FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Evolution - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Evolution (/showthread.php?tid=39628)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24


Re: Evolution - Historian - 10-23-2010

(10-23-2010, 11:20 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: To answer your question, I've been reading Catholic literature vociferously for about 23 years but especially constantly in the last six, among other things.  I would say I've read at least 100 books from the saints, concerning Church history, and especially apologetics.  Lately I've been especially interested in Thomism and while still a novice, I have a very capable mentor.

How about you?

I am trying to strive towards perfection and fulfilling God's will for me.

That is a very interesting listing of study. I hope you found it helpful in increasing virtue.


Re: Evolution - Historian - 10-23-2010

(10-23-2010, 11:20 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: You seem to be literally saying that we should have no interest in science whatsoever, or in answering difficult questions related to the faith.  This is just a preposterous position.  You are taking something completely out of context, and frankly insulting the Church's healthy relationship with science which goes back at least 1,000 years.

Do I seem to be saying that?

I do know that error in science is not important to living the faith.
Quote:Every perfection in this life has some imperfection mixed with it and no learning of ours is without some darkness. Humble knowledge of self is a surer path to God than the ardent pursuit of learning. Not that learning is to be considered evil, or knowledge, which is good in itself and so ordained by God; but a clean conscience and virtuous life ought always to be preferred. Many often err and accomplish little or nothing because they try to become learned rather than to live well.



Re: Evolution - The Catholic Thinker - 10-23-2010

Let's stop this now.  

I called you a Creationist because you certainly are one by your posts - and that's fine.  I don't even rule out the possibility that I will be one one day.  In fact, to some I am, given that I would never accept any form of Darwinism or even the "standard" "theistic evolution" which has too many holes.  I am very intrigued by the work of the ID movement.  

What I very much lean to is that the universe is on the order of ~10 billion years old (either that or God has intentionally fooled us with a huge amount of evidence) and that no form of macro-evolution ever occurred.  I actually agree with you that special creation of species is the rule.

I cannot explain the hominid fossils.  That's all I'm saying.  But I won't pretend they don't exist and will not attack anyone who accepts theistic evolution as having a problem with faith.  It is not a matter of the faith except in a couple narrow areas (again, monogenism, and the actual existence of Adam & Eve).

I respect you as a Catholic but do believe you should not treat non-dogmatic subjects as if they were in that category.  I took offense at your questioning my Catholicism or my knowledge of the faith.  Frankly, despite not having any theological degree, my knowledge of the faith is pretty high, as is yours obviously.


Re: Evolution - The Catholic Thinker - 10-23-2010

As for the argument that any evolution of the body is "dirty" and not how God would have it, that argument has merit.  The counter, if there really is one, is The Fall.  We know that the effects of the Fall extend out in time on both sides; it is really outside of time.  This is proven by the fact that the Incarnation existed in the Mind of God from all time; God, of course, knew of the Fall before it would occur and so the Fall influenced creation.

If it wasn't for the Fall we wouldn't have many of the attributes of nature that must have existed from all time as far as we're concerned.  We would not have meat-eating at all, among humans or animals, of course.  Well, we'd have no suffering of any kind at all!

(What I can't really explain in natural terms is how Adam & Eve somehow went from their glorified bodies in the garden to their corrupt bodies outside of it...)

I really do wish this whole area was just clearer than it is.  It just isn't, and I've pondered why that might be quite a bit.

Even if the hominids that lived represent species with no evolutionary connection to man or anything else, and they well might, they are still pretty difficult to explain in the standard traditional Catholic worldview.  The later ones were very much like men.  Neanderthals - of which we have hundreds of good samples, I think - were, physically, very, very much like men.  Were they true men, with souls, or animals?  Either way, why did God create them?  And why is there no mention of them in Scripture?

Dr. Bonnette's book has some very good material in it on these topics - such as determining which creatures displayed rational behavior and thus must have had immortal souls.  (The Neanderthals made complex tools and buried their dead, indicating they believed in an afterlife.)

http://drbonnette.com/

And there's lots of good reading here:

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

Many of the ID pioneers are Catholic.


Re: Evolution - The Catholic Thinker - 10-23-2010

This is the book that convinced me that macro-evolution (evolution of species) is not possible (although the problem of the total lack of transitional forms for all species really should be enough):

http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296222/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1287851066&sr=8-2

It's really good.


Re: Evolution - Historian - 10-23-2010

(10-23-2010, 11:40 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: I called you a Creationist because you certainly are one by your posts - and that's fine.  I don't even rule out the possibility that I will be one one day.  In fact, to some I am, given that I would never accept any form of Darwinism or even the "standard" "theistic evolution" which has too many holes.  I am very intrigued by the work of the ID movement.  
I do not know what "Creationist" means precisely. I believe God created all.

I do not use or think it is good to use labels of political origin and type in describing aspects of the faith.

What does "Creationist" mean?

Quote:What I very much lean to is that the universe is on the order of ~10 billion years old (either that or God has intentionally fooled us with a huge amount of evidence) and that no form of macro-evolution ever occurred.  I actually agree with you that special creation of species is the rule.
A year is the time it takes for the earth to complete a revolution around the sun. I think it is unwise to assume that we can work backwards with what we have now. I think there were (with good reasons) major changes in the physical structure of what we know.

Quote:I respect you as a Catholic but do believe you should not treat non-dogmatic subjects as if they were in that category.  I took offense at your questioning my Catholicism or my knowledge of the faith.  Frankly, despite not having any theological degree, my knowledge of the faith is pretty high, as is yours obviously.
How would you feel if I likened you to a Protestant?




Re: Evolution - Nic - 10-23-2010

(10-23-2010, 11:40 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: Let's stop this now.  

