Why do some catholics believe in evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rbarcia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MMMMMMMMM, yes…so good!! Have you ever been to one of those rib places…there’s one just off 65 on the north side of Mobile, I can’t remember the name of the place…but they have good barbeque there!!😃
Besides the beer invented by monks, there is no greater pleasure on earth than barbecue ribs (ok, please people, don’t take that way off the deep end). There is also a great place right near the UAB campus. To die for!
 
Besides the beer invented by monks, there is no greater pleasure on earth than barbecue ribs (ok, please people, don’t take that way off the deep end). There is also a great place right near the UAB campus. To die for!
Dreamland or Pat James Full Moon?
 
Can you “prove” that…? With more than a reference than “winged” birds?? Chickens are not “specifically” named in the Bible, therefore??? But beyond that, can you prove that God did not first create the egg, and then let it hatch? 😉
God made the initial parent first.

Gen 1
20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and** let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.**” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then he told them to multiply, so the egg comes after the first bird.

22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Specifically on the chicken, it’s first parent, that was a bird, was there.
 
Can you “prove” that…? With more than a reference than “winged” birds?? Chickens are not “specifically” named in the Bible, therefore??? But beyond that, can you prove that God did not first create the egg, and then let it hatch? 😉
typical derailment of thread when you no longer have a leg to stand on. Thinking with your stomach instead of your brain.
 
there is no greater pleasure on earth than barbecue ribs (ok, please people, don’t take that way off the deep end). !
I am so relieved you qualified that at the last moment – I was trying to imagine where it was going…Genesis 4:1?
 
And a dinosaur before that – that descent is beyond question.
Beyond question? There is no proof what so ever for a bird coming from a dinosaur. The Archaeoraptor fossil was introduced in 1999 and hailed as the missing evolutionary link between carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds. It was fairly quickly exposed as bogus, a composite containing the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dromaeosaur dinosaur, glued together by a Chinese farmer.

There is no proof of birds coming from dino. Similar DNA only proves intelligent design, much like most things in engineering. (Cars and Trucks both have similar engines, and they are not related, just built with common engineering principals.)
 
Besides the beer invented by monks, there is no greater pleasure on earth than barbecue ribs (ok, please people, don’t take that way off the deep end). There is also a great place right near the UAB campus. To die for!
Proverbs 20:1
Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise.

Proverbs 31:6
Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish;

Ephesians 5:18
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.
 
typical derailment of thread when you no longer have a leg to stand on. Thinking with your stomach instead of your brain.
No, hardly…its just that I see a very circular argument…and regardless of how you phrase it…and no matter how many “scriptures” you quote… you have no actual proofs. You are merely relying on “oral history” that was passed down through the ages…and finally recorded when the Jews devised a method of writing.

You cannot prove which came first…the chicken or the egg.

Ad hominem…thinking with my stomach…😃 😃 Might I suggest that “you get a sense of humor” to go along with your “creationism textbook”?

Remember: Denial of reality is all the proof it requires…😛
 
Proverbs 20:1
Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise.

Proverbs 31:6
Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish;

Ephesians 5:18
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.
I hope you got the joke. Someone else did. I know what taking alcohol too far can do.
 
Dreamland or Pat James Full Moon?
I wish to goodness I could remember. It was back in July of '07 when we were in Birmingham. It was kind of situated on a street in a neighborhood by the school. Almost like a log cabin feel to it. tv’s everywhere. I believe, now that I think about it, it was Dreamland. Fantastic rib joint!
 
No, hardly…its just that I see a very circular argument…and regardless of how you phrase it…and no matter how many “scriptures” you quote… you have no actual proofs. You are merely relying on “oral history” that was passed down through the ages…and finally recorded when the Jews devised a method of writing.

You cannot prove which came first…the chicken or the egg.

Ad hominem…thinking with my stomach…😃 😃 Might I suggest that “you get a sense of humor” to go along with your “creationism textbook”?

Remember: Denial of reality is all the proof it requires…😛
You may have been joking, but I was not. There is no circular argument here. Many start with the premise that we must view the Bible in view of modern science. But I view it as the Word of God is true and science should be in line with God’s word, or else, it is not good science at all.

The first chapter of Gen proves that the bird came before the egg. And that God made them with spoken words. If I can’t take God at His word in Chapter 1 of the Bible, what makes the rest of the Bible any reliable. Might as well believe in anything then.

Romans 1

20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

You would think that catholics who want so bad to unite all the Christians would make a stand for creation, rather than appealing to godless scientist who want nothing more to prove that there is no God.
 
