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

[twinc]

The idea that God created animals and the idea that animals evolved don’t conflict with each other.

However if you take story of the Flood literally, I can see why evolution wouldn’t work for you. However, the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the Flood literally covered the entire earth, killing all animals in creation.

The Church does teach what you say she does not teach - twinc

 

[twinc]

Is the Pope Catholic?

Pope Benedict said this: ‘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. …]Above all it[evolution] does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’

The Pope has ruled that a Catholic can, in good faith, accept one or the other.

Or are you more Catholic than the pontiff?

-Prophecy

This is what some would rather accept the word/s of fallible men in perference to the word/s of God - btw Catholics are not allowed to accept evolution as fact -twinc

 

[Prophesy]

This is what some would rather accept the word/s of fallible men in perference to the word/s of God - btw Catholics are not allowed to accept evolution as fact -twinc

Catholics are able to accept evolution, but they must accept that the theory is subject to change.

-Prophecy

 

[edwest2]

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

I understand what the Church does but the Church does not accept as you think she does. Why this is important to be brought up so often puzzles me. What’s the point? If something is true then it’s true. Regarding other areas, the Church is within her competence to provide a more complete answer that science alone, or only science, cannot.

This has been long understood, but, again, the goal is to win acceptance for reasons that are unclear.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Prophesy]

I understand what the Church does but the Church does not accept as you think she does. Why this is important to be brought up so often puzzles me. What’s the point? If something is true then it’s true. Regarding other areas, the Church is within her competence to provide a more complete answer that science alone, or only science, cannot.

This has been long understood, but, again, the goal is to win acceptance for reasons that are unclear.

God bless,
Ed

I’m not advocating a belief in ‘science alone’, nor have I said that ‘science alone provides an answer’. What I have been saying is that the faithful are able to accept the teaching of evolution, She is fully in Her competence to do so, as I am fully within my competence to accept it. If you mean that I don’t understand the teaching of the Church about evolution (which is shamefully pretentious), I am aware that it cannot be accepted as certain fact (very few things scientifically could be done so as such anyways), as well as a single fall of humanity, etc.

-Prophecy

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

You cannot be a Catholic and an evolutionist.

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

In Genesis is says that the flood covered the whole earth.

Science goes against God.

Science doesn’t HAVE to go against God—but it all too frequently does. The great scientists of the past (which include many Catholics, who probably invented the scientific method) used science as a means to find out how God made the world.

Today, it is reduced to mere scientism.

 

[bingbang]

Evolution does not work for me.

God created animals.

In your theory what would they have evolved from? If everything in Australia was dead?

I don’t take the story of the flood literally and I have never met a Catholic priest that did take the flood story literally to be honest.

 

[bingbang]

You cannot be a Catholic and an evolutionist.

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

In Genesis is says that the flood covered the whole earth.

Science goes against God.

lol, this is hilarious and completely untrue. If your belief in God is dependent on science and evolution not being right, then maybe you should rethink your belief in God.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

That is true.

However, even if it did, recall that human life, having come to rest in Central Asia after the flood, somehow managed to get to the New World (and to Australia). Apparently whatever the flood was, at some point after it the land-bridges that science talks about were able to form from Russia to Alaska and from Vietnam through the islands to Australia.

The Jewish calendar notwithstanding, we don’t know how long ago the flood took place.

ICXC NIKA

If there was a land bridge from Asia to Australia, across which the aboriginal people walked, supposedly a mere 100,000 years ago, then what was to stop competing species ie. non marsupial species, from crossing to Australia at the same time?

Australia is loaded with marsupial species, and the very odd platypus, a mammal with a bill which lays eggs. Somehow they were kept quite distinct from possible competitors.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t take the story of the flood literally and I have never met a Catholic priest that did take the flood story literally to be honest.

Is this an argument from popularity?

 

[roveau]

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.

There never was a landbridge between Asia and Australia, that’s why you don’t get kangaroos in Asia and that’s why you don’t get giant pandas in Australia.

There was a landbridge between Australia and New guinea and that’s why you get kangaroos in Australia and in New Guinea.

God is allowed to create life/animals in any way He wants. Nearly every sedimentary rock on earth will give some clue as to how evolution progressed over immense time. I think it is a wonderful means of creation.

