G
grannymh
Guest
Correction: Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. One was not in the other. The Catholic theological term is hypostatic union with emphasis on union in the one Person of Jesus.
- Status
I
itinerant1
Guest
I
itinerant1
Guest
The idea that the human soul or mind is strictly a product of evolution is reductionist according to Charles Darwin. Darwin’s Notebooks clearly reveal his plan on presenting a reductionist or philosophically materialist account of the human mind. This Darwin did in his *Descent of Man.
*That Darwin had no sense of the proper scope and limits of natural science is amply demonstrated throughout the Descent and Notebooks.
In response to Darwin’s reductionist theory of the human mind, Stephen J. Gould said that reductionism can be a good thing. I adamantly disagree.
*That Darwin had no sense of the proper scope and limits of natural science is amply demonstrated throughout the Descent and Notebooks.
In response to Darwin’s reductionist theory of the human mind, Stephen J. Gould said that reductionism can be a good thing. I adamantly disagree.
G
grannymh
Guest
And I adamantly agree with you Itinerant1.
Now I am wondering if the coalescence theory, in molecular biology, is beyond the proper scope and limits of natural science. If it is, then some of the interpretations of results would be in jeopardy. Adam could easily slip in between the cracks.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
H
hugh_r.miller
Guest
I never thought of it that way but that seems to be what some evos on this thread are saying: The Catholic variety seems to agree that the church is correct in claiming that Christ’s devine nature is that he is God who created, whoops, I mean evolved the universe. But on the other hand they claim that His human nature is that of an highly evolved ape [excuse me I mean separated from the apes about seven million years ago].
I wonder why He bothered to leave His programing job on the devine celestial computer to visit earth as half human half Godly person as the “second Adam?” Perhaps He became bored with his 13 billion year job as the computer programmer for the whole universe. The whole concept of evolution from a common ancestor or whatever smacks of blasphemy — like something out of the pagan Greek hypothesis of origins with which St. Paul and the church fathers had to contend with in their time.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Hugh, do you not accept the Chalcedonian definition?
I
itinerant1
Guest
I cannot say that the coalescence theory, insofar as what I understand of it, extends beyond a methodological naturalism. My point was more limited to the fact that if a scientific theory asserts that the mind of man evolved then that theory or hypothesis has over-stepped the legitimate scope and province of natural science by making a meta-scientific assertion.And I adamantly agree with you Itinerant1.
Now I am wondering if the coalescence theory, in molecular biology, is beyond the proper scope and limits of natural science. If it is, then some of the interpretations of results would be in jeopardy. Adam could easily slip in between the cracks.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
The reduction of human human experience such as reflective consciousness, abstract conceptual understanding, free will, religion, philosophy, science, and so on, to the physiological realm, defies common human experience and everything we know about the nature of physical matter and energy. In other words, such a reduction defies everything we know both scientifically and philosophically, not to mention theologically.
That the human race descended from a primal pair of parents remains an indirect theological doctrine of Christianity that is warranted by the reality expressed in the de fide doctrine of Original Sin. If a scientific theory contradicts said doctrine of a literal primal pair, Adam and Eve, which it does, then a resolution involves determining whether the contradiction is apparent or real.
If the contradiction is real, then it needs to be decided whether it is the scientist or the theologian who is mistaken. If the theological doctrine is correctly understood, and is a doctrine that is de fide, then orthodox Christians cannot compromise on matters of faith.
Of course, this conflict must be researched further. So far, the scientific information appears to favor that there was no such bottleneck as a single pair of humans. But then again, the scientific data does not say that a single pair was impossible. This makes the primal pair belief the weaker argument on the level of the current scientific data and its interpretation. However, as you once said, “Revelation trumps.” So, thinking, orthodox Catholics who exhibit discriminatory judgement in regard to Revelation and science must wait for further developments that resolve the conflict.
As for myself, I am not too concerned because Church doctrines that are *de fide *never have been and never will be disproven.
While Adam and Eve in the Genesis account represent first, not individual humans beings but rather the human race, there is clearly a secondary intended meaning, that is amply demonstrated by Pauline doctrine in the NT, which is that Adam and Eve represent a literal pair of primal humans from which all of mankind is descended.
