Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[mVitus]

According to the story Adam would not have had knowledge until AFTER he at from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”.

It’s been my understanding that knowledge of good and evil meant personal knowledge. To give an example, it’s one thing to cognitively know breaking your funny bone is painful. It’s another to break your funny bone and personally know that pain. Going from Genesis, A&E already knew they were not to eat the fruit. So when they took it, they already knew they were doing wrong. But after eating, they personally knew what sin was and its temptations. (If I’m wrong, I appreciate correction.)

The other being that we all know that the sins of our fathers were not our sins and we are only responsible for our own choices. But the we have also been taught that we inherited the sin of Adam, the Original Sin.

This is a totally different topic so I don’t want to get into it here, but you might consider researching the Eastern Catholic approach to Original Sin. It doesn’t have the personal guilt. (Which does make Mary’s conception, while Immaculate, nothing special.)

I don’t accept any sort of conflict in heaven or anything like that. With an all-powerful God how could there be such a thing?

Free will. Between God or not God, some choose not God. And with it lose Heaven. Lose all that God gives us.

True, Satan is against God, but is he OPPOSED to God?

Are you going into the view where in Job Satan acts more as a prosecutor for God as opposed to an enemy of God? (I know Job wouldn’t be the totality of such a view, but it’s a handy example.)

 

[edwest211]

Incorrect. Not Scriptural. Speculation only. We each get Original Sin because we are descended from Adam and Eve. Romans 5:12:

New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–

New Living Translation
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

English Standard Version
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

 

[edwest211]

Not Scriptural. Mary was without sin so the The Word could be made flesh. It was extremely special and important.

 

[mVitus]

Not Scriptural. Mary was without sin so the The Word could be made flesh. It was extremely special and important.

To be clear, are you talking about the Eastern Catholic view? Recall I said that in the Eastern view, there is no personal guilt from Original Sin. By that view the Immaculate Conception is not unique. That’s not the same as saying she wasn’t Immaculately Conceived.

 

[Aloysium]

I never would have converted because it would be like sticking my head in the ground while loudly saying “la la la…” to block out the reality.

There’s a lot of that going around.

they simply play games, know relatively little about scientific techniques

anti-science position

pushing pseudo-science while trying to pretend it’s actually science

misused of the scientific term “theory”

if you say that Earth s just a big marshmallow

realize what actually the scientific community has long concluded and why

sticking my head in the ground while loudly saying “la la la…” to block out the reality.

 

[Aloysium]

any creature which as learned to love within its own limitations we will find in heaven

It is hard to say goodbye to that which we love. But, love is never lost. Those moments of companionship exist within eternity. That our particular animal friends will be resurrected however, it’s a different story. There kind of being with all its instinctive strengths and beauty would be there with us in paradise. We will know again the best that they are, exemplifying eternal virtues. That’s how I see it.

 

[o_mlly]

Why can you not post a straight answer to my question asking what your problem with my two examples of speciation is? Your avoidance to do so betrays a lack of faith in your beliefs.

I did. Logically, a circular reasoning error. For instance, an evolutionist finds another bone that doesn’t fit his schema and simply redefines his terms to close his imaginary circle.

But I tire of the dance so let’s cut to the chase. What difference does your belief system that man is just another animal mean to one’s respect for human life?

Your beliefs bought us the holocaust, countless genocides and abortion under the guise that the less evolved human life is non-human and may be eliminated by the more evolved human life. The aggressors often identified themselves as “the human beings” denying that status to their victims. Look it up.

 

[goout]

goout:

And atheists object to that small god, not the true God.

Well I agree with everything except the first sentence now.

Everything you said (apart from that) is perfectly correct. Unless we have very many years of specific education and access to an enormous amount of information that Joe Public doesn’t have - or would know what to do with if he did, we generally accept, and should accept, expert opinion.

If there is dissent in the ranks then we can examine the pros and cons as best we can. And as far as those proposing ID and the likes of the Discovery Institute, you don’t need to be a Rhodes Scholar to see their agenda. In fact, if you want to look it up, the Discovery Institute actually tells you what their’s is. The only point needing to be mentioned is that those on this tbread who support those type of views will not admit to that.

And atheists can’t object to something in which they don’t believe. That would be silly.

