The point is why do you desire them to? How does that have anyting to do with the idea of evolution? If you want to start a miracle thread, by all means do so. But what my or anyone’s opinion is about a miracle is of no import. Surely you don’t seriously care what my opinion is of any particular miracle do you? If its instrumental in your deciding to believe in evolution, then by all means I’ll respond though it remains illogical.
I did start a miracle thread, its the thread with the poll right here:
And go Packers!
Yes.
Such a resurrection can’t be explained by the laws currently accepted by modern Western science.
Yes.
Yes.
**you cannot force someone to comply with your demand by attempting to claim some fact from their failure. It’s not considered fair discourse, and of course is zero evidence in a court of law. Can’t you just state forthrightly what you really think or want to know without all the games? **I did start a miracle thread, its the thread with the poll right here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=204160
I want to help people who are afraid of evolution to see that people who accept theistic evolution can also believe in a God who suspends the laws of nature to perform a miracle. There are too many people who believe in evolution who don’t seem to believe in miracles, and that’s part of why some people are clinging to creationism.
**I would assume that would be obvious. If one believes in God one believes in the supernatural. God of course as the Creator of all things can suspend them whenever he chooses. This is also self-evident. The part I don’t get is where are these “many people who believe in evolution who don’t seem to be believe in miracles” are. This suggests to me you have some other agenda. There is simply no logical connection between the two. I’m guessing if this point is causing someone a problem them can state it. **
But… I suspect once again you won’t name a miracle you believe in. It’s getting hard to avoid drawing the obvious conclusion…
Don’t worry about it, SpiritMeadow, I thought I explained my reasoning. The poll I put up clearly shows that most of the people on here who don’t take Genesis literally, do take the Resurrection literally. So whether you want to talk about your beliefs isn’t crucial. I don’t think I’m the one who brought this up anyway,why don’t you ask the person who brought it up?
St. Augustine, as I have already explained is no exception to the Fathers. He, in fact, went the extra step by saying God didn’t need six days. Although some agreed with him, the majority preferred to stick to a literal reading of Scripture. Lateran IV takes account of this difference by simply saying “from the beginning of time”. As their writings demonstrate, the Fathers agree that the “beginning” was the first day or the first instant. These were the limits. Nowhere in the Scriptures is a longer time even suggested. The notion of millions of years was obviously not a factor.
The central theme of the Fathers’ teaching is that in the beginning the proto-types of « all things », each one separately, were created from nothing. Involving instantaneous production of first things, it obviates ancestors, thus leaving no place for evolutionary hypotheses.
I’ll try.
No, I’d say the water-to-wine miracle broke the laws of nature.
**Naw, now that they have seen how easy it is, I’m sure they will join in and answer you too. **
Actually its a very interesting way of looking at it. I rather like the symbolism. It’s unlikely to be proveable, but thats the beauty of it really. It’s a very interesting meditation …Thanks.
SpiritMeadow,did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? If so, were they fake or real?
Wow, surrogate realism must be a very strong theory if Dr. Peter MJ Hess has to resort to sarcasm to ‘refute’ it
Me personally, if they were indeed miraculously created with the appearance of age, then it seems that, genetically speaking, they would have had belly buttons according to their perceived phenotype.
It’s not sarcasm at all – educate yourself!. In 1857 Philip Gosse proposed a theory in Omphalos: an Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot: “when creation occurred, apparent records of events occurring that actually did not occur — [Gosse] called them “prochronic”, meaning “outside time” — must have been rife throughout the world. Was it not reasonable to argue that fossils and geologic strata and so on were merely prochronic artifacts of a non-existent time pre-dating the actual Creation? This idea became known as the Omphalos hypothesis.”Wow, surrogate realism must be a very strong theory if Dr. Peter MJ Hess has to resort to sarcasm to ‘refute’ it
Mr. Ex Nihilo, the Omphalist hypothesis – if its tenants are consistent – must argue that everything has the appearance of age, and nothing has real age older than 6,000 years. Bristlecone Pine trees in the White Mountains of Nevada only appear to be 8,000 years old; 2,000 of their rings are fake. Cretaceous fossils are fake, starlight from the Andromeda galaxy is fake, Greenland ice cores are fake, and Adam and Eve’s belly buttons are fake.Me personally, if they were indeed miraculously created with the appearance of age, then it seems that, genetically speaking, they would have had belly buttons according to their perceived phenotype. That’s just my opinion though.