On the scientific level, we need not assume that the primal pair were neccessarily Homo sapiens sapiens or even Homo sapiens. If archaeological evidence can indicate that true rationality or conceptual thinking is found earlier than *Homo sapiens, *then “man”, defined essentially as “rational animal”, pre-dates Homo sapiens.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Christ was not “half human” and “half Godly person”. In order to avoid talking nonsense about Christ’s nature we must say that He was “fully human” and “fully Divine”.
Your statement is prima facie absurd. The Church does not think the scientific theory of evolution per se is blaphemous. The Church recognizes certain theories of evolution as consistent with the faith. The Church only rejects materialist theories of evolution.
H
hugh_r.miller
Guest
That’s a very good question. Let me try and bring you young pups up-to-date as I have followed this research for many years and occasionally participated when possible. First of all there are a lot of people out there who do NOT believe in evolution of life over billions of years; you’ve seen the polls. Depending on their actual life experience they try and rationalize how their creator did it and perhaps stick with their rationalizations or move on. Others have a bent for science and when they find themselves in a position to do so they sort of let the Spirit guide them to try and do some research themselves or write books, technical articles or whatever. I have followed the literature trail since about 1970 and so can perhaps help you understand how C-14 became useful for dating fossils all of which challenges the long ages required for evolution to have occurred.
Those who can’t believe that life evolved by chance over billions of years and/or believe in scripture as history as well as the road map to heaven started testing for C-14 in a fossil tree branch fossil in 1978 and reported those results in the Technical Journal, CRSQ in 1979 (Creation Research Science Quarterly) Volume 16, September 1979, page 87-88.
The archaeologist and nuclear waste disposal scientist who discovered the branch obtained the date of 12,800 years BP at UCLA through Dr. Reiner Berger for a “charred tree branch” that was partially imbedded in a river bed of the Glen Rose Cretaceous limestone. The fossil human and dinosaur prints in the river and pristine ones under tons of limestone strata on the river’s ledge contained fossil human footprints with dinosaurs. This formation was claimed by evolutionary geologists to be 108 million years old but is now under being heavily disputed.
omniology.com/BurntBranch.html
mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/berger_clemens.html
Prior to the above, Fr. Patrick O’Connell, a Catholic priest, physics teacher and missionary in Chna wrote a book in the 1960’s after escaping from a violent group of evolutionists bent on changing the socio-economics of the world like Adolf Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. *
In his book written in the mid 1960’s, “Science and the problems of Genesis***,”*** Fr. O’Connell used C-14 data from archaeology in the near East to show that the flood of Noah may have occurred somewhere about 7,000 C-14 years BP but suggested it was NOT a World-wide flood but only ~half the world. He also took Teilhard de Chardin to task for his fossil deceptions and questionable theology based on evolution.
In the 1980’s other teams continued testing for C-14 in the Paluxy River fossils and obtained ages for carbonized wood in clay-marl between strata to be about 37,500 +/- years performed at the University of Arizona through the auspicious of a Ph.D. in geophysics who graduated from the UN of AZ; a clay specialist who he took clay samples to examined the clay-marl itself under the microscope and gave an estimate of the clay age as young as 5000 years but as old as 50,000 years.
Since the above, many other fossils including dinosaur bone collagen and/or calcium carbonate fraction of bone bioapatite from Texas to Alaska have given ages in the range of 23,000 to 33,000 C-14 years, www.dinosaurc14ages.com www.earthage.org and www.omniology.com A technical paper was published and released in late November 2009 by the National Research Council of Italy regarding C-14 dating of dinosaur bone collagen etc; so this data have been peer reviewed. The fossil human footprints have been confirmed as valid by the use of Cat-scan for the fossil impressions themselves between 2007 and 2008 http://ianjuby.org/delk/
Conclusion: Testing for C-14 in fossils has been, and still is of vital necessity for the advancement of science and the study of origins.
Big Jack Horner sat in a corner**
scraping a dinosaur bone.**
Some soft tissue appeared
And he said, "Just what I feared!
**Evolution’s long ages are gone!" **
**IDvolution **- God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. Buffalo
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Did Fr. O’Connell postulate that on on side of a global meridian there stood a wall of water 35,000 feet high?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Sorry – I meant “on one side” and “29,053 feet” Presumably a flood on only half the world would mean a bulge of water 29,053 feet deep. It might have had a gradual slooe, or it might have been a vertical wall just like in the movies: youtube.com/watch?v=whMWzHwXPic&feature=related
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Fr. O’Connell was very dishonest – in fact, he seems to have been a liar. "Every last libel on anyone involved with Homo erectus, every shabby slur placed on the reputation of these honourable men, Duane Gish lifted entire, attributed or unattributed, from O’Connell.