Proverbs 20:1
Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise.
I don’t know where you got “that” bible…but it is certainly proof of “editing” from the original texts: drbo.org/chapter/22020.htm

1 Wine is a luxurious thing, and drunkenness riotous: whosoever is delighted therewith shell not be wise.
Proverbs 31:6
Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish;
Again…from here: drbo.org/chapter/22031.htm

6 Give strong drink to them that are sad: and wine to them that are grieved in mind:
Ephesians 5:18
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.
Again…from here: drbo.org/chapter/56005.htm

**18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is luxury; but be ye filled with the holy Spirit, **

But what is even worse than using “edited” texts…is the fact that you are afflicted by that bad habit of “using snippets of scriptures out of context” to attempt (say the word “attempt” 12 times) to validate some inane notion…

Keep it in context please…or don’t bother.
 
Beyond question? There is no proof what so ever for a bird coming from a dinosaur…)
rbarcia, are you a Jehovah’s Witness? They’re the people who invented your line that “there are no transitional fossils between reptiles and birds.” That’s from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. *Life–How Did It Get Here? * Brooklyn, NY, p.75.

Catholic Answers is in one sense a haven for people who want to remain in the cultural and scientific backwater, although there are a number of very bright scientists and theologians on this forum. I urge you to move outside the tiny fundamentalist circles (Protestant or Catholic) and learn what real science is about. Go to a library, a biology department, a museum of natural history. Contact Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, or Josef Zycinski, Archibishop of Lublin, Poland (Pope John Paul II’s former see) – the both understand the proper relationship between science and religion.

You’ve got to move into the 21st century; 1985 paleontology is way out of date. Here are some examples of dinosaur-bird transitions, drawn from allied sciences:

Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).​

Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).​

Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).​

Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.​

Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).​

Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.​

Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).​

Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.​

Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.​

Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.​

 
I hope you got the joke. Someone else did. I know what taking alcohol too far can do.
I asked a sincere question on this thread. If you want to joke around go ahead. But if you 9not you specifically)have nothing to contribute to the thread other than jokes, it is a distraction in the conversation.

I am not trying to give anyone a hard time.
 
You may have been joking, but I was not. There is no circular argument here. Many start with the premise that we must view the Bible in view of modern science. But I view it as the Word of God is true and science should be in line with God’s word, or else, it is not good science at all.
No, I was not joking. There is most certainly a circular argument. I do not view the Bible from the standpoint of modern science. I accept the fact that God created all, and did so in His own time and how He wanted to. Science is science, some can be proven beyond any doubt, and yet some is not yet proven and may never be. You cannot realistically expect “science to line up with God’s Word”…because the Bible does not address much of what science has created.
The first chapter of Gen proves that the bird came before the egg. And that God made them with spoken words. If I can’t take God at His word in Chapter 1 of the Bible, what makes the rest of the Bible any reliable. Might as well believe in anything then.
20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
You would think that catholics who want so bad to unite all the Christians would make a stand for creation, rather than appealing to godless scientist who want nothing more to prove that there is no God.
What is sad here is that you are refusing to accept that we accept that God created the world and all that is in it… But what is even sadder is that you are upset and indignant about the fact that we will not accept it on your terms, and then you try to blame Catholics for your failure. We do not appeal to godless scientists for any kind of support for anything. It is you who fails to understand the realities of the world and what God has created.
You attempt to place boxes around God and force Him and all that He is into a box of your making that defines HIM as you desire Him to be!

This you cannot do. You have neither the knowledge or insight to do so, as you do not have the mind of God, nor are you capable of even beginning to fathom the surface of God’s mind.
 
I asked a sincere question on this thread. If you want to joke around go ahead. But if you 9not you specifically)have nothing to contribute to the thread other than jokes, it is a distraction in the conversation.

I am not trying to give anyone a hard time.
Sorry if I derailed your thread, sir. I was speaking with two other gentleman who brought up food. Did you tell them, too, or just running off at the mouth at me? Besides, if you are going to do preach to me, as the other person said, at least get the Bible verses right. Anyway, I will let you get back to your thread. Sorry:o
 
rbarcia, are you a Jehovah’s Witness? They’re the people who invented your line that “there are no transitional fossils between reptiles and birds.” That’s from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. *Life–How Did It Get Here? * Brooklyn, NY, p.75.

Catholic Answers is in one sense a haven for people who want to remain in the cultural and scientific backwater, although there are a number of very bright scientists and theologians on this forum. I urge you to move outside the tiny fundamentalist circles (Protestant or Catholic) and learn what real science is about. Go to a library, a biology department, a museum of natural history. Contact Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, or Josef Zycinski, Archibishop of Lublin, Poland (Pope John Paul II’s former see) – the both understand the proper relationship between science and religion.

You’ve got to move into the 21st century; 1985 paleontology is way out of date. Here are some examples of dinosaur-bird transitions, drawn from allied sciences:

Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).​

Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).​

Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).​

Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.​

Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).​

Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.​

Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).​

Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.​

Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.​

Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.​

No, I am not a JW, and they are not the only people who don’t believe in birds and reptiles evolving from each other.

I believe Jesus Is God, I believe in the existence of eternal punishment called Hell. So that eliminates me from the JW brand. I think JW are a cult, and I have never read the Watch tower magizine.

Please do not turn the thread into JW belief thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top