Who did Jesus die for? A pair of hominids? Have you read Humani Generis? It states that Adam and Eve were our parents, not a bunch of semi-human beings. Textbook evolution denies any sort of supernatural action, period. The Church declares that there was supernatural action.I have been mostly lurking in this thread and really do not find anything compelling to take me one way or the other.
I believe that God created everything, that man was made by God in His image, and that sin and death entered though Adam and Eve.
Now can either side tell me how their belief (either in evolution or not) affects this?
So we put everything that looks similar in a group and decide it’s an entity?Roughly - a human is a kind, a dog is a kind, a cat is a kind…
As we learn more about genetics we will see a better mapping.
The cat has the character of being catness. The same for the others. So these are broad top level categories. As I posted before the mapping of the genomes will clarify which belong to each group.So we put everything that looks similar in a group and decide it’s an entity?
I suppose binomial nomenclature is atheist propaganda?
As I said- we have binomial nomenclature for that.The cat has the character of being catness. The same for the others. So these are broad top level categories. As I posted before the mapping of the genomes will clarify which belong to each group.
Did you read what I wrote?Who did Jesus die for? A pair of hominids? Have you read Humani Generis? It states that Adam and Eve were our parents, not a bunch of semi-human beings. Textbook evolution denies any sort of supernatural action, period. The Church declares that there was supernatural action.
We are all called to be missionaries, so if someone asked you why Jesus had to die, what would you say?
Peace,
Ed
Your issue would probably be that theistic evolution would all but certainly reject a “two parents” scenarioDid you read what I wrote?
Also I believe that the Church does not support an atheistic evolution. It supports a theistic evolution.
Again, I do not subscribe to this I am just wondering how with what I have already stated what I believe that I must make a statement about science that I with my limited science background can support.
What is wrong with a believe in a theistic evolution?
Your question is odd and even your wording is odd. You want to be a teacher but don’t you want to know what the Church teaches?Did you read what I wrote?
Also I believe that the Church does not support an atheistic evolution. It supports a theistic evolution.
Again, I do not subscribe to this I am just wondering how with what I have already stated what I believe that I must make a statement about science that I with my limited science background can support.
What is wrong with a believe in a theistic evolution?
I believe this system will either be overturned or tweaked so to speak.As I said- we have binomial nomenclature for that.
Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Order
Family
Genus
Species
‘Kind’ is nonsense
Show me where I stated that it was a fact?Your question is odd and even your wording is odd. You want to be a teacher but don’t you want to know what the Church teaches?
Read “Communion and Stewardship,” available online.
Being a teacher is a big responsibility. You will find that you will need to do your own research. Catholics need to know what the Church teaches, including how it regards the subject of evolution. The following is from Pope Benedict: “But it is also true that the theory of evolutiuon is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
That is where the Church stands. Evolution is not a fact.
Peace,
Ed
Buffalo, are you arguing that all felines evolved by “microevolution” from the one pair of cats Noah had on the ark? If so, do you know whether there was enough time for this evolution to happen between Noah’s flood (I guess around 4,500 BCE) and the first literary mention of lions, tigers, cheetahs, leopards, sabre tooths, cougars, panthers, jaguars, bobcats, snow leopards, and domestic cats? That’s a lot of evolution to happen after the flood and before the writing of the Bible.The cat has the character of being catness. The same for the others. So these are broad top level categories. As I posted before the mapping of the genomes will clarify which belong to each group.
Do these classifications result in species which are related by DNA (which would be logical for the TOE), or by similarity of looks, function, etc.? How is this different than 'kind?" I really don’t know, and I’m asking the question.As I said- we have binomial nomenclature for that.
Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Order
Family
Genus
Species
‘Kind’ is nonsense
But 4 billion years is quite enough thank you for muck to man? LOLThat’s a lot of evolution to happen after the flood and before the writing of the Bible.
StAnastasia
Yes.But 4 billion years is quite enough thank you for muck to man? LOL
Whoa. Not so fast. The Church does NOT support evolutionism of any kind, stripe, variation or theory. The word ‘evolution’ appears once in the CCC in reference to customs regarding the chalice.Did you read what I wrote?
Also I believe that the Church does not support an atheistic evolution. It supports a theistic evolution.
Poor God. He didn’t have modernists around in 3000 BC to advise him on the impossibility of Noah’s task.Buffalo, are you arguing that all felines evolved by “microevolution” from the one pair of cats Noah had on the ark? If so, do you know whether there was enough time for this evolution to happen between Noah’s flood (I guess around 4,500 BCE) and the first literary mention of lions, tigers, cheetahs, leopards, sabre tooths, cougars, panthers, jaguars, bobcats, snow leopards, and domestic cats? That’s a lot of evolution to happen after the flood and before the writing of the Bible.
StAnastasia
This is not required in my parish.We are required to confess that God made all that exists ex nihilo (out of nothing) in 6 days and that He rested on the seventh.
Thank you. I did not mean to say that the Church supports it but it does allow for it.Whoa. Not so fast. The Church does NOT support evolutionism of any kind, stripe, variation or theory. The word ‘evolution’ appears once in the CCC in reference to customs regarding the chalice.
The Church tolerates or allows Catholics to differ in their interpretation of how God created the earth (and this too in my judgment is equivocation) but with that permission comes much damage to revelation.
I say again, and very clearly: the Holy Mother Church does not require, compel or encourage any belief in evolution of any kind. We are required to confess that God made all that exists ex nihilo (out of nothing) in 6 days and that He rested on the seventh.
Don’t be scared by all those huge numbers. Hahn and Wiker make their case in 151 pages. Where I live, I have to use ISBN numbers to order books. In case others are in the same boat –Dr Scott Hahn and Dr B. Wiker in Answering The New Atheism, 2008, show very clearly that the odds against life “evolving” from inanimate chemicals are so high as to be impossible. “Dawkins believes that the odds against a propitious string of DNA arising by chance are 1,000,000,000 to one. But when we do the actual calculations we find that the odds against it are a bit over 1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to one.”
Dawkins best guess at the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years is just not enough time for such odds to be overcome. (p 24, 27-8).
The fact that Dawkins maths and science are so erroneous merely reflects his desire to cling to evolutionism at all costs, much like many others.