as we believe that, at some point, God created Adam, the first man in His own image, and from him, Eve, then we are free to accept scientific findings that point to evolution. You certainly do not have to accept evolutionary theory, but we, indeed, may.

Yes, the Church allows us to investigate the idea of evolution. The Church just doesn’t want us making factual that which is unproven or unprovable. Thank you for your kind help.

 

[buffalo]

Indeed He could have, as He can do anything, at any time.

Afraid we won’t know, this side of heaven, precisely how He did it.

We were given certain information through Revelation.

Too bad that the Genesis account just didn’t say we came from the “brute”. It doesn’t, it says something quite different.

 

[ready]

God could have created man supernaturally and inserted him into the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening in the universe at the time.

Yes, that is true, buffalo. Thank you for your good insight.

 

[ready]

Indeed He could have, as He can do anything, at any time.

Afraid we won’t know, this side of heaven, precisely how He did it.

You are wise, dixieeagle!

 

[ready]

We were given certain information through Revelation.

Too bad that the Genesis account just didn’t say we came from the “brute”. It doesn’t, it says something quite different.

Yes, I know what you are saying!

 

[edwest2]

buffalo;5234716:

Evolution contradicts none of those, for the second time already

Uh really? How about those here who claim that Adam and Eve were part of a group of hominids or ‘not quite men,’ and God decided to select two and give them souls?

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

greg_b;5234763:

Uh really? How about those here who claim that Adam and Eve were part of a group of hominids or ‘not quite men,’ and God decided to select two and give them souls?

Peace,
Ed

Ed,

that is greg-b’s reply.

 

[edwest2]

Genesis is not a literal account, for crying out loud, do you people really think Jewish mystics and authors thousands of years ago thought to themselves “you know what? I’m gonna write this account not the way my culture raised me but in a way so that an ignorant American in the future will understand it”

“Jewish mystics”? What does that mean? The Library on this Site tells us Adam and Eve were our first parents Period.

And the old ‘thousands of years, people were dumb’ routine. If you are Catholic then you know the Bible is not the word of men but the Word of God. At Mass, what do we say? “He has spoken though the prophets.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[greg_b]

“Jewish mystics”? What does that mean? The Library on this Site tells us Adam and Eve were our first parents Period.

And the old ‘thousands of years, people were dumb’ routine. If you are Catholic then you know the Bible is not the word of men but the Word of God. At Mass, what do we say? “He has spoken though the prophets.”

Peace,
Ed

I see, so God’s word is “my way of interpreting Genesis or the highway”