That first sentence notes that atheists, for the most part, discuss God on fundamentalist terms with fundamentalists.
Fundamentalist Christians take note, if you can’t move past fundamentalism, you are providing a free buffet for atheists, and you make it easy for them to provide objections to Christianity which can draw people away from faith…This is what happens when you can’t integrate science with faith.
Even if a person is not strong in their faith, at the very least, a thinking person intuitively knows reason should not be at odds with faith. And so they should object to your fundamentalism, and guess what…when you provide them with errant conceptions of faith, it is your responsibility when they are scandalized.

 

[rossum]

Your beliefs bought us the holocaust …

How did Buddhism bring about the Holocaust? How did evolution bring about Christian anti-Semitism, which was around long before 1859; see Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies” or the 1389 massacre of Jews in Cologne for two example. How did Buddhism or evolution cause either of those?

You are grossly oversimplifying history here. What next, is evolution responsible for the slave trade in America as well?

rossum

 

[mVitus]

Your beliefs bought us the holocaust, countless genocides and abortion under the guise that the less evolved human life is non-human and may be eliminated by the more evolved human life. The aggressors often identified themselves as “the human beings” denying that status to their victims. Look it up.

1. People have been able to dehumanize others for thousands of years.
2. Evolution is a science based with explaining the physical origin of species. Any thoughts of superiority/inferiority are philosophical, not biological, claims. Much in the same way evolution is not inherently opposed to God, it is also not inherently opposed to the equality of men. Given that the majority of people in the developed world accept evolution, you’d expect a lot more superiority/inferiority claims if that was an inherent part of evolution. Most people however are reasonable.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

goout:

And atheists object to that small god, not the true God.

Well I agree with everything except the first sentence now.

Everything you said (apart from that) is perfectly correct. Unless we have very many years of specific education and access to an enormous amount of information that Joe Public doesn’t have - or would know what to do with if he did, we generally accept, and should accept, expert opinion.

If there is dissent in the ranks then we can examine the pros and cons as best we can. And as far as those proposing ID and the likes of the Discovery Institute, you don’t need to be a Rhodes Scholar to see their agenda. In fact, if you want to look it up, the Discovery Institute actually tells you what their’s is. The only point needing to be mentioned is that those on this tbread who support those type of views will not admit to that.

And atheists can’t object to something in which they don’t believe. That would be silly.

That first sentence notes that atheists, for the most part, discuss God on fundamentalist terms with fundamentalists.
Fundamentalist Christians take note, if you can’t move past fundamentalism, you are providing a free buffet for atheists, and you make it easy for them to provide objections to Christianity which can draw people away from faith…This is what happens when you can’t integrate science with faith.
Even if a person is not strong in their faith, at the very least, a thinking person intuitively knows reason should not be at odds with faith. And so they should object to your fundamentalism, and guess what…when you provide them with errant conceptions of faith, it is your responsibility when they are scandalized.

All true. But note that if an atheist is discussing God with any given Christian, then that Christian determines the terms under which the conversation is going to proceed.

Your God is different from Vonsalza’s for example. Any discussion you and I have is going to be based on what YOU believe Him to be. It would be a waste of our time discussing something in which you didn’t believe.

 

[Vonsalza]

At this point it is worth reiterating that my God is more powerful than all of these other, lesser gods that exist as contrivances only because my God is so merciful. But he doesn’t directly involve himself much in the day-to-day. “Will” and all that.

 

[Bradskii]

Your beliefs bought us the holocaust, countless genocides and abortion under the guise that the less evolved human life is non-human and may be eliminated by the more evolved human life. The aggressors often identified themselves as “the human beings” denying that status to their victims. Look it up.

What you are doing (and certainly what anyone in the business of genocide is almost certainly doing) might be classed as a categorical error.

There are perhaps four ways to consider a person. Right down at the most fundemental level we can be described as a collection of fermions and bosons etc and quantum fields. All operating within what Frank Wilczek called the Core Theory. This is what a particle physicist thinks of.

Then we have the biologists intermediate view where she considers us as a collection of cells and nerve fibres and chemical reactions.

We can go a step further and consider Man as being part of the kingdom Animalia as an anthropologist does and how we relate to primates etc and consider Man’s position in the grand taxanomic scheme.

Then we have the big picture when we look at the complete person as an autonomous being with wants and needs and emotions. Where we consider the person to be a unique individual.

