G
grannymh
Guest
I know that I am a “direct” descendant of Thomas the Apostle.
Blessings,
granny
Spring is a time for sunny skies and silliness.
- Status
Blessings,
granny
Spring is a time for sunny skies and silliness.
I
itinerant1
Guest
“Proven fallacies”?Here we go again - trying to twist Augustine into supporting the proven fallacies of our times. This is like telling God, Hey Guy this is how you did it. You don’t even ask questions; you take your New Age science on faith. There were peddlers of long age “junk science” in Augustine’s day also, as he so written.
The church has always shared Augustine’s agreement with Holy Scripture until the untested Darwinian/Lyellian geology came along and was taught as a fact so as to void Augustine et al.
Modern lab, flume and field studies including C-14 dating and the fallacies of old age radiometric dating have finally tested Lyell’s geologic assumptions and Darwin is falling off his pedestile.
Proven fallacious by who? Creationists.
They must be doing human cloning at the ICR because you guys all talk the same.
Your statements about Augustine, the Church and Lyell are typical creationist screed revealing your superficial understanding of the Bible and virtually no knowledge of the history of biblical exegesis in the Church.
St. Thomas Aquinas said, “A direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture.” What you are peddling is a superficial reading of Scripture, at best. St. Augustine warned against using the Bible to deny what science knows for certain. What Augustine says applies directly to modern creationists:
“It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth and the sky, or the other elements of this world—respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide from the mark as east is from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.
“And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy making mistakes on the subject which they know perfectly; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, know by direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt?
“It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement.”
Cardinal Schonborn says “The Catholic position on “creationism” is clear. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that one should “not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that make it ridiculous, because they are in obvious contradiction with reason.” It is nonsense to maintain that the world is only six thousand years old. An attempt to prove such a notion scientifically means provoking what St.Thomas calls the irrisio infidelium, the mockery of unbelievers. Exposing the faith to mockery with false arguments of this kind is not right; indeed it is specifically to be rejected.”
What part of the above statement do you not understand? Your position is not Catholic. Does that need to be repeated? As a Roman Catholic, I must follow Cardinal Schonborn’s counsel in this matter and specifically reject your creationist babble since it exposes the faith to mockery.
E
edwest2
Guest
The key words from St. Thomas Aquinas are “with certainty.”
Pope Benedict says that evolution cannot be proven:
romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/04/pope_benedict_x.html
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece
God bless,
Ed
Pope Benedict says that evolution cannot be proven:
romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/04/pope_benedict_x.html
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece
God bless,
Ed
I
itinerant1
Guest
Since there seems to be an interest in Augustine’s idea of the rationes seminales, sometime later today I will post a fuller explanation of the concept. I’ll take the explanation directly from the writings of the late Etienne Gilson, who was the leading Catholic historian of medieval philosophy. That way, you will be guaranteed a correct interpretation to rely on.
B
buffalo
Guest
I will supplement with this:
AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION
A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE
I
itinerant1
Guest
Didn’t you post these questionable links in the past and the problem with them was pointed out to you? What is up with that?
If you will do a little critical reading you will see that the Pope never said evolution “cannot” be proven. He talked about the incompleteness of the theory and difficulties with proof since one cannot haul all of natural history into a laboratory.
Have you even read the Times article you linked to, or did you just read the title? Read the last paragraph, which says: "The comments of this Pope, like those of John Paul II, best adhere to the doctrine of theistic evolution, which sees God creating by a process of evolution."
G
grannymh
Guest
Perhaps it is time to point out that there are actually two kinds of evolutionary theory.
The first kind is applied to all living organisms consisting of matter, material or physical. The second kind is faced with the problem of applying materialistic science to human nature which is an unique, intimate unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body. This second kind can only deal with the biological anatomy which eventually decomposes; it cannot deal with the spiritual soul which is immortal.
Blessings,
granny
“… in his own nature he [human being] unites the spiritual and material worlds;” Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 355-357.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thanks to StAnastasia, post 937, this thread, I can skip the math and answer directly your question: “Supposing human lineage simply kept broadening as we traced it back through our ancestors; would there not have to be ten thousand times more people on earth some one hundred generations ago?”
G
grannymh
Guest
Thanks to StAnastasia, post 937, this thread, I can skip the math and answer directly your question: “Supposing human lineage simply kept broadening as we traced it back through our ancestors; would there not have to be ten thousand times more people on earth some one hundred generations ago?”
