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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
40.png
mVitus:
The Church does not distinguish between “micro” or “macro” evolution. So if you’re going to say “Marco” can’t be accepted, then that “micro” you’re always on about is equally prohibited.
Click to expand...
Really? She accepts micro to be true. Why? Because it has been shown to be true. Molecules to man, has not been shown to be true and is an extrapolation of micro. Now we are learning that the distances macro evolution has to traverse are greater than ever thought. This matches up nicely with what the fossil record shows, abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within.

Once again, Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Click to expand...
Bufallo 3…
 
mVitus said:
Whoa whoa. Hold your horses. Where has the Church official stated “micro” is a certain fact? Source needed.

I would agree that such a view as yours that only microevolution occurs is compatible with Catholic faith. And the Church’s statements around evolution would clearly allow you to hold such a view and be a faithful Catholic, but that is not the same the Church as saying something is true in a matter of science.
Click to expand...
Micro-evolution is observable without science.
 
mVitus said:
Ppint out to me the document that explicitly says “microevolution.” Then we can see if the Church distinguishes.
Click to expand...
You will not see the word. What you will see is life changes and adapts.

She has been using intelligent design since the beginning as she understood the universe to be rational and worthy of study.
 
buffalo said:
Micro-evolution is observable without science.
Click to expand...
People have been breeding dogs, horses, and farm animals for a very very long time, having observed micro-evolution with the science of their time. They didn’t need the concept of evolution, but they knew something of genetics. I think you would agree that there is not much wrong with the basic science involved. The issue has to do with how that knowledge is put together into a theory that makes sense only to believers, and young minds too easily accepting of what they are told in their eagerness to learn.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
The issue has to do with how that knowledge is put together into a theory that makes sense only to believers, and young minds too easily accepting of what they are told in their eagerness to learn.
Click to expand...
Yes, we insist in teaching our kids partial truth while neglecting total truth (God). And we parents have allowed it. They are in the business of indoctrinization.
 
Unfortunately, that does appear to be the case, including threads like this one. The whole truth, not just the science and the speculation that ‘science only’ thinking causes. I was reading a transcript where one person concluded that everything we are is just the material. Our beliefs are just part of our long development. Nothing exists outside of what science can discover. This is atheism without using the word.
 
edwest211 said:
Unfortunately, that does appear to be the case, including threads like this one. The whole truth, not just the science and the speculation that ‘science only’ thinking causes. I was reading a transcript where one person concluded that everything we are is just the material. Our beliefs are just part of our long development. Nothing exists outside of what science can discover. This is atheism without using the word.
Click to expand...
We’ve got the definition of a ‘Buffalo’. I think an ‘Ed’ should be a claim (erroneous as has been pointed out so many times), that evolution is used in this forum as a means to deny God.

I’m calling an Ed on this one. Let’s see how long it takes to get to double figures. Can you beat The Buffalo!
 
buffalo said:
40.png
mVitus:
Ppint out to me the document that explicitly says “microevolution.” Then we can see if the Church distinguishes.
Click to expand...
You will not see the word. What you will see is life changes and adapts.

She has been using intelligent design since the beginning as she understood the universe to be rational and worthy of study.
Click to expand...
Right , the Church doesn’t have to tell you how a frog or butterfly morphed into being, it can be easily be observed.
 
buffalo said:
You will not see the word. What you will see is life changes and adapts.
Click to expand...
One thing you must realize is that if the Church teaches “microevolution” is a fact, then 6-day Creationism that says all life is as it was since the 6th day wouod be heresy. Again, you have 100% overstepped your bounds to say the Church has a stance on whether or not “microevolution” is true. If you merely argue it’s permissible for a faithful Catholic to take a personal view such as your own, I’d have no debate on that point. But what you’re saying is out of line.
 
What often in Christianity is called “The Bible in a nutshell” is John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life”. Notice it says nothing about “You can’t accept evolutionary theory or you’re going to hell in a hand-basket!”.

The point is that some here not only are spouting non-Biblical judgments but also anti-Biblical judgments by their accusations that if one accepts evolutionary theory (s)he is an atheist. IOW, they are putting “teachings” in the Bible that simply ain’t there, much like many others have taught other heresies over the centuries.
 
Last edited:
mVitus said:
One thing you must realize is that if the Church teaches “microevolution” is a fact, then 6-day Creationism that says all life is as it was since the 6th day wouod be heresy. Again, you have 100% overstepped your bounds to say the Church has a stance on whether or not “microevolution” is true. If you merely argue it’s permissible for a faithful Catholic to take a personal view such as your own, I’d have no debate on that point. But what you’re saying is out of line.
Click to expand...
Read very slowly and carefully:

What is IDvolution?​

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.
 
buffalo said:
No. ,…
Click to expand...
If the Church, as you claim, says microevolution is fact, then how would that not be heresy to deny a Church teaching?
buffalo said:
What is IDvolution?
Click to expand...
IDVolution is a view a Catholic may hold personally, but is unscientific and based on faulty logic.

In comparison, evolution has scientific backing and is equally acceptable for a Catholic to accept as the process by which God created our physical forms.
 
mVitus said:
if the Church teaches “microevolution” is a fact, then 6-day Creationism that says all life is as it was since the 6th day wouod be heresy
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’ve read the opinion here at any point that all life is as it was since the 6th day.

My understanding of intelligent design is that the original creatures were created as part of their environment and, as such, changed with it. As we still observe today, they had built-in genetic and epigenetic features that made for the diversity that we see around us and in time. Since we have only a poorly understanding of how they work, it all seems random. And, natural selection is just a shadow of the fact that what was created was a garden. Since the fall, things have become undone. The undoing, which is the reality of random chemical change and death to those who don’t fit, does not explain the diversity and flowering of life.

Creation as it pertains to God, has to do with the coming into being from nothing.

Bringing this close to home, we understand that we are each created as a new, individual and irreplaceable being. The kind of living form that we are, had a beginning, and it was Adam. Everything changes, but what something is, including amphibians, does not. What God creates is a person regardless of the genetic make-up, appearance and capacities.
 
Last edited:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...ts/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html
The fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture
  1. The attention we have been paying to different aspects of the theme of biblical hermeneutics now enables us to consider a subject which came up a number of times during the Synod: that of the fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture.[145] The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, has laid down some important guidelines. Here I would like especially to deal with approaches which fail to respect the authenticity of the sacred text, but promote subjective and arbitrary interpretations . The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. “The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human … for this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods”.[146] Christianity, on the other hand, perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history.[147] The true response to a fundamentalist approach is “the faith-filled interpretation of sacred Scripture”. This manner of interpretation, “practised from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition, seeks saving truth for the life of the individual Christian and for the Church. It recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition. Precisely because of the tradition’s value as an historical witness, this reading seeks to discover the living meaning of the sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today”,[148] while not ignoring the human mediation of the inspired text and its literary genres.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top