The vocabulary we use for each viewpoint is obviously different and we should not make the mistake of mixing up the language that is pertinent to one viewpoint with another. So if you want to talk about people being nothing more than a collection of atoms then the only vocabulary you should be using is that of the physicist. If you want to talk about man as being part of the evolutionary history of primates then you need to talk as an anthropologist.

So if you describe man as per the biological classification system and how he relates to the process of evolution then it makes no sense to change your vocabulary to that which is relevant to societies and try to make the two concepts fit.

 

[goout]

goout:

Bradskii:

goout:

And atheists object to that small god, not the true God.

Well I agree with everything except the first sentence now.

Everything you said (apart from that) is perfectly correct. Unless we have very many years of specific education and access to an enormous amount of information that Joe Public doesn’t have - or would know what to do with if he did, we generally accept, and should accept, expert opinion.

If there is dissent in the ranks then we can examine the pros and cons as best we can. And as far as those proposing ID and the likes of the Discovery Institute, you don’t need to be a Rhodes Scholar to see their agenda. In fact, if you want to look it up, the Discovery Institute actually tells you what their’s is. The only point needing to be mentioned is that those on this tbread who support those type of views will not admit to that.

And atheists can’t object to something in which they don’t believe. That would be silly.

That first sentence notes that atheists, for the most part, discuss God on fundamentalist terms with fundamentalists.
Fundamentalist Christians take note, if you can’t move past fundamentalism, you are providing a free buffet for atheists, and you make it easy for them to provide objections to Christianity which can draw people away from faith…This is what happens when you can’t integrate science with faith.
Even if a person is not strong in their faith, at the very least, a thinking person intuitively knows reason should not be at odds with faith. And so they should object to your fundamentalism, and guess what…when you provide them with errant conceptions of faith, it is your responsibility when they are scandalized.

All true. But note that if an atheist is discussing God with any given Christian, then that Christian determines the terms under which the conversation is going to proceed.

Your God is different from Vonsalza’s for example. Any discussion you and I have is going to be based on what YOU believe Him to be. It would be a waste of our time discussing something in which you didn’t believe.

That’s true but it is beside the point, which is this:
the dominant atheists objections to God and religion address fundamentalist Christianity, not Catholicism.

“God kills people in the bible, God is cruel. It says so in your bible”
“Christians don’t accept mainstream science, just look at what it says in your Genesis”

And many in this thread provide easy fodder for those objections because they don’t understand the faith they profess.

 

[Bradskii]

“God kills people in the bible, God is cruel. It says so in your bible”
“Christians don’t accept mainstream science, just look at what it says in your Genesis”

IF any given Christian were to suggest that God had ordered the killing of inoccent women and children then the discussion might proceed from my point that THIS particular God would appear to be unjust and cruel.

And IF any given Christian denied basic scientific facts (hi, Ed), then the discussion might proceed from my point that the poster is a science denying fundamentalist out of touch with reality.

But the Christian is always playing the white pieces and makes the first move. I can only respond accordingly.

 

[Aloysium]

he doesn’t directly involve himself much in the day-to-day.

To the degree that we cultivate our relationship with Him - in prayer, in charitable works, in contemplation of the scriptural dialogue He has left us through the grace of the Holy Spirit, in the Eucharist and our presence as a community thereby establishing His presence as the body of Christ, He is present always before us, guiding our lives and healing our spirit, witnessed through His glory or the horror that arises when He turns His face away.

 

[Vonsalza]

You were spot-on with your capitalizations.

I’m sure that will cut down on your time in purgatory substantially!

 

[edwest211]

Sad. What did atheists say and think before Darwin’s book? I’ve spoken to atheists. I know where they’re coming from. Example: “Science 1, Gods 0.” So it doesn’t have to be the Christian God.

 

[edwest211]

Primates? What about this guy?

Bag-like sea creature was humans' oldest known ancestor

Researchers have identified traces of what they believe is the earliest known prehistoric ancestor of humans -- a microscopic, bag-like sea creature, which lived about 540 million years ago.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Metis1]

Pretty much none of what you posted is true.

First of all, if we find a bone that don’t fit, we certainly are not stupid enough to invent some sort of story, and any scientist who tried to do that would be almost instantly discredited. If you doubt that, check the letters in the first section of each copy of Scientific American.

Secondly, the acceptance of the basic axiom of the evolution of life did not cause the Holocaust, nor other genocides, nor abortions, nor sunspots.