“Fr. O’Connell bemoans the way Catholics, both ordained and lay, have not only accepted the evolutionary account but even, like the Abbé Breuil and Fr. Boné, contributed to it; but his chief wrath is directed towards Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the eminent palaeontologist who was also a Jesuit, and was forbidden by his superiors to publish during his lifetime his views reconciling evolution with palaeontology. Wrath? O’Connell detests Teilhard with a vehemence, and his assessment of his brother priest, on pp.149-154, is filled with such venom as I would have hoped never to see on the printed page, let alone from a man charged with spreading the religion of brotherly love.”
talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oconnell_cg.html
G
grannymh
Guest
Are you implying that the human species has a separate lineage? Considering the major domains, I would consider a separate lineage probable.
Also, the first true, fully complete human not only is rational/corporeal, he has a unique relationship with his Creator. The is definitely a primeval event which influenced the subsequent course of history.
Your post invites other comments; however, I consider the above primary.
Blessings,
granny
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I am not sure exactly what you mean by separate lineage in this case. You would have to expound on that before I can respond.
My point is this: It is certain that the human body has a pre-history in the natural processes of biological evolution. The soul, being a spiritual substance, albeit an incomplete substance, one whose nature it is to be united to a physical body as its “form” (eidos), must be created directly. Exactly when the first direct creation of the human soul occurred with intervention in the evolutionary process may have been prior to Homo sapiens. That is, it seems possible that a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens may represent the first truly human beings (rational animal; possessing a rational, immortal soul). I won’t speculate here which species might be the best candidate. Nonetheless, if this is a possible scenario, then Homo sapiens must be descendants (same lineage) of the first humans as are all modern humans. (This does not imply that I think there can be, in the future, any significant evolution beyond* Homo sapiens sapiens*. I have reasons for this claim, too.)
I won’t speculate too much more until I read a new archaeology book I just purchased.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
That’s a very good question. Let me try and bring you young pups up-to-date as I have followed this research for many years and occasionally participated when possible. First of all there are a lot of people out there who do NOT believe in evolution of life over billions of years; you’ve seen the polls. Depending on their actual life experience they try and rationalize how their creator did it and perhaps stick with their rationalizations or move on. Others have a bent for science and when they find themselves in a position to do so they sort of let the Spirit guide them to try and do some research themselves or write books, technical articles or whatever. I have followed the literature trail since about 1970 and so can perhaps help you understand how C-14 became useful for dating fossils all of which challenges the long ages required for evolution to have occurred.
Those who can’t believe that life evolved by chance over billions of years and/or believe in scripture as history as well as the road map to heaven started testing for C-14 in a fossil tree branch fossil in 1978 and reported those results in the Technical Journal, CRSQ in 1979 (Creation Research Science Quarterly) Volume 16, September 1979, page 87-88.
The archaeologist and nuclear waste disposal scientist who discovered the branch obtained the date of 12,800 years BP at UCLA through Dr. Reiner Berger for a “charred tree branch” that was partially imbedded in a river bed of the Glen Rose Cretaceous limestone. The fossil human and dinosaur prints in the river and pristine ones under tons of limestone strata on the river’s ledge contained fossil human footprints with dinosaurs. This formation was claimed by evolutionary geologists to be 108 million years old but is now under being heavily disputed.
omniology.com/BurntBranch.html
mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/berger_clemens.html
Prior to the above, Fr. Patrick O’Connell, a Catholic priest, physics teacher and missionary in Chna wrote a book in the 1960’s after escaping from a violent group of evolutionists bent on changing the socio-economics of the world like Adolf Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. *
In his book written in the mid 1960’s, “Science and the problems of Genesis***,”**** Fr. O’Connell used C-14 data from archaeology in the near East to show that the flood of Noah may have occurred somewhere about 7,000 C-14 years BP but suggested it was NOT a World-wide flood but only ~half the world. He also took Teilhard de Chardin to task for his fossil deceptions and questionable theology based on evolution.
In the 1980’s other teams continued testing for C-14 in the Paluxy River fossils and obtained ages for carbonized wood in clay-marl between strata to be about 37,500 +/- years performed at the University of Arizona through the auspicious of a Ph.D. in geophysics who graduated from the UN of AZ; a clay specialist who he took clay samples to examined the clay-marl itself under the microscope and gave an estimate of the clay age as young as 5000 years but as old as 50,000 years.
