Why did God create dinosaurs

[StAnastasia]

If one doesn’t believe in “two sole parents of the human species”, (I prefer calling us “human beings”) then where does Adam and Eve come in, for them. And Original Sin, and God’s promise of the Redeemer and HIS Passion and death for our sin’s and Baptism and the Catholic Church He founded. And HIS promise that HIS Church would NEVER error and the Gates of Hell will NOT prevail against it. That’s where I put my Faith and trust. God Bless, Memaw

As I said to Grannymh earlier, we can hold the two langauges view. I accept the genetic evidence that the human population in its emergence into self-consciousness never fell below 3,000 - 10,00 breeding pairs. I also accept “Adam” and Eve" theologically.

 

[spn82756]

There’s my baby! Right by my user ID!!!

 

[grannymh]

As I said to Grannymh earlier, we can hold the two langauges view. I accept the genetic evidence that the human population in its emergence into self-consciousness never fell below 3,000 - 10,00 breeding pairs. I also accept “Adam” and Eve" theologically.

Please explain what this “Adam and Eve theologically” bit is.

This is one of my cranky days and I am in no mood for evasiveness. Just the facts, Ma’am.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[spn82756]

Please explain what this “Adam and Eve theologically” bit is.

This is one of my cranky days and I am in no mood for evasiveness. Just the facts, Ma’am.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

Grandmas are entitled to an occasional cranky day!

 

[Philipp]

Steve, Philipp’s anger is exceeded only by his ignorance of the people he denounces. I have worked personally with scholars from the NCSE, and while their organization is religiously neutral, by no means are they all atheists. I think Dr. Scott would term herself an agnostic, because she simply doesn’t see experience that leads her to belief in God. I have heard her speak on numerous occasions, and she strike me as warm, generous, and open to the religious beliefs of others.

StAnastasia

Since you have worked with such “agnostics” and others in that group then you know their objective which is to “silence” anyone attempting to prevent discussions of evidences that would conflict with evolutionary claims or as in the following article. Within the article there is a quote by an NCSE spokesperson which supports my contention.

Evolution and global warming redux [posted on the NCSE website from NY Times]
March 4th, 2010General 2010
“Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools,” reported The New York Times (March 3, 2010). “Wherever there is a battle over evolution now,” Lawrence M. Krauss told the Times, “there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.”

The article suggested that the linkage of evolution and global warming was in part due to legal considerations. NCSE’s Joshua Rosenau told the Times that he began to notice the linkage after the 2005 decision in Selman v. Cobb County. At issue was a disclaimer about evolution affixed to textbooks; although the text of the disclaimer was not religious, it was held to be unconstitutional because it endorsed the creationist view that evolution is a problematic theory lacking an adequate foundation. "By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.

Reporting the scientific consensus [comment: see there is that word again-they all use it to promote censorship] the Times explained, “For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it.” Nevertheless, it seems clear that around the country, attempts to undermine the integrity of science education are increasingly likely to include global warming as well as evolution."

COMMENT: So you see as I implied in a previous post, The NCSE which you also find to be fine people are no more than watchdog censors to prevent evidence against evolution and even global climate change being caused by man from being discussed in the classroom. Again the Saint appears to be wrong. I’m glad to be on the side of the real saints and church fathers as they promoted the “true faith” not the bogus science offered by many modern theologians. Being is justifiable

 

[StAnastasia]

Please explain what this “Adam and Eve theologically” bit is. This is one of my cranky days and I am in no mood for evasiveness. Just the facts, Ma’am.Blessings,grannyThe quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

Granny, it’s ironic that you use the expression “just the facts,” when theology is short on facts, and science merely interprets facts. Both theology and science engage in the hermeneutical enterprise, the task of translating meaning.

What are the facts on which theology builds its castle of meaning? They include:
(1) the world exists
(2) There were tribes in the Ancient Near East who came together and forged a national identity as “Israel”
(3) These Hebrew tribes interpreted their world by drawing on their own experience and on the oral and literary legacy of surrounding cultures
(4) There was an itinerant preacher named Jesus of Nazareth who fell afoul of the political authorities in the first-century Roman Empire
(5) The followers of this Jesus interpreted his life, death and teaching theologically in light of their Hebrew scriptures, and later in the language of dualistic Greek philosophies
There may be other facts, but these will suffice for the present.

