The 867th Thread on Evolution: I counted

[SpiritMeadow]

Because they are mutually contradictory.

There is no contradiction here.

Because it’s either God who creates life, in which case, leave it alone, or else it’s you who creates life, in which case it’s your choice whether to create it or not. But you can’t have it both ways - either God creates all human beings on purpose, or else life just happens by accident, and it’s okay to get rid of it when the accident is inconvenient. But not both. If God created you on purpose, then God also purposely created the person that you would like to get rid of.

God gave us the Church and the Bible; not the theory of evolution.

Where did God give us nuclear energy? airplanes? theory of gravity? It is sad to see a brain split this badly. It’s not an either or proposition except to a mind that needs it to be that way.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Uh No! It is dogma.

*] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)

*] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)

*] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)

*] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)

*] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

*] The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)

*] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)

*] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)

*] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)

*] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)

*] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)

*] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.

*] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)

How many times have you posted this now? It’s still not correct. No one is required to believe in a literal adam and eve. What it comes down to for all of you creationist folks is that you simply want religion taught in school…course then you would start fighting over what type…should we teach proddie predestination and justification, or Catholic works, or Morman’s Jesus in America, or JW’s and their no blood transfusions, or Quaker’s belief in consciencious objector status, or Episcopalian belief that gays deserve full rights in the church, or Catholic belief in purgatory. Oh and what about hinduism, buddhism, sikism, Native american shamanism, Shinto, wiccan, New thought, Judaism!, Muslim, and so many many more. Or is this really just about a catholic theocracy?

 

[jmcrae]

Where did God give us nuclear energy? airplanes? theory of gravity? It is sad to see a brain split this badly. It’s not an either or proposition except to a mind that needs it to be that way.

The difference is that there is no evidence for the theory of evolution as presented. The theory of evolution is not the same kind of science as the theory of gravity, etc., because nothing has ever actually been observed. It is the only kind of “science” that does not follow the law of “observe first, record second, theorize last.” In the case of the theory of evolution, the theory comes first, and stands alone - nothing has been observed or recorded, yet.

 

[jmcrae]

How many times have you posted this now? It’s still not correct. No one is required to believe in a literal adam and eve.

He is quoting from official Church documents. Perhaps you need their full titles spelled out for you:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ott)
The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Denzinger)

Or is this really just about a catholic theocracy?

This is about what we as Catholics are supposed to believe. Other people can believe whatever they want - Catholics have particular things that we are required to believe, which are known to be true. That’s the difference between us and them.

 

[buffalo]

How many times have you posted this now? It’s still not correct. No one is required to believe in a literal adam and eve. What it comes down to for all of you creationist folks is that you simply want religion taught in school…course then you would start fighting over what type…should we teach proddie predestination and justification, or Catholic works, or Morman’s Jesus in America, or JW’s and their no blood transfusions, or Quaker’s belief in consciencious objector status, or Episcopalian belief that gays deserve full rights in the church, or Catholic belief in purgatory. Oh and what about hinduism, buddhism, sikism, Native american shamanism, Shinto, wiccan, New thought, Judaism!, Muslim, and so many many more. Or is this really just about a catholic theocracy?

I will post it for the benefit of others as often as necessary.

Your job is to show that constant Catholic teaching denies a real set of first parents whom we all are descended from. You will have to prove the Catechism wrong also. ([360](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/360.htm’) Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226)
and…
[371](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/371.htm’) God created man and woman together and willed each for the other.

The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

[375](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/375.htm’) The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

And yes I would like God in school, but that is not the issue I am arguing here…

 

[edwest2]

He is quoting from official Church documents. Perhaps you need their full titles spelled out for you:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ott)
The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Denzinger)

This is about what we as Catholics are supposed to believe. Other people can believe whatever they want - Catholics have particular things that we are required to believe, which are known to be true. That’s the difference between us and them.