I called you a Creationist because you certainly are one by your posts - and that's fine.  I don't even rule out the possibility that I will be one one day.  In fact, to some I am, given that I would never accept any form of Darwinism or even the "standard" "theistic evolution" which has too many holes.  I am very intrigued by the work of the ID movement.  

What I very much lean to is that the universe is on the order of ~10 billion years old (either that or God has intentionally fooled us with a huge amount of evidence) and that no form of macro-evolution ever occurred.  I actually agree with you that special creation of species is the rule.

I cannot explain the hominid fossils.  That's all I'm saying.  But I won't pretend they don't exist and will not attack anyone who accepts theistic evolution as having a problem with faith.  It is not a matter of the faith except in a couple narrow areas (again, monogenism, and the actual existence of Adam & Eve).

I respect you as a Catholic but do believe you should not treat non-dogmatic subjects as if they were in that category.  I took offense at your questioning my Catholicism or my knowledge of the faith.  Frankly, despite not having any theological degree, my knowledge of the faith is pretty high, as is yours obviously.


The ONLY reason that modern science states that the earth is so old is to allow enough time for macro evolution to occur!  If you see NO transitional fossils (because there are none), and the only reason for the millions of years proposed by evolutionists is to allow their theory, then why do you hold to an old earth when there is absolutely NO reason to do so? The age of the earth by evolutionists has increased 1,000% since the turn of the 20th century!  Why is this?  It is because their theory keeps needing longer and longer time frames to allow for such random (and impossible) mutations to occur without it seeming like a fairy-tale (which it is).  Actually, cutting edge true MODERN science reveals that the earth shows significant evidence of being less than 10,000 years old - but the evolutionist community doesn't want you to know about that - they NEED their theory (which they now call "fact") to remove God from the equation and further the worship of man.  The defining geological event of our world was not a meteor strike some millions of years ago, but a devastating worldwide flood, the waters of which came from the earth itself (the fountains of the great deep burst forth on one day).  The layered strata and fossil record is proof of the scientific process of liquefaction, which created the evenly layered rock strata and concreted the fossils.  The fossil record shows RAPID burial, not burial over millions of years.  The absolute best young earth theory that I have read (and I have read several) is the hydroplate theory by Dr. Walt Brown.  Of course, evolutionists will poke at his work because it so thoroughly reduces their pet-theory to ashes.  The latest edition of Dr. Brown's book:  In the Beginning:  Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood absolutely blew me away!  There is no preaching or religion in this book, just good science.  What evolutionists forget is that good science is good observation and minimal assumptions.  Dr. Brown's theory only truly relies upon one main assumption, while evolutionism,. the "big bang theory" and plate tectonics rely upon hundreds of assumptions.  Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory is fantastic - it explains what could have occured (and what I truly believe DID occur) from a straightforward scientific perspective that also completely jives with the Genesis account, and there is no bending to do so (there are no wacky "water-vapor canopy" explanations or the like).  The hydroplate theory explains how the Great Flood occured and just how the earth changed so much due to this event.  I STRONGLY recommend anyone to read it - and don't listen to naysayers, they are only backed into a corner by this theory.


Re: Evolution - The Catholic Thinker - 10-23-2010

(10-23-2010, 04:26 PM)Nic Wrote: The ONLY reason that modern science states that the earth is so old is to allow enough time for macro evolution to occur!  If you see NO transitional fossils (because there are none), and the only reason for the millions of years proposed by evolutionists is to allow their theory, then why do you hold to an old earth when there is absolutely NO reason to do so?

That is the kind of nonsense Creationist preachers sucker ignorant people into.  No offense, but the fact that you believe that "The ONLY reason that modern science states that the earth is so old is to allow enough time for macro evolution to occur" demonstrates that you have never studied any of the science involved.  The evidence for the age of the universe comes from multiple branches of science, most of which have no regard for biological evolution or biology in general for that matter.  Only someone entirely unfamiliar with the scientific community could believe that evolutionists drive cosmology and physics.


Re: Evolution - Vetus Ordo - 10-23-2010

(10-23-2010, 10:34 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(10-23-2010, 07:57 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-23-2010, 12:27 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: the "traditional position of the Church" with regard to the shape of the Earth (flat)

Utter nonsense.

Oh, really?  So you contend that there are statements from churchmen stating that the earth is no older than ~6,000 years that carry more weight than similar statements that Scriptures such as "the four corners of the Earth" imply that the Earth is flat?  Please post them.

The idea that the Church "traditionally" preached a flat earth or that european scholars believed in it is nothing but a pathetic black legend. Who have you been reading?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth


Re: Evolution - The Catholic Thinker - 10-23-2010

(10-23-2010, 06:55 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-23-2010, 10:34 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(10-23-2010, 07:57 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-23-2010, 12:27 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: the "traditional position of the Church" with regard to the shape of the Earth (flat)

Utter nonsense.

Oh, really?  So you contend that there are statements from churchmen stating that the earth is no older than ~6,000 years that carry more weight than similar statements that Scriptures such as "the four corners of the Earth" imply that the Earth is flat?  Please post them.

The idea that the Church "traditionally" preached a flat earth or that european scholars believed in it is nothing but a pathetic black legend. Who have you been reading?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Thanks for the link.  I knew I was on slightly shaky ground there.  However, consider

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
and
http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

there definitely have been Christians that have insisted the earth is flat based on Scripture.  My main point was simply that such private interpretation carries no weight for Catholics exactly as it does not with regard to the age of the universe.

And the Church cannot be rightly said to have a "traditional position" on the age of the universe any more than it can on this question, certainly not if you count the entire existence of the Church, much less an official position.

In fact, considering the tacit praise by the Church of the Big Bang hypothesis, I would say the current, unofficial position of the Church is against young-earth Creationism.  (And that predates the Council!)