Science also interprets “facts” or evidence it encounters. Genetic science looks at the human genome and sees that there is no evidence in the human genome that our species ever passed through a bottleneck of just a few families, much less a bottleneck of a single breeding pair. The hominid population as it evolved into full human self-consciousness seems never to have fallen below the level of 3,000-10,000 breeding pairs.

The hermeneutical challenge is how to interpret the story of “Adam” and “Eve.” Insistence on a literal interpretation of the story rejects genetic science – this is what fundamentalists do. Insistence that genetic science renders “Adam” and “Eve” merely characters in an irrelevant ancient tribal story rejects religious belief as a quaint anachronism – that what the evangelical atheists do.

Is there not a middle way? I think there is, and in this I am joined by tens of thousands of bishops, priests, theologians, and scholars from every denomination and academic discipline. “Adam” and “Eve” represent our ancestors as they emerged from their prehuman past into full human self consciousness, moral awareness, and spiritual sensitivity. The story of Adam and Eve beautifully symbolizes many aspects of the dawning human relationship with God, and the growing human awareness of the facts that we and the world are interconnected, and that our actions carry moral consequences. “Original sin” need not involve the eating of an apple in some mythical Garden of Eden. Rather, the garden is the world, and the serpent is the human tendency toward self-centeredness and broken relationships, and “Adam and Eve” are all of us. This “brokenness” is precisely why we need redemption.

Grannymh, this interpretation of the “facts” is my way of honoring both theological and scientific truth.

StAnastasia

 

[spn82756]

Since you have worked with such “agnostics” and others in that group then you know their objective which is to “silence” anyone attempting to prevent discussions of evidences that would conflict with evolutionary claims or as in the following article. Within the article there is a quote by an NCSE spokesperson which supports my contention.

Evolution and global warming redux [posted on the NCSE website from NY Times]
March 4th, 2010General 2010
“Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools,” reported The New York Times (March 3, 2010). “Wherever there is a battle over evolution now,” Lawrence M. Krauss told the Times, “there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.”

The article suggested that the linkage of evolution and global warming was in part due to legal considerations. NCSE’s Joshua Rosenau told the Times that he began to notice the linkage after the 2005 decision in Selman v. Cobb County. At issue was a disclaimer about evolution affixed to textbooks; although the text of the disclaimer was not religious, it was held to be unconstitutional because it endorsed the creationist view that evolution is a problematic theory lacking an adequate foundation. "By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.

Reporting the scientific consensus [comment: see there is that word again-they all use it to promote censorship] the Times explained, “For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it.” Nevertheless, it seems clear that around the country, attempts to undermine the integrity of science education are increasingly likely to include global warming as well as evolution."

COMMENT: So you see as I implied in a previous post, The NCSE which you also find to be fine people are no more than watchdog censors to prevent evidence against evolution and even global climate change being caused by man from being discussed in the classroom. Again the Saint appears to be wrong. I’m glad to be on the side of the real saints and church fathers as they promoted the “true faith” not the bogus science offered by many modern theologians. Being is justifiable

That’s an interesting post. While I know that StA is correct regarding evolution and that the church also accepts it as a theory (God driven…as I always say)…StA and I disagree strongly on AGW. But you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. AGW is still very controversial. Evolution is not. It is accepted by the Church as a possibility. You seem to have ignored that???

By virtue in believing the 7 day creation story you are no better a Catholic than myself…StA or other Catholics that accept the incredible power of God who stands outside of time. I’m troubled by the idea of limiting God to our little box. It’s even apparent on the “do animals go to heaven” thread. One where the answers of CAF apologists have been presented…but the posters opposed to that idea know better.

The 7 day creation story may have happened the way it is described in the bible. God can do that as easily as anything else. Of course…God created man with a brain that wants to investigate and learn. If i were to take Genesis and apply it today as science…people would not be living past the age of…shall we say 30 years old. I don’t understand what frightens creationist about the idea of billions of years in OUR TIME.

