What to say if somebody says to me..."How did the kangaroos and koalas get to Australia? "

[PatriceA]

This should help: catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

 

[edwest2]

Pangaea + Evolution = Marsupials

God doesn’t need to be limited to creating things out of a poof of smoke. Creating through evolution seems so much more astounding.

-Prophecy

Totally not astounding to me. Jesus raised the dead instantly, turned the water to wine instantly and calmed the wind and storm instantly. Those are things God can do.

God bless,
Ed

 

[GEddie]

Totally not astounding to me. Jesus raised the dead instantly, turned the water to wine instantly and calmed the wind and storm instantly. Those are things God can do.

God bless,
Ed

Those are miracles, though, not natural occurrences.

A dead body will never naturally resume life.

A jug of H2O will never naturally convert into wine.

Storms do not extinguish all at once naturally. These are all circumventions of the laws of nature. As such, they bypass the factor of time.

Natural processes include generational propagation, fermentation, weather changes, and emergence of species. All of which require time.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Nelka, as you know YEC, claims contiental drift.

But, you may want to simply consider the possibiliity that Noah’s flood was simply a local flood that wiped out mankind in a localized area.

 

[buffalo]

Nelka, as you know YEC, claims contiental drift.

But, you may want to simply consider the possibiliity that Noah’s flood was simply a local flood that wiped out mankind in a localized area.

A few more things to consider.

Most cultures have a flood story.

Ancient Chinese Characters - fascinating.

 

[vsedriver]

Not really.

Evolution - when you bother to really examine its actual claims and its heated proponents - is just silly, and bad science at that.

depends on which evolution theory you are discussing. There are more than one. However, the geologic record is evidence enough for me that God created life in evolving stages. I see no contradiction with the Bible. I also see it as more amazing proof of the greatness of God rather than a world created by a magical ‘poof’.

 

[vsedriver]

Either God created animals (which he did) or they evolved from other sources.

Science goes against God.

God created the animals… evolution is how he did it. Science reveals God.

 

[TMC]

I think you have stumbled over your own post.
Maybe you should read the whole text again.

Please refrain from this —> …] As it is can be used to manipulate any text.

Can you explain how the post was misleading or how the poster “manipulated” anything. I have read a lot of what the Pope has written in this area, and its very clear that he believes evolution is consistent with Catholicism. Can you show where he has said otherwise?

 

[edwest2]

Those are miracles, though, not natural occurrences.

A dead body will never naturally resume life.

A jug of H2O will never naturally convert into wine.

Storms do not extinguish all at once naturally. These are all circumventions of the laws of nature. As such, they bypass the factor of time.

Natural processes include generational propagation, fermentation, weather changes, and emergence of species. All of which require time.

ICXC NIKA.

I don’t see where “emergence of species” is mentioned in the Bible. In fact, I don’t understand where the connection exists between science and the Bible on this.

The Bible doesn’t mention emergence of species as a function of a long time period.
Science has not produced any peer reviewed papers regarding Biblical claims.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

God created the animals… evolution is how he did it. Science reveals God.

Please cite a single peer reviewed, scientific paper that acknowledges God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[twinc]

The Ark certainly did not dock at Sidney harbour to let all the kangaroos off - no there was neither a Sidney harbour nor an Australia as we know it and kangaroo like fossils are found in many parts of the world and many animals became extinct depending upon predators,suitable climatic conditions,supply of sufficient and suitable food stuff - anyway when it came to hopping it was easy downhill all the way to Australia - twinc

 

[Prophesy]

I think you have stumbled over your own post.
Maybe you should read the whole text again.

Please refrain from this —> …] As it is can be used to manipulate any text.

I’m going to humour you with this. But the statement, as simple as it is:

“This clash [evolution v. creationism] is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” is significant enough for the pontiff to illuminate that the faithful can believe in evolution. Let alone Pope John Paul II’s Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: On Evolution.

God doesn’t need science just like God doesn’t need us.
Doesn’t mean He didn’t create both.

-Prophecy

 

[Prophesy]

Please cite a single peer reviewed, scientific paper that acknowledges God.