That is and will always be my point. Those documents weren’t written by me but I believe them because they are known to be true.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

How many times have you posted this now? It’s still not correct. No one is required to believe in a literal adam and eve.

That’s simply not correct. If you are Catholic then you are required to believe that there was an original set of parents which did indeed set in motion the effects of their original sin onto all of humanity.

Consequently, this isn’t a “creationist” argument-- because many people who believe that God used evolution to bring forth the original parents (like I’m inclined to believe) still nonetheless believe that there really were two literal parents for the human race.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.[293] By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.[294] It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

The Church is quite aware of this razor sharp issue. The word of God is living and active-- sharper than any double-edged sword. And this is something which the Church in her Wisdon has made many attempts to delicately bring it to light as well.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Saviour of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,[263] knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

As such, it appears to me that you really are overstepping the bounds of Church teaching when you make the proclomation that no one is required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Yes, we most certainly required to believe this.

Concerning the creation/evolution issue, the best we can say right now is that it appears to be both at the same time, with many areas overlapping. So until we have better data and can expound on this area more clearly (something which may not happen in our lifetime), I think it is quite perilous to lean too far either way on this razor sharp issue. Doing so could possibly result in serious damage to one’s faith as they are sliced along the dichotomy’s edge-- and in many regards I think many of these debates have already done this.

 

[Abbadon]

Yes, except then later, it turns out that dogs are actually a kind of wolf - they aren’t a different species in the way that a cat would be.

And again, what we have are just different kinds of viruses. They didn’t grow legs or discover fire.

If “that’s what evolution is,” (meaning, a different kind of the same thing developing over time, but not actually changing into something completely unrelated) then evolution is still not the reason that there are completely different kinds of animals around, and there is still no evidence to suggest a chain of development from the amoebae to the human being.

Yea but that is the reasoning behind evolution. That is the deffinition of evolution. Progressive change for the survival of the species. there may not be 100% evidence from amoebae to humans but there is evidence of the same thing occuring at smaller scales. Like dinosaurs to birds, one kind of mammal to another kind. But i doubt you will find every single link in the chain.

And i’ve been reading that evolution isn’t so gradual that the changes occur in dramatic spikes. Either way it makes more sense than dinosaurs and humans living in the same period of time what is it 8000 years ago? then the dinosaurs getting wiped out but not the humans (i thought noah took 2 of each creature). When god abandoned adam and eve, adam and eve would have been veloceraptor food. I mean really, just think about it…

 

[jmcrae]

And i’ve been reading that evolution isn’t so gradual that the changes occur in dramatic spikes. Either way it makes more sense than dinosaurs and humans living in the same period of time what is it 8000 years ago? then the dinosaurs getting wiped out but not the humans (i thought noah took 2 of each creature).

Lots of creatures have been wiped out - just ask GreenPeace. And we still have Nessie and Ogo Pogo, who are probably some kind of dinosaurs, and what about the great reptiles? Dinosaurs are great reptiles, right? And we still have great reptiles among us.

When god abandoned adam and eve, adam and eve would have been veloceraptor food. I mean really, just think about it…

Or just as easily tiger food, or grizzly bear food. But they weren’t, because God gave them the skills to survive in a harsh land. Looking back about 10,000 years ago, with the discovery of fire, archaeologists see an explosion of technology - pottery, metal-working, weaponry, organized hunting, gardening and crop-planting, which means that they also knew how to calculate the calendar - just all of a sudden, right out of (seemingly) nowhere. Nothing gradual about it - this aimlessly wandering ape suddenly becomes purposeful and self-directed, right about the time that Adam and Eve are supposed to have been created. The Book of Genesis records the occupations of each of the children of Adam and Eve, and guess what - potters, metal-workers, weapons manufacturers, hunters, farmers, and astrologists (guys who can calculate calendars). Coincidence?

 

[Sideline]

The difference is that there is no evidence for the theory of evolution as presented.

This is a complete and total lie. Next to Newton’s Theories of Motion it is the single most successful theory in the history of science.