BTW my friend…go and sell all your possessions and follow Christ. Give all the money to the poor. To do less will mean you don’t follow Christ. At least that’s what He said. Do you take that literally?

 

[spn82756]

Granny, it’s ironic that you use the expression “just the facts,” when theology is short on facts, and science merely interprets facts. Both theology and science engage in the hermeneutical enterprise, the task of translating meaning.

What are the facts on which theology builds its castle of meaning? They include:
(1) the world exists
(2) There were tribes in the Ancient Near East who came together and forged a national identity as “Israel”
(3) These Hebrew tribes interpreted their world by drawing on their own experience and on the oral and literary legacy of surrounding cultures
(4) There was an itinerant preacher named Jesus of Nazareth who fell afoul of the political authorities in the first-century Roman Empire
(5) The followers of this Jesus interpreted his life, death and teaching theologically in light of their Hebrew scriptures, and later in the language of dualistic Greek philosophies
There may be other facts, but these will suffice for the present.

Science also interprets “facts” or evidence it encounters. Genetic science looks at the human genome and sees that there is no evidence in the human genome that our species ever passed through a bottleneck of just a few families, much less a bottleneck of a single breeding pair. The hominid population as it evolved into full human self-consciousness seems never to have fallen below the level of 3,000-10,000 breeding pairs.

The hermeneutical challenge is how to interpret the story of “Adam” and “Eve.” Insistence on a literal interpretation of the story rejects genetic science – this is what fundamentalists do. Insistence that genetic science renders “Adam” and “Eve” merely characters in an irrelevant ancient tribal story rejects religious belief as a quaint anachronism – that what the evangelical atheists do.

Is there not a middle way? I think there is, and in this I am joined by tens of thousands of bishops, priests, theologians, and scholars from every denomination and academic discipline. “Adam” and “Eve” represent our ancestors as they emerged from their prehuman past into full human self consciousness, moral awareness, and spiritual sensitivity. The story of Adam and Eve beautifully symbolizes many aspects of the dawning human relationship with God, and the growing human awareness of the facts that we and the world are interconnected, and that our actions carry moral consequences. “Original sin” need not involve the eating of an apple in some mythical Garden of Eden. Rather, the garden is the world, and the serpent is the human tendency toward self-centeredness and broken relationships, and “Adam and Eve” are all of us. This “brokenness” is precisely why we need redemption.

Grannymh, this interpretation of the “facts” is my way of honoring both theological and scientific truth.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

COMMENT: So you see as I implied in a previous post, The NCSE which you also find to be fine people are no more than watchdog censors to prevent evidence against evolution and even global climate change being caused by man from being discussed in the classroom. Again the Saint appears to be wrong. I’m glad to be on the side of the real saints and church fathers as they promoted the “true faith” not the bogus science offered by many modern theologians. Being is justifiable

Philipp, NCSE exists to defend sound science, which I imagine you support as well. If evidence were to surface that unchallenged the theory of evolution, they would be among the first to investigate it. To date, no compelling evidence has yet surfaced that fundamentally calls the theory into question. NCSE members include theists, agnostics and atheists. They disagree about the existence of God, but they agree on the nature and scope of science.

If you think that in your hypothesis about carbon dating you have evidence that calls evolution into question, please propose papers on the topic to scientific conferences. If you refuse to do this, you have no one but yourself to blame for the continuing dominance of the evolutionary paradigm.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

The 7 day creation story may have happened the way it is described in the bible. God can do that as easily as anything else. Of course…God created man with a brain that wants to investigate and learn. If i were to take Genesis and apply it today as science…people would not be living past the age of…shall we say 30 years old. I don’t understand what frightens creationist about the idea of billions of years in OUR TIME.

Steve, God might have created the world last Thursday, with faked tree rings and light from distant stars already on its way, and all our faked “memories” of events that seem to have taken place in the past but that never really happened. I say, God in her omniscience might have done this way, but probably not. I accept the veracity of what astronomical and geological and human history tell us, and I interpret apparent conflicts accordingly.