God bless,
Ed

Language of God by Francis S. Collins.

-Prophecy

 

[Prophesy]

Totally not astounding to me. Jesus raised the dead instantly, turned the water to wine instantly and calmed the wind and storm instantly. Those are things God can do.

God bless,
Ed

He can also create through natural processes like evolution. He’s omnipotent and that’s what it means.

-Prophecy

 

[Prophesy]

I don’t see where “emergence of species” is mentioned in the Bible. In fact, I don’t understand where the connection exists between science and the Bible on this.

The Bible doesn’t mention emergence of species as a function of a long time period.
Science has not produced any peer reviewed papers regarding Biblical claims.

God bless,
Ed

The Bible is silent also on the Assumption of Mary. However, the Magisterium teaches that Mary was assumed into Heaven and the Magisterium teaches that the faithful can believe in theistic evolution.

-Prophecy

 

[scottm]

…Noah took the animals onto the ark, the earth was flooded, he released them afterwards.
How did the kangaroos and koalas get to Australia?

Back to the opening post: There was a land bridge. There were land bridges everywhere, connecting everything at some point. Look at Genesis 10:25: “the Earth was divided.”

Divided. I think that means land bridges were swallowed up by a rising global sea. The oceans divided land that used to be connected.

And then we ask, Why’d the ocean rise?
Because the continents sank.

Why’d the continents sink?
To fill the empty caverns where water used to be. The flood water came from under the ground. Remember verse 7:11. The water sprayed up from the ground and then fell back down as rain. That leaves empty caverns. The continents, with their land bridges, sank into those caverns.

Or not. All of this could be wrong, but it works for me for right now.

 

[edwest2]

The Bible is silent also on the Assumption of Mary. However, the Magisterium teaches that Mary was assumed into Heaven and the Magisterium teaches that the faithful can believe in theistic evolution.

-Prophecy

You are missing my point entirely. Science does not acknowledge God/gods/beliefs, but here, on a regular basis, Catholics are asked whether or not we “accept” this. Why? And what if some of us don’t?

Please don’t change the subject to the Assumption.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Prophesy]

You are missing my point entirely. Science does not acknowledge God/gods/beliefs, but here, on a regular basis, Catholics are asked whether or not we “accept” this. Why? And what if some of us don’t?

Please don’t change the subject to the Assumption.

God bless,
Ed

My point is that the Bible doesn’t need to be the only deposit of faith, which seemed to be the flavor I got from that response (though I don’t doubt that you accept Tradition and the Magisterium). If you do not accept science, I believe that it is disheartening, but I must let you to your beliefs because the rejection of science isn’t condemned. But you must also respect that the Church does allow scientific research let alone found the Pontifical Academy of Science.

-Prophecy

 

[edwest2]

My point is that the Bible doesn’t need to be the only deposit of faith, which seemed to be the flavor I got from that response (though I don’t doubt that you accept Tradition and the Magisterium). If you do not accept science, I believe that it is disheartening, but I must let you to your beliefs because the rejection of science isn’t condemned. But you must also respect that the Church does allow scientific research let alone found the Pontifical Academy of Science.

-Prophecy

So, again, the old question: What is a more reliable source of knowledge? And again, precisely the same other phrase: “accept science.” Why is it disheartening if I don’t? What is the consequence?

“But you must” is not something I must do. The word “science” encompasses many fields of study, not just one.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Prophesy]

So, again, the old question: What is a more reliable source of knowledge? And again, precisely the same other phrase: “accept science.” Why is it disheartening if I don’t? What is the consequence?

“But you must” is not something I must do. The word “science” encompasses many fields of study, not just one.

God bless,
Ed

Science does apply to many sciences, but the Pontifical Academy of Science refers to ‘mathematical, physical and natural sciences and the study of related epistemological problems’ this does include biology as Francis Collins (leader of the human genome project) is a member. And when I say “must also respect that the Church does allow scientific research let alone found the Pontifical Academy of Science”, I mean "the Church does this officially and therefore it cannot conflict with Her teachings. Unless of course you do not respect the fact that the Church does as such, which would seem problematic.

-Prophecy