 

[JonathanG]

Nelka, please read the following by the great Jimmy Akin:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

This is a nice summary of the relationship between evolutionary theory and Catholic doctrine, and should be very helpful for you. It summarizes many of the points on this thread, and also contains quotes from Pius XII, Humani Generis, JP2, and the Catechism which may change the way you are approaching the topic of evolution in general.

 

[edwest2]

There never was a landbridge between Asia and Australia, that’s why you don’t get kangaroos in Asia and that’s why you don’t get giant pandas in Australia.

There was a landbridge between Australia and New guinea and that’s why you get kangaroos in Australia and in New Guinea.

God is allowed to create life/animals in any way He wants. Nearly every sedimentary rock on earth will give some clue as to how evolution progressed over immense time. I think it is a wonderful means of creation.

“it” is a wonderful?" What’s wondeful about this idea? This “immense time” idea suggests that given enough time, something can come from nothing. A bit odd.

God bless,
Ed

 

[twinc]

I’m not advocating a belief in ‘science alone’, nor have I said that ‘science alone provides an answer’. What I have been saying is that the faithful are able to accept the teaching of evolution, She is fully in Her competence to do so, as I am fully within my competence to accept it. If you mean that I don’t understand the teaching of the Church about evolution (which is shamefully pretentious), I am aware that it cannot be accepted as certain fact (very few things scientifically could be done so as such anyways), as well as a single fall of humanity, etc.

-Prophecy

it seems that what you are advocating is non science and nonsense and pious bunkum - more later but meanwhile ponder the warnings of St.Pius X in his Pascendi[1907] and Pius XII in Humani Generis[1950] - neither can or has been rescinded - twinc

 

[LilyM]

Very simply, the fact that aboriginal humans managed to get to Australia shows that there was probaby a way for animals to do so as well.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Very simply, if aboriginal humans managed to get to Australia at some point after the Flood, no reason why animals can’t.

i think taking the whole old testament litteraly is not right. the whole world was flooded. what does the term world mean the known world at the time or litteraly the whole world?
how would the people at the time know the whole world was flooded, but they would have know that their world was flooded

as catholics as far as i know evolution is not something we allowed embrace.can we limit GOD to our understanding. if geneisis was to be wrote from GOD perspective how long would the book of genises be.
on the first day GOD created the sun moon and stars. surely we are not going to limit GOD creating this to one revolution of the earth around the sun that wasn’t there yet.

 

[saveusfromhell]

i think taking the whole old testament litteraly is not right. the whole world was flooded. what does the term world mean the known world at the time or litteraly the whole world?
how would the people at the time know the whole world was flooded, but they would have know that their world was flooded

as catholics as far as i know evolution is not something we allowed embrace.can we limit GOD to our understanding. if geneisis was to be wrote from GOD perspective how long would the book of genises be.
on the first day GOD created the sun moon and stars. surely we are not going to limit GOD creating this to one revolution of the earth around the sun that wasn’t there yet.

sorry wrong way around evolution IS something we can embrace

 

[twinc]

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

of course Evolution of the real no God delusion evolutionists,rather than the phony latch onto so called religious evolutionists is absurd since it did not and cannot happen - twinc

 

[saveusfromhell]

of course Evolution of the real no God delusion evolutionists,rather than the phony latch onto so called religious evolutionists is absurd since it did not and cannot happen - twinc

if the bible still said the sun revolved around the earth would you still believe it?

people who advocate a literal meeting of genisis do us a disservice as they make it so easy for atheists to knock our religion.

when you say it cannot happen are you saying GOD is not capable of using evoultion? i don’t really care to much which way it happened as it makes no difference to my faith.

 

[twinc]

if the bible still said the sun revolved around the earth would you still believe it?

people who advocate a literal meeting of genisis do us a disservice as they make it so easy for atheists to knock our religion.

when you say it cannot happen are you saying GOD is not capable of using evoultion? i don’t really care to much which way it happened as it makes no difference to my faith.

The Bible does in fact say the sun and the whole solar system and the universe revolves around the earth and so it[they]do - it also says the earth is not flat - btw see www.galileowaswrong.com conference etc and be certain the Bible as the inerrant word of God was and is right - twinc