StAnastasia

 

[spn82756]

Steve, God might have created the world last Thursday, with faked tree rings and light from distant stars already on its way, and all our faked “memories” of events that seem to have taken place in the past but that never really happened. I say, God in her omniscience might have done this way, but probably not. I accept the veracity of what astronomical and geological and human history tell us, and I interpret apparent conflicts accordingly.

StAnastasia

Me too! I’m a Catholic scientist.

 

[StAnastasia]

By virtue in believing the 7 day creation story you are no better a Catholic than myself…StA or other Catholics that accept the incredible power of God who stands outside of time. I’m troubled by the idea of limiting God to our little box. It’s even apparent on the “do animals go to heaven” thread. One where the answers of CAF apologists have been presented…but the posters opposed to that idea know better.

Steve, speaking of putting God in a box, I am writing my sermon for Sunday (my second time preaching in a Unitarian Church), and I wanted a title. One excellent title is already taken: “Hellfire and Lightning Rods.” Frederick Ferre tells about how his Scandinavian grandfather, a Lutheran preacher, used to thunder against “atheists” in North Dakota who so doubted the existence of God and His justified wrath that they installed lightning rods on their barns and houses. Local preachers denounced this as a sign of modernism, of apostasy and putting one’s faith in the idol of science and technology.

I’m still hunting for a sermon title. One colleague suggested that since this church is in a rural area plagued with methamphetamine use, I could call it “There’s a meth to his madness”…

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Me too! I’m a Catholic scientist.

Being a Catholic makes you a Christian scientist, but not a Christian Scientist.

 

[spn82756]

Being a Catholic makes you a Christian scientist, but not a Christian Scientist.

I took a double take…but got it. The bible is a guide us to heaven. Science is to guide us in understanding the universe and how it works.

Ooooops…time to feed my pet velociraptor…or sweet velly as we affectionately call her.

 

[edwest2]

That’s an interesting post. While I know that StA is correct regarding evolution and that the church also accepts it as a theory (God driven…as I always say)…StA and I disagree strongly on AGW. But you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. AGW is still very controversial. Evolution is not. It is accepted by the Church as a possibility. You seem to have ignored that???

By virtue in believing the 7 day creation story you are no better a Catholic than myself…StA or other Catholics that accept the incredible power of God who stands outside of time. I’m troubled by the idea of limiting God to our little box. It’s even apparent on the “do animals go to heaven” thread. One where the answers of CAF apologists have been presented…but the posters opposed to that idea know better.

The 7 day creation story may have happened the way it is described in the bible. God can do that as easily as anything else. Of course…God created man with a brain that wants to investigate and learn. If i were to take Genesis and apply it today as science…people would not be living past the age of…shall we say 30 years old. I don’t understand what frightens creationist about the idea of billions of years in OUR TIME.

BTW my friend…go and sell all your possessions and follow Christ. Give all the money to the poor. To do less will mean you don’t follow Christ. At least that’s what He said. Do you take that literally?

Sad that this is brought up so often. As a Catholic, do you believe Eve was formed from Adam’s side by God? Whatever science can tell us does not include miracles. These are things Jesus did but there is no technology involved, no evidence. He died and rose from the dead. Do you believe that actually happened? Because if it did not actually happen then we are all still in our sins.

God bless,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

That’s an interesting post. While I know that StA is correct regarding evolution and that the church also accepts it as a theory (God driven…as I always say)…StA and I disagree strongly on AGW. But you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. AGW is still very controversial. Evolution is not. It is accepted by the Church as a possibility. You seem to have ignored that???

May I respectfully ask you to read post 534 above.

In fairness, I should say that there are all kinds of theories. For fun, look up primordial soup in Wikipedia. Check out all the headings as one scrolls down, way down*.* As far as I know, most – not all – theories are compatible with Catholic doctrine. One of the exceptions is a theory regarding the origin of the human species.

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[grannymh]

I took a double take…but got it. The bible is a guide us to heaven. Science is to guide us in understanding the universe and how it works.

