B
buffalo
Guest
Actually that is what science is showing. You may not have realized the tree of life has fallen and is now a tangled bush.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
Translation of genes more complex than expected
Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.
www.sciencedaily.com
T
Techno2000
Guest
So, Adam and Eve was raised by soulless animal creatures ?
P
Pattylt
Guest
I’m confused…I thought all life has a soul according to Catholicism? Man has a rational soul which distinguishes his soul from animals. Animals are very capable of raising their young so why wouldn’t a non rational but possessing a soul animal be capable of raising Adam? Then he was given a rational soul.
Are you doubting souls in animals and/or the ability to raise their young?
Thanks.
Are you doubting souls in animals and/or the ability to raise their young?
Thanks.
H
Hobgoblin
Guest
No, I hadn’t. I look forward to the advances in understanding that will surely come. As I said previously, I’m interested in the truth. If it turns out I came from a donkey I’m ok with that too.
H
Hobgoblin
Guest
It would seem so.
H
Hobgoblin
Guest
Exactly. We’re not even talking about a lower animal. We’re talking about a creature that’s one generation removed from us. It was likely highly intelligent and emotive.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
You can’t show that.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Do you think Adam and Eve’s parents were upset when they got kicked out of the Garden of Eden ?
P
Pattylt
Guest
Perhaps you should try and answer that question. How is anyone supposed to know how they felt if the Bible doesn’t tell us. Besides, I don’t believe the story is literal. There is too much theology behind it and has all the classic markers of a myth.
E
edwest211
Guest
Adam and Eve: Real People
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” ( Humani Generis 37).
The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).
- Catholic Answers
P
Pattylt
Guest
Yes, Catholics are required to believe in some form of A and E.
I, however, am not. Even when I was still Jewish we didn’t believe in a literal A and E. We knew it was a theological construct to teach about God.
I, however, am not. Even when I was still Jewish we didn’t believe in a literal A and E. We knew it was a theological construct to teach about God.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
@buffalo seems to be taking his time with a response to how we falsify ID. C’mon buddy. Front up.buffalo:
Others have taken you to task on this and I agree with them
F
FredBloggs
Guest
This is so intellectually dishonest, even by your low standards. It’s no wonder people don’t take you seriously on this forum.
R
rossum
Guest
No scientific theory can ever be proved. That is Science 101 and we have been pointing it out to creationists ad nauseam.
So, your designer is incapable of designing a Darwinian system? That makes your designer inferior to most computer programmers, since designing a computerised Darwinian system is well within the capability of a competent computer programmer.
Of course, a designer that cannot design a Darwinian system is obviously not omnipotent.
There you go with the “proving” again. You really need to go back to Science 101. Science does not work on proof. It works on evidence and disproof. A theory can be disproved, as Newton’s theory was disproved by the evidence.
So ID needs to state what evidence would disprove ID. Darwin did it for his theory:
and others have done the same since, as with Haldane’s Cambrian rabbit.
What piece of evidence, if found, would disprove ID?
If you cannot answer the question then you show the weakness of ID’s attempt to be science.
R
rossum
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
How so, in detail.
B
buffalo
Guest
Read the posts…
B
buffalo
Guest
So much wrong with this.
First, as I have pointed out to you over and over Catholics know God as almighty. There are things He cannot do and I have pointed them out to you specifically.
No one ever claimed God could not design a Darwinian system. He did design micro-evolution. He did not choose to design macro-evolution.
R
rossum
Guest
Irrelevant. I was talking about the Intelligent Designer, not God.
However, you claimed that the Intelligent Designer could not design a Darwinian system; that was how you told us to falsify ID.
If you say “Finding X will falsify intelligent design” then you are implicitly saying that the designer is incapable of designing X. Just as it is impossible for a Cambrian rabbit to have evolved; evolution is incapable of producing a Cambrian rabbit. A falsification often refers to an impossibility. Falsifying intelligent design is no different.
Recall that ID does not insist that the designer is God; it could be space aliens. That is why I refer to the designer, not to God. The two may be different. We already know that human designers exist, and they are not God. You are making an unwarranted assumption about the nature of the designer.
- Status