Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[dixieagle]

You are wise, dixieeagle!

Not really; I just try to do the best I can.

 

[buffalo]

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

1. Protestants believe in private interpretation. Catholics do not.
2. Catholics believe in the Magisterial interpretation. We are bound to it, with good reason.

 

[buffalo]

still awaiting greg-b’s reply.

 

[ready]

Not really; I just try to do the best I can.

You’re humble - that’s good!

 

[dixieagle]

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.

Are you veering off towards literal, fundamentalist Creationism (not in the “widest” sense…) now? I just don’t have time for that discussion.

 

[greg_b]

still awaiting greg-b’s reply.

reply to what? You still not have provided any evidence that evolution and our faith contradict

 

[edwest2]

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

I told you, it’s in the library on this site:

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Read it. I certainly didn’t write it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

reply to what? You still not have provided any evidence that evolution and our faith contradict

I asked:

You agree Eve came from Adam?

You agree polygenism is out?

 

[ready]

Are you veering off towards literal, fundamentalist Creationism (not in the “widest” sense…) now? I just don’t have time for that discussion.

buffalo is probably just saying that it makes things more difficult. I’m not a fundamentalist and will not take all of Genesis literally, myself, but I do have to wonder what should be taken literally and what should just be taken symbolically, morally, or anagogously.

 

[buffalo]

buffalo is probably just saying that it makes things more difficult. I’m not a fundamentalist and will not take all of Genesis literally, myself, but I do have to wonder what should be taken literally and what should just be taken symbolically, morally, or anagogously.

Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. That’s a recent issue of Protestantism.

Catholics read the Bible by understanding what the Holy Spirit was conveying to the writers. Catholics understand the plain meaning of the words unless there is sufficient reason not to. Catholics do not do this independently. We depend on Tradition, the Bible and the Magisterium to protect the Deposit of Faith from error.

 

[ready]

Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. That’s a recent issue of Protestantism.

Catholics read the Bible by understanding what the Holy Spirit was conveying to the writers. Catholics understand the plain meaning of the words unless there is sufficient reason not to. Catholics do not do this independently. We depend on Tradition, the Bible and the Magisterium to protect the Deposit of Faith from error.

You’re smart, buffalo. I like your posts.

I’m going to bed. Peace!

 

[buffalo]

You’re smart, buffalo. I like your posts.

I’m going to bed. Peace!

blush - thanks, I am going to bed too.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

what does the method of creation matter? we dont take a strictly literalist approach to the Biblical Creation.

should evolution be the method, it might bother some of the sola scriptura set, but it says nothing that invalidates anything in Catholicism that i know.

 

[Riseof_Rome]

Is this thread really still going on? What is so hard to understand?

It is merely a theory of creation from a different perspective. You have to take Genesis in the context it is written. It is over 3000 years old. Over time, of course things get misconstrued a bit. But the main point is that God created it. End of story. I will reiterate what I have said in an earlier post:

“Personally I don’t care whether we descended from apes or we were created as we were today. A simple way to look at these type of questions is asking yourself: “Is it necessary for salvation” and also “Is my faith affected by it”. The first one is not true, of course, because whether or not we beleive in evolution, it has nothing to to with the eternal soul. And if the second one is true for anyone, then they need to re-evaluate there spiritual life.”

Bottom line: It doesn’t matter. You have to look at things from a logical sense. There are absolutely some things in the Bible that don’t add up (creation, multiplying of the loaves story written differently, etc), but who cares!? You have to look at the main point of what the story is trying to say. The main point of Genesis is this: “God created EVERYTHING”. That’s it. Leave it at that. It doesn’t matter how he did it, no matter how entertaining it is to try to comprehend it with our inferior minds.

Seriously this is like arguing about whether blue is better then green or not. It doesn’t matter whatsoever in concern to the eternal soul.

 

[RobbyS]

You’re smart, buffalo. I like your posts.

I’m going to bed. Peace!

Indeed. Good approach.

 

[Aramis]

When scientific theory violates common sense, it doesn’t have much to stand on, whatever the rubrics of formulation.

I still need an answer: What was the natural impetus of evolution from apes if apes survived anyway? Just because?