Notice how cousins married. Keep going back to the time of our two real parent/ancestors and there will be intramarriage in the first few generations.
What about incest? Keep remembering P, P, and B Prior, Pristine, and Blessing.The first generations of the human species were Prior to the time of Moses. The abuses of intramarriage which occurred in the very large populations did not occur in the tiny populations at the beginning.
Because Adam and Eve were Prior to Moses, they were also Pristine. Pristine is defined as “Remaining in a pure state; uncorrupted by civilization. … primitive or original.”
The American Heritage College Dictionary.
Because Adam and Eve were Pristine as the two first fully complete human beings, they were also commanded by God to procreate or generate the human species. They received God’s Blessing in order to do this. “God blessed them, saying: Be fertile and multiply;”
Genesis 1: 27-28
Blessings,
granny
P, P, and B. God looked at everything He had made,
and He found it very good."* Genesis 1: 31*.
R
rossum
Guest
Then Dr John Sanford is incorrect. The human Apolipoprotein A-I Milano mutation reduces the risk of heart attacks when eating a rich Western-style diet. See A Rare Protein Mutation Offers New Hope for Heart Disease Patients. How is that mutation detrimental? The human HbC mutation offers protection against malaria. How is that mutation detrimental? Beneficial mutations are indeed rare but they are not completely absent. Dr Sanford is mistaken.
You started as a single cell in your mother’s womb. You now have trillions of cells and are considerably more complex. You are incorrect.
Don’t hold your breath, see Glenn Morton The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism.
rossum
E
edwest2
Guest
I’ve read the Times article more than once. Again, St. Thomas Aquinas uses the words “with certainty.” There is no certainty regarding this theory.
God bless,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
A single complex cell. Each cell contains the full instruction set. More does not necessarily mean more complex.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Your are correctly indicating that there is more to origin of the human being than what can be explained by natural processes. Man is not just his anatomy.
However, I would explain the situation differently in regard to the evolution of humans and other biological organism. On the level of the natural sciences, it is one and the same scientific theory that explains or is capable of explaining the origin of plants, animals and man. In regard to man, this will be an incomplete explanation. But my point here is that a strictly scientific explanation of the evolution of even plants and animals will be incomplete as well.
This is where I think Pope Benedict indicates the incompleteness of evolution theory. First, it is incomplete on the scientific level at this point in time. On the scientific level, scientists will continue to accumulate evidence for evolution theory. Supposing in one, two, or three centuries so much evidence is accumulated to explain the evolution of plants and animals that we can consider it a complete scientific theory, as complete as any. Accordingly it would be complete only as far as natural explanations are concerned.
However, it would not be a comprehensive theory because there are aspects to biological evolution that science does not concern itself with. Metaphysical causes are beyond the scope and competence of the natural sciences. Thus, secondly, the picture needs to be filled in with general or overarching explanations which entail for instance, finality or final causes, goal directed-ness. Nature acts for a purpose, but science does not deal with purpose. Some questions to ask are What drives evolution in the first place?, Why do plants and animals struggle to survive at all? Why don’t organisms just lay flat against the environment? Why has evolution, in general produced, increased complexity and higher forms of life, beings that possess life and knowledge more fully than anaerobic bacteria.
Sure bacteria have remained bacteria, but that is a good thing because higher forms of life would not develop on this planet without the role played by bacteria. Is there purpose at work in this, or is it just luck, as if luck explains anything at all. And “chance” is just a word to cover our ignorance of causal events.
Survival or survival of the fittest is not the only goal to the evolutionary process. It is more noble to exist as a being that knows rather than one that just exists or survives. Only a perverse evolutionist would exchange his rational existence for that of bacterium or cockroach. These are just a few of the questions that can only be answered by a sound philosophy and theology.
When it comes to man, the issues are even more interesting, especially in regard to the special creation of his immortal soul, how a pair of primal human parents fits into human history, and where, and so on. Yes, I must maintain that there was a literal pair of primal parents. The geneticists’ reports of their non-existence have been greatly exaggerated.
In sum, in regard to the evolution of plants and animals and man, a complete or comprehensive theory requires both classical philosophy and theology as well as science. Materialist evolutionists will disagree about the metaphysics and theology, but then again their simplistic theories will never explain much at all.
G
grannymh
Guest
I believe that the problem is that everything under the sun is lumped together as one evolutionary theory. I tried to point this out in post 984 above. I believe that the solution centers on looking at theories regarding nature with the view of both / and instead of the mutually exclusive or.
