M
Metis1
Guest
Yes as I taught about it.
“Animism” is definitely theistic but Buddhism may or may not depending on how one defines it. Most Buddhists do believe in deities but not in a creator-god.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
“Animism” is definitely theistic but Buddhism may or may not depending on how one defines it. Most Buddhists do believe in deities but not in a creator-god.
R
rossum
Guest
Correct. There are many gods in Buddhism, and it is possible to become a god yourself, for a lifetime or two. However, none of those gods is the creator and none of them are of any great importance. They can be ignored if you want to.Most Buddhists do believe in deities but not in a creator-god.
rossum
M
Metis1
Guest
That’s a pathetic response that I won’t give two-cents with of my time responding to beyond this. Instead of the above, maybe find a source that differs from what I wrote. Just negating someone’s information with things like the above that is not countered with your own evidence is simply cheap, and if this were to be a scored debate you would be deducted on points. I have no interest in playing your little game here if scoffing at what others write while offering nothing yourself is the best you can do.Of course, you’re just kidding, right. Surveys disclose attitudes, not truth. Take another survey tomorrow and you’ll get a new answer.
M
Metis1
Guest
We rarely use the term “macro-” and “micro-evolution” other than to indicate the degree of change as there’s simply not one shred of evidence to suggest that “micro-” miraculously stops from becoming “macro-”. I’m not sure what Tyson is referring to, but it possibly might be that when we get into large societies, such as human society today with 7+ billion people, the evolutionary process tends to be much slower than with much smaller groups.Pierre-Paul Grasse was a Christian scientist who believed in evolution, but he seemed to be of the opinions that a) macroevolution occurred in the past but is no longer possible; and b) science cannot explain how macroevolution could have occurred.
It is impossible for one who understands and accepts the basic ToE to not somehow accept the fact that species have evolved significantly enough to the point of being considered to be “macro-”, assuming that one even wants to use that rather evasive term. Evolution is evolution, and there’s simply no indication that it stopped at any point in time.
By chance, do you have a link to his comment(s)?
M
Metis1
Guest
The problem with the above is two-fold, imo, and the first is that you seemingly think that scientists are so ignorant as to follow any foolish “indoctrination”, and the second is that if there’s “indoctrination” that occurs, and there certainly is to a point at least, then I would suggest that religious “indoctrination” is probably far higher on the list that with scientists, especially since scientific evidence tends to be self-correcting over time whereas religion isn’t.Thinking is far less promoted within the educational system, than is the repetition of the teachers ideas. It’s all about indoctrination.
Now, to be clear, I am a Catholic but my belief is based on faith, not objectively-derived evidence.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Wow. If the above is less than your “two cents”, thanks for sparing me the “nickel’s” worth.That’s a pathetic response that I won’t give two-cents with of my time responding to beyond this. Instead of the above, maybe find a source that differs from what I wrote. Just negating someone’s information with things like the above that is not countered with your own evidence is simply cheap, and if this were to be a scored debate you would be deducted on points. I have no interest in playing your little game here if scoffing at what others write while offering nothing yourself is the best you can do.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Again, Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.“Animism” is definitely theistic …
Definition of animism
1 : a doctrine that the vital principle of organic development is immaterial spirit2 : attribution of conscious life to objects in and phenomena of nature or to inanimate objects
3 : belief in the existence of spirits separable from bodies
O
o_mlly
Guest
“Hey, kid don’t bring that cheap stuff in here.” (The great Bill Russel’s advise to rookies who tried to drive the paint and dunk the ball only to end up, courtesy of Bill, eating it.) Consider taking his advise yourself.Just negating someone’s information … is simply cheap …
E
edwest211
Guest
The issue most definitely is those who choose to accept evolution as taught in schools uncritically. There are two reasons: unlike regular math, which they will use in everyday life, evolution offers them a worldview that they may or may not accept, and it is not useful in everyday life as a science. If they accept evolution without thinking it through, they are crossed off the list as it were. Only those who do not accept most or all of it are a problem. In what way? I’ve never gotten a straight answer to that.
A
Aloysium
Guest
There is science and there is materialism. People think that the former can only include the latter. Hence we have the problem of misguided understandings such as evolution.
The scientific classification of animalia includes multicellular organisms composed of eukaryotic cells, lacking a cell wall and organized into tissues and internal organ systems. They ingest and digest complex molecular substances for growth, development and reproduction. These organisms possess muscles for mobility and nerves for conduction of impulses. An understanding of life includes the psychological, that nerves and muscles are the physical manifestation of an organisms reality, which obviously includes instinctive perceptions, feelings and behaviour.
Human beings are different than animals because they possess an eternal soul which allows them to be causal agents and therefore relate at the highest levels of creation, having the capacity to love and participating in the creation of themselves. This would be part of a scientific understanding that seeks to be comprehensive and address the reality of things as they are.
Science is a social phenomenon as a collection of knowledge organized and communicated in ways that we can understand, using obviously words that describe and present a story of how things work, as well as mathematics, symbols and images. It has much to do with the search for knowledge but its direction is very much influenced by philosophical and cultural attitudes, political and economic forces as well as the quest for honour and fame. These impact on the sort of understanding of the world and our place in it that we we end up with in.