Ooooops…time to feed my pet velociraptor…or sweet velly as we affectionately call her.

Yup. The bible is — basic instructions before leaving earth.

And the Catholic Church follows these instructions through the Seven Sacraments.

 

[spn82756]

Sad that this is brought up so often. As a Catholic, do you believe Eve was formed from Adam’s side by God? Whatever science can tell us does not include miracles. These are things Jesus did but there is no technology involved, no evidence. He died and rose from the dead. Do you believe that actually happened? Because if it did not actually happen then we are all still in our sins.

God bless,
Ed

Ed…why are you mixing the 2 issues? Of course I believe that Christ literally is risen. ( no past tense here…He is risen ).

Of course man is fallen. Man fell with the first sin. What on God’s green earth does that have to do with His infinite power to take billions of OUR YEARS to get where we are?

 

[spn82756]

Yup. The bible is — basic instructions before leaving earth.

And the Catholic Church follows these instructions through the Seven Sacraments.

(as well as the Orthodox…we can’t leave them out )

 

[grannymh]

Granny, it’s ironic that you use the expression “just the facts,” when theology is short on facts,

Whose theology, please.

and science merely interprets facts. Both theology and science engage in the hermeneutical enterprise, the task of translating meaning.

As a Catholic theologian, are you aware of Averroes – double verities? What are your thoughts since you mentioned both theology and science?

What are the facts on which theology builds its castle of meaning? They include:

Is this the short list per your first comment about "when theology is short on facts?
Whose castle of meaning?

(1) the world exists
(2) There were tribes in the Ancient Near East who came together and forged a national identity as “Israel”
(3) These Hebrew tribes interpreted their world by drawing on their own experience and on the oral and literary legacy of surrounding cultures

This sounds like history. How does that fit in with the “Adam and Eve theologically” bit from post 599 above.

(4) There was an itinerant preacher named Jesus of Nazareth who fell afoul of the political authorities in the first-century Roman Empire

My apology if I am mistaken – that sounds like early John Dominic Crossan. Is it?

(5) The followers of this Jesus interpreted his life, death and teaching theologically in light of their Hebrew scriptures, and later in the language of dualistic Greek philosophies
There may be other facts, but these will suffice for the present.

Please explain what this has to do with the “Adam and Eve” theologically you accept in post 599.

Science also interprets “facts” or evidence it encounters. …

Interesting, but I am interested in your theologically Adam and Eve as mentioned in post 599.

The hermeneutical challenge is how to interpret the story of “Adam” and “Eve.” Insistence on a literal interpretation of the story rejects genetic science – this is what fundamentalists do. Insistence that genetic science renders “Adam” and “Eve” merely characters in an irrelevant ancient tribal story rejects religious belief as a quaint anachronism – that what the evangelical atheists do.

Interesting, but I am interested in your theologically Adam and Eve as mentioned in post 599.

Is there not a middle way? I think there is, and in this I am joined by tens of thousands of bishops, priests, theologians, and scholars from every denomination and academic discipline. “Adam” and “Eve” represent our ancestors as they emerged from their prehuman past into full human self consciousness, moral awareness, and spiritual sensitivity.

Middle way? Between whose theology?

I do realize that many clergy and lay people have abandoned Catholic Theology. Personally, I find it repugnant that some are using God’s beautiful gift of natural science as an excuse.

The story of Adam and Eve beautifully symbolizes many aspects of the dawning human relationship with God, and the growing human awareness of the facts that we and the world are interconnected, and that our actions carry moral consequences. “Original sin” need not involve the eating of an apple in some mythical Garden of Eden. Rather, the garden is the world, and the serpent is the human tendency toward self-centeredness and broken relationships, and “Adam and Eve” are all of us. This “brokenness” is precisely why we need redemption.

You are right in calling this a story. It is not Catholic theology.

Grannymh, this interpretation of the “facts” is my way of honoring both theological and scientific truth.
StAnastasia

Yes, it is your way. The Catholic Church has another way of teaching theological truth. As for your scientific truth, independent study off CAF is raising valid questions.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.