Since the above, many other fossils including dinosaur bone collagen and/or calcium carbonate fraction of bone bioapatite from Texas to Alaska have given ages in the range of 23,000 to 33,000 C-14 years, www.dinosaurc14ages.com www.earthage.org and www.omniology.com A technical paper was published and released in late November 2009 by the National Research Council of Italy regarding C-14 dating of dinosaur bone collagen etc; so this data have been peer reviewed. The fossil human footprints have been confirmed as valid by the use of Cat-scan for the fossil impressions themselves between 2007 and 2008 http://ianjuby.org/delk/
Conclusion: Testing for C-14 in fossils has been, and still is of vital necessity for the advancement of science and the study of origins.
Big Jack Horner sat in a corner**
scraping a dinosaur bone.**
Some soft tissue appeared
And he said, "Just what I feared!
**Evolution’s long ages are gone!" **
**IDvolution **- God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. Buffalo
or whatever.
You have given no basis for me to examine a young earth position. I am open to hearing your position.
Let’s hear it.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Ultimately, the ideas of YEC are grounded in a faulty biblical hermeneutic commonly referred to as “biblical literalism.” The Bible itself makes no statement about Earth’s age, but various religionists have tried to infer the age from biblical narratives, which they wrongly interpreted by projecting a modern sense of history into the texts rather than reading them according to the ancient Hebraic conception of religious history.
The Anglican Irish churchman James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, made the most influential attempt to date the age of the earth, using (or rather misusing) the Bible, over three centuries ago. Ussher summed the life spans of the patriarchs listed in the Book of Genesis, refined that total by making some theological assumptions, and deduced that God had created Earth on 23 October in the year 4004 BC. This result, which Ussher promulgated in 1650, was printed as a margin-note in many editions of the Bible and unfortunately acquired the force of scripture among many fundamentalists, primarily of the Protestant genre.
YEC has no home in the Catholic Church, as the quotations I provided in a prior post from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott make amply clear. Cardinal Schonborn had to state the common sense fact that “a six-thousand year old earth is nonsense.” Additionally, Cardinal Ratzinger, the most authoritative theologian, made the following statement about creation and evolution:
"A belief in creation, rightly understood, and a rightly understood doctrine of evolution, do not stand in each other’s way. Evolution presupposes creation; creation, seen in the light of evolution, appears as an event extended over time–as a creatio continua, as a continuing creation–in that God becomes visible, to the eye of faith, as the ‘creator of heaven and earth.’
The Anglican Irish churchman James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, made the most influential attempt to date the age of the earth, using (or rather misusing) the Bible, over three centuries ago. Ussher summed the life spans of the patriarchs listed in the Book of Genesis, refined that total by making some theological assumptions, and deduced that God had created Earth on 23 October in the year 4004 BC. This result, which Ussher promulgated in 1650, was printed as a margin-note in many editions of the Bible and unfortunately acquired the force of scripture among many fundamentalists, primarily of the Protestant genre.
YEC has no home in the Catholic Church, as the quotations I provided in a prior post from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott make amply clear. Cardinal Schonborn had to state the common sense fact that “a six-thousand year old earth is nonsense.” Additionally, Cardinal Ratzinger, the most authoritative theologian, made the following statement about creation and evolution:
"A belief in creation, rightly understood, and a rightly understood doctrine of evolution, do not stand in each other’s way. Evolution presupposes creation; creation, seen in the light of evolution, appears as an event extended over time–as a creatio continua, as a continuing creation–in that God becomes visible, to the eye of faith, as the ‘creator of heaven and earth.’
A
Answersplease
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
I base my arguments on the constant teaching and understanding of the Catholic Church. I do not practice private interpretation of the Bible.
What year and what document changed what Catholics believed about creation?
G
grannymh
Guest
Am I correctly seeing YEC as dichotomy?
- One division belongs to the extreme fundamentalists who maintain a doctrine which is not Catholic.
- The second division belongs to scientists who are still curious about the age of the earth in relationship to newer methods, techniques, and better lab facilities.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, it’s more complicated than that.
There are flat earthers, geocentrists, YECs, omphalists, YECs (day-agers and progressive creationists), IDers, theistic evolutionists. agnostic evolutionists, atheistic evolutionists, and still others.
- Status