Because of our focus on material things and also health, the inclination is to put on blinders to our knowledge and see only what is relevant to those endeavours. Science itself as a facet of human existence that deserves study is relegated to the fields of philosophy and metaphysics. To fully explain our origins, such important aspects of life are necessary. With their exclusion, we get a distorted view of what transpired, as we would thinking that the appearance of a dome above us rather than space was the reality of the cosmos. We join the dots forming a local picture that represents evolution; including those beyond just the physical, a very different image appears - the truth of creation.
The scientific classification of animalia includes multicellular organisms composed of eukaryotic cells, lacking a cell wall and organized into tissues and internal organ systems. They ingest and digest complex molecular substances for growth, development and reproduction. These organisms possess muscles for mobility and nerves for conduction of impulses. An understanding of life includes the psychological, that nerves and muscles are the physical manifestation of an organisms reality, which obviously includes instinctive perceptions, feelings and behaviour.
Human beings are different than animals because they possess an eternal soul which allows them to be causal agents and therefore relate at the highest levels of creation, having the capacity to love and participating in the creation of themselves. This would be part of a scientific understanding that seeks to be comprehensive and address the reality of things as they are.
Science is a social phenomenon as a collection of knowledge organized and communicated in ways that we can understand, using obviously words that describe and present a story of how things work, as well as mathematics, symbols and images. It has much to do with the search for knowledge but its direction is very much influenced by philosophical and cultural attitudes, political and economic forces as well as the quest for honour and fame. These impact on the sort of understanding of the world and our place in it that we we end up with in.
Because of our focus on material things and also health, the inclination is to put on blinders to our knowledge and see only what is relevant to those endeavours. Science itself as a facet of human existence that deserves study is relegated to the fields of philosophy and metaphysics. To fully explain our origins, such important aspects of life are necessary. With their exclusion, we get a distorted view of what transpired, as we would thinking that the appearance of a dome above us rather than space was the reality of the cosmos. We join the dots forming a local picture that represents evolution; including those beyond just the physical, a very different image appears - the truth of creation.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Meaningless word salad.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I see you prefer the nonsequitor soup.
B
buss0042
Guest
Yours is a categorical error – assuming that any physical thing with an eternal soul cannot also be an animal.
B
buss0042
Guest
Possessing souls doesn’t change the facts of the human body. As I believe you or somebody else said earlier, the knowledge of the soul doesn’t fall under the umbrella of science, whereas the body doesHuman beings are different than animals because they possess an eternal soul
E
edwest211
Guest
From Commuinion and Stewardship
"As the witness of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium makes clear, the truth that human beings are created in the image of God is at the heart of Christian revelation. This truth was recognized and its broad implications expounded by the Fathers of the Church and by the great scholastic theologians. Although, as we shall note below, this truth was challenged by some influential modern thinkers, today biblical scholars and theologians join with the Magisterium in reclaiming and reaffirming the doctrine of the imago Dei .
"1. The imago Dei in Scripture and Tradition
"7. With few exceptions, most exegetes today acknowledge that the theme of the imago Dei is central to biblical revelation (cf. Gen. 1:26f; 5:1-3; 9:6). The theme is seen as the key to the biblical understanding of human nature and to all the affirmations of biblical anthropology in both the Old and New Testaments. For the Bible, the imago Dei constitutes almost a definition of man: the mystery of man cannot be grasped apart from the mystery of God.
“Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.”
"As the witness of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium makes clear, the truth that human beings are created in the image of God is at the heart of Christian revelation. This truth was recognized and its broad implications expounded by the Fathers of the Church and by the great scholastic theologians. Although, as we shall note below, this truth was challenged by some influential modern thinkers, today biblical scholars and theologians join with the Magisterium in reclaiming and reaffirming the doctrine of the imago Dei .
"1. The imago Dei in Scripture and Tradition
"7. With few exceptions, most exegetes today acknowledge that the theme of the imago Dei is central to biblical revelation (cf. Gen. 1:26f; 5:1-3; 9:6). The theme is seen as the key to the biblical understanding of human nature and to all the affirmations of biblical anthropology in both the Old and New Testaments. For the Bible, the imago Dei constitutes almost a definition of man: the mystery of man cannot be grasped apart from the mystery of God.
“Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.”
Last edited:
B
buss0042
Guest
I searched for the word “animal” and I didn’t find it. Is that supposed to defeat my premise?
B
buss0042
Guest
I’m throwing a lot out here, but when you respond, don’t forget to answer this: if human’s body is, indeed, categorized as “animal,” does this somehow defeat Christianity or challenge your faith in God?
A
Aloysium
Guest
The understanding that life diversified through an evolutionary process is based on facts that we’ve been taught and arguments that make sense because they are circular, based on assumptions that I say reflect a poor understanding of how things behave.objectively-derived evidence.
I can’t imagine that anyone collected one objective-derived piece of evidence that demonstrates the development of greater complexity from simpler elements. How would one go about showing the development of social behaviour in let’s successive generations of say an octopus which has a fairly sophisticated nervous system? How about the emergence of sexual reproduction in bacteria?
I am not a person from the fundamentalist congregation of your upbringing.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Better to contemplate reality than argue categories.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Science as the source of illusion is not the way we should go. It has to fit reality.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.