The theory of evolution is not the same kind of science as the theory of gravity, etc., because nothing has ever actually been observed.

Again, this is utterly untrue. We observe bacteria that eat nylon, and bacteria that are resistant to penicillin. These never existed before. Those are just two observable examples.

It is the only kind of “science” that does not follow the law of “observe first, record second, theorize last.”

Have you ever studied the history of science? Have you ever studied the history of Evolutionary Theory? This statement clearly shows that you have no solid understanding of either.

In the case of the theory of evolution, the theory comes first, and stands alone - nothing has been observed or recorded, yet.

Again, totally untrue.

 

[jmcrae]

Again, this is utterly untrue. We observe bacteria that eat nylon, and bacteria that are resistant to penicillin. These never existed before. Those are just two observable examples.

Yes, but you are not observing that one species has become a different species. All you have observed is that a different kind of the same thing has developed. This is not the evolutionary theory of Darwin; people have always known that different kinds of the same thing can develop from the same thing - this was never news to Darwin or to any of his predecessors.

Again - no one has ever observed one species developing into a completely different and unrelated species. That’s what has to happen in order to prove the theory of evolution - the bacteria has to generate through the ordinary non-interfered-with process of reproduction something that is no longer actually bacteria, but a higher order of life form. (No fair cheating and “enhancing” its DNA in some way.)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yes, but you are not observing that one species has become a different species. All you have observed is that a different kind of the same thing has developed. This is not the evolutionary theory of Darwin; people have always known that different kinds of the same thing can develop from the same thing - this was never news to Darwin or to any of his predecessors.

Again - no one has ever observed one species developing into a completely different and unrelated species. That’s what has to happen in order to prove the theory of evolution - the bacteria has to generate through the ordinary non-interfered-with process of reproduction something that is no longer actually bacteria, but a higher order of life form. (No fair cheating and “enhancing” its DNA in some way.)

The Pope has spoken…when will you people give it a rest and stop directly trying to mislead people. This is shameful.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, but you are not observing that one species has become a different species. All you have observed is that a different kind of the same thing has developed. This is not the evolutionary theory of Darwin; people have always known that different kinds of the same thing can develop from the same thing - this was never news to Darwin or to any of his predecessors.

Again - no one has ever observed one species developing into a completely different and unrelated species. That’s what has to happen in order to prove the theory of evolution - the bacteria has to generate through the ordinary non-interfered-with process of reproduction something that is no longer actually bacteria, but a higher order of life form. (No fair cheating and “enhancing” its DNA in some way.)

This is exactly correct. The nylon eating bacteria nonsense is not an example of evolution. Bacteria can exchange bits of DNA, even among different species. Also, scientists have discovered bacteria in dirt that were already resistant to antibiotics, including synthetics.

I recall the recent discovery of a fossil where it was claimed the flippers were on their way to becoming hands. The common seal has flippers that it uses to walk along the ground. Is it on its way to becoming a dog or an elephant? I don’t think so.

And bacteria always remain bacteria, regardless of how many DNA exchanges occur.

God bless,
Ed

 

[inthecloud]

I find this more Popish that the Pope creationist posters in evolution threads amusing. What are they trying to accomplish?

1. They would not contradict science, the science is there, even id they do not like her or understand her. And even in for a huge miracle evolution is proven false, what they are going to do with cosmology and geology? A false theory of evolution does not prove a literal Genesis, it only proves a false theory of evolution, the world could have been created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster or by a pink unicorn.
2. With the Popes (at least since the 1930s), the theologicians, most of the clergy and most of the educated laity (at least outside the US) endorsing theistic evolution I doubt the Church will change her position on a prophetic nonliteral Genesis and Theistic Evolution. The only thing they are doing here is confusing young people.
3. The church is gainging a lot of converts from exfundamentalist denominations because they waked up and searched for a more sophisticated reading of Genesis. Also many science minded exagnostics and atheist choose Catholicism because it allows them to keep their scientific knowledge and become conservative christians at the same time. Going creationist would be a huge step backwards for them.