Survival of the fittest may explain intra-species evolution/adaptation/culling of the weak, but if man supposedly evolved from an ape as a matter of survival, apes should no longer exist as the stronger humans/apes wiped out the ones that did not evolve.

Common sense at one point said man can not survive traveling faster than 50 miles an hour. Common sense also says the world is flat, and that rolling boxcars 4 times in a row is unlikely, but I’ve seen it done a lot…

Common sense when not coupled to a sufficient knowledge base, is often wrong.

 

[firstmode]

POINTS OF ORIGINS with Dr. Jackson

a ministry of CREATION TRUTH FOUNDATION ( www.CreationTruth.com )

You’d think they’d found the Holy Grail !! But you can all relax. The hype about the newest evo “missing link” is only hype.

The fossil deserves excitement for how complete it is – you can see the fur and body outline, and lunch still in the stomache.

But the way renegade evo’s have spun this gives the impression this “proves” evolution! No, it doesn’t – and it’s irrelevant !! And that’s not me saying that – it’s all their evo-friends saying it !! The New York Times (below) admits the evo-discoverers admit
– it’s not a missing link !! the animal has four legs and a long tail. Nobody is claiming that it’s a direct ancestor of monkeys and humans, but it provides a good indication of what a long-ago ancestor may have looked like, researchers said at a news conference. "In an evolutionary sense, the fossil is like an aunt from several generations ago, "said Jens Franzen of the Senckenberg Res Inst in Frankfurt, Germany.
www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/05/19/science/AP-Ancient-Primate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Famous Carnegie Museum evo Christopher Beard says, “I actually don’t think it’s terribly close to the common ancestral line of monkeys, apes and people. I would say it’s about as far away as you can get from that line and still be a primate … more like a third cousin twice removed,’’ So it probably resembles ancestral creatures ‘‘only in a very peripheral way,’’ he said. “It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they’re trying to make,” Beard said.
“Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt ‘Ida’ Is Your Ancestor” Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience, livescience.com/animals/090520-fossil-reactions.html 5/20/2009
“I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans.” [Beard]

“Scientists Hail Stunning Fossil” Christine McGourty, BBC News, 5/19/2009
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm
SUNY-Stonybrook evo-prof John Fleagle says, "It doesn’t really tell us much about anthropoid origins, quite frankly.’’
www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/05/19/science/AP-Ancient-Primate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Found in 1983, some evo’s got it in 2007, named it Darwinius masillae and began to prepare for its unveiling in 2009 which just “happens” to be the “year of Darwin” celebration (200th anniv his birth and 150th his book). They knew that evolution would need some big-time help this year and so they saved it for now, complete with a book and a movie on The History Channel … both called “The Link” and ready to go on one-week notice! Such an evo media blitz hasn’t been seen since the fake dino-bird link back in '99 !

It has thumbs on its feet – it’s a little monkey. Some evo’s say its fingernails are “evo-proof,” but as you can read above – even other evo’s aren’t buying it !!

A fine creationist response was given by Dr. David DeWitt of Liberty University, in the Washington Times newspaper:
washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/20/true-bridge-between-mankind-and-mammals/

And here’s a link to an article sympathetic toward the fossil. Feel the hype!
news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Lin

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/May/Week3/15284798.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51bHXqW7tKL.SL500_AA240.jpg

 

[Wolseley]

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”

Countdown until greg_b goes on “Ignore”…

*ten…

nine…

eight…

seven…

six…

five…

four…

three…

two…

one…*

IGNORE!

All righty, then. Moving right along…

 

[space_trojan]

ummmm…does that mean greg_b can fossilize now?:extrahappy:

 

[a_priori]

…as you can’t come from dust or a rib and be perfect at the same time as descending from animals!

Why? An eternal, transcendent God who has His “being” outside of time and space must use primitive, extremely limited human language words and concepts to explain an extremely complex process. Genesis had to be a one-size-fits-all account. It had to inform the Israelites of old but it also has to inform modern (actually postmodern) man. Our understanding of the physical world is very different than theirs. We are expecting too much of that book if we insist it is literal.

Even in the physical world there are paradoxes. The wave/particle duality of light or the General Relativity/Quantum Mechanics problem are actually lightweight physical manifestations of a wonderously mysterious creative process that comes from the “mind” of an inscrutable God.

I don’t see the problem.