Blessings,
granny
Wild flowers and cultivated perennials form beautiful bouquets.
I
itinerant1
Guest
If you read the article, then there is no excuse for your statement that asserts the Pope says evolution “cannot” be proven. Were you deliberately misrepresenting the Times article?
And evolution is proven. Speciation, for instance, is a proven fact.
There is irrefutable evidence that species are instrumental in the production of new species. “Ring species” provide a good example. The “classic” example involves the herring gull.
B
buffalo
Guest
A little snippet from the paper I posted above from St Augustine:
He saw the
creature in its seminal reasons created in the roots of times; the creature tending to its existence in
its own moment of time; the creature existing in its kind in the progressive course of time. In other
words, he saw the purely passive potency of matter determined simultaneously with its creation in
that first instant, the roots of times; he saw that passive potency waiting for the appointed moment
in time when it was to respond to the creative word, and, by creation, to become first of its kind; he
saw the creature, so existing, continuing its existence, propagating by generation its species during
time.
He saw the
creature in its seminal reasons created in the roots of times; the creature tending to its existence in
its own moment of time; the creature existing in its kind in the progressive course of time. In other
words, he saw the purely passive potency of matter determined simultaneously with its creation in
that first instant, the roots of times; he saw that passive potency waiting for the appointed moment
in time when it was to respond to the creative word, and, by creation, to become first of its kind; he
saw the creature, so existing, continuing its existence, propagating by generation its species during
time.
G
grannymh
Guest
You are absolutely right. You have added very important points. Thank you.
I have found God in the sheer beauty of nature. I shall get to know God better by understanding nature in the way you have expressed the above post.
Blessings,
granny
God is the Creator of all.
P
Philipp
Guest
Thank you Buffalo for elequently expressing what I failed to express. "**The core is preserved, **I like that! Perhaps after I’ve read Dr. Sanford’s book instead of skimming over it a few weeks ago as I did, I too will learn the correct technical words that will prevent my non-technical responses in genetics. I wouldn’t want to continue to offend some who participate in this thread…All living organisms share the same “core” makeup. That is why the embryo’s have similar features. We all share the same core cell structure, function and body plan organization. This is all right there from the very beginning. This is the potentiality.
Now it gets really neat!The regulatory system can rearrange things to allow variable offspring. Micro evolution (adaptability) is built right in. What does this mean? The things that control this have to be in place before micro-evolution can take place. Bye Bye Darwin! The top evo guys get this but still have not come to terms with it. They cannot explain saltations away and now know the first cells were complex. The typical evo defender on CAF doesn’t even know this exists. Why - 'because of what their boilogy classes taught them. You know the one’s I am talking about - the one’s that every time you question the modern synthesis they reply - take a university biology course.
The kicker is it fits so nicely with St Augustine’s idea of potentiality and the constant teaching and understanding of the Church.
The payoff is that it pays to stick with this thought - Divine Revelation Trumps!I have always maintained Divine Revelation must illuminate out reasoning.
Humans never needed a tail for mobility and now you can see why. We will be better able to define the “kinds”. This also puts the idea of devolution into play. That the corruption brought upon us by the fall corrupts the “pure potentiality” that existed in the beginning. We also see this preserved in the “kinds” we identify this way - a dog is a dog, a cat is a cat no matter there breeding or adaptations. Their core is conserved. The first humans had everything necessary to populate the earth as long as they followed God’s instruction of “do not murder”.
The gene mutations we see today were not there in the beginning. These came later.
And finally - God made all things good.
However, I was fortunate to only have taken chemistry and physics courses in HS and college and one Botany course. NO biology courses so I was spared the common ancestor propaganda. Elecrochemistry research along with a lot of traveling and meeting many other scientists have prepared me to concentrate on the origins issues outside of biology.
God indeed did make all things good. Then sin entered followed by spiritual and bodily death and Genetic Entropy.
G
grannymh
Guest
You are absolutely right. You have added very important points. Thank you.
I have found God in the sheer beauty of nature. I shall get to know God better by understanding nature in the way you have expressed the above post 989.
Blessings,
granny
God is the Creator of all.
E
edwest2
Guest
From the Times article, quoting Pope Benedict.
“Evolution has not been “scientifically” proven and science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity’s view of creation, Pope Benedict has said in his first reflections on the origins of life.”
God bless,
ED
- Status