 

[jmcrae]

I guess when you run out of logical arguments, you have to start attacking people and calling them “fundamentalists” and “Popish.” (Not that these are bad things to be, mind you.)

Sorry, but I still don’t see any evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution.

 

[edwest2]

The Church is not in the business of promoting politics. Also, God is no respecter of persons.

The Church has given the proper, two part answer to this question. An Unguided form of evolution simply cannot exist. A form of creation that relies on a series of fortuitous events alone is not acceptable to the Church. Divine providence is the necessary and missing part of the answer when one examines secular texts.

One is first drawn to Christ by the Father and upon admitting that you are a sinner and accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, the Holy Spirit comes to live within you. This, as opposed to joining a kind of club and choosing, as if from a menu, “well, I can believe this but not that.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I find this more Popish that the Pope creationist posters in evolution threads amusing. What are they trying to accomplish?

1. They would not contradict science, the science is there, even id they do not like her or understand her. And even in for a huge miracle evolution is proven false, what they are going to do with cosmology and geology? A false theory of evolution does not prove a literal Genesis, it only proves a false theory of evolution, the world could have been created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster or by a pink unicorn.
2. With the Popes (at least since the 1930s), the theologicians, most of the clergy and most of the educated laity (at least outside the US) endorsing theistic evolution I doubt the Church will change her position on a prophetic nonliteral Genesis and Theistic Evolution. The only thing they are doing here is confusing young people.
3. The church is gainging a lot of converts from exfundamentalist denominations because they waked up and searched for a more sophisticated reading of Genesis. Also many science minded exagnostics and atheist choose Catholicism because it allows them to keep their scientific knowledge and become conservative christians at the same time. Going creationist would be a huge step backwards for them.

**Truely the sad thing is when someone who might convert gets caught by one of these creationist Catholics and runs the other way. It really makes me mad. I sure never would have converted had I been unlucky enough to meet one of the self theological promoters. **

I guess when you run out of logical arguments, you have to start attacking people and calling them “fundamentalists” and “Popish.” (Not that these are bad things to be, mind you.)

Sorry, but I still don’t see any evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Then you either don’t want to see the evidence, or you are just intentially preaching falsehood. You really think you know more than the pope and tens of thousands of scientists?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Church is not in the business of promoting politics. Also, God is no respecter of persons.

The Church has given the proper, two part answer to this question. An Unguided form of evolution simply cannot exist. A form of creation that relies on a series of fortuitous events alone is not acceptable to the Church. Divine providence is the necessary and missing part of the answer when one examines secular texts.

**And you know very well nobody is promoting no God. You know that ED, yet time and time again you return to it. You admit as much…you try to insist that we are somehow not stating the Church’s positon. We are …you admit it. geesh. **
One is first drawn to Christ by the Father and upon admitting that you are a sinner and accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, the Holy Spirit comes to live within you. This, as opposed to joining a kind of club and choosing, as if from a menu, “well, I can believe this but not that.”

**Of course, nobody again is saying otherwise…Thanks for finally coming around to the truth. **

 

[jmcrae]

Then you either don’t want to see the evidence, or you are just intentially preaching falsehood. You really think you know more than the pope and tens of thousands of scientists?

The Pope is the one who is saying that Adam and Eve were real people, and that we are not allowed to believe in godless or random evolution.

If you can get the theory of evolution to fit with the facts that we are required to believe, then all the more power to you. Myself, I can’t get it to work. There are two absolutes: one, God created everything, and two. Adam and Eve are one man and one woman, our first parents, and the first human beings ever to exist. If they were born, then they were born of non-humans.

 

[edwest2]

See the first page of the Thank God for Evolution thread. Of course people are promoting “you are your genes and nothing else.” God is just a fiction dreamt up by our genes to ensure that we would successfully reproduce.

God bless,
Ed