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 - 10-29-2010

(10-28-2010, 10:28 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: Since God knew of the Fall before it occurred (I surely hope no one will debate that), since physical time is merely his creation, there is nothing stopping the consequences of the Fall from being baked-in our universe from the beginning, in ways we possibly can't understand.

That sounds very implausible. Just because all things are possible with God, it doesn't mean we can guess His ways.

The Fall was known by God, but it was solely the CHOICE of Man. God did not create chaos.


Re: Evolution - INPEFESS - 10-29-2010

(10-29-2010, 08:09 AM)Rosarium Wrote: God did not create chaos.

I suppose this requires us to define objective chaos:

Catholic Encyclopedia: Evil Wrote:Metaphysical evil is the limitation by one another of various component parts of the natural world. Through this mutual limitation natural objects are for the most part prevented from attaining to their full or ideal perfection, whether by the constant pressure of physical condition, or by sudden catastrophes. Thus, animal and vegetable organisms are variously influenced by climate and other natural causes; predatory animals depend for their existence on the destruction of life; nature is subject to storms and convulsions, and its order depends on a system of perpetual decay and renewal due to the interaction of its constituent parts. If animals suffering is excluded, no pain of any kind is caused by the inevitable limitations of nature; and they can only be called evil by analogy, and in a sense quite different from that in which the term is applied to human experience. Clarke, moreover, has aptly remarked (Correspondence with Leibniz, letter ii) that the apparent disorder of nature is really no disorder, since it is part of a definite scheme, and precisely fulfills the intention of the Creator; it may therefore be counted as a relative perfection rather than an imperfection. It is, in fact, only by a transference to irrational objects of the subjective ideals and aspirations of human intelligence, that the "evil of nature" can be called evil in any sense but a merely analogous one. The nature and degree of pain in lower animals is very obscure, and in the necessary absence of data it is difficult to say whether it should rightly be classed with the merely formal evil which belongs to inanimate objects, or with the suffering of human beings. The latter view was generally held in ancient times, and may perhaps he referred to the anthropomorphic tendency of primitive minds which appears in the doctrine of metempsychosis. Thus it has often been supposed that animal suffering, together with many of the imperfections of inanimate nature, was due to the fall of man, with whose welfare, as the chief part of creation, were bound up the fortunes of the rest (see Theoph. Antioch., Ad Autolyc., II; cf. Genesis 3 and 1 Corinthians 9). The opposite view is taken by St. Thomas (I, Q. xcvi, a. 1,2). Descartes supposed that animals were merely machines, without sensation or consciousness; he was closely followed by Malebranche and Cartesians generally. Leibniz grants sensation to animals, but considers that mere sense-perception, unaccompanied by reflexion, cannot cause either pain or pleasure; in any case he holds the pain and pleasure of animals to be parable in degree to those resulting from reflex action in man (see also Maher, Psychology, Supp't. A, London, 1903).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

Emphasis added.

Following the cite from the Summa, I found this opinion of S. Thomas Aquinas, which seems probable:

Summa I, Q. xcvi, a. 1 Wrote:Reply to Objection 2. In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals. They would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership of man: as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the mastership of God, Whose Providence has ordained all this. Of this Providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic animals, since fowls are given by men as food to the trained falcon.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm


Re: Evolution - Nic - 10-29-2010

Catholic Thinker,

First off, your ideals and theories are all based upon the ideals and theories of modern atheistic science.  You state that young earth creationists believe that God created the earth to look old.  I don't.  The earth looks the way it does - and the shape of today's earth is from the Deluge - the Global Flood, the defining geological event that occurred aprox. 5,000 years ago.  Genesis speaks of the worldwide flood quite clearly - and so does Jesus Christ Himself in the Gospels.  Genesis (or Jesus' own words) were never taken as allegory by the early Church Fathers.  Genesis is a literal account of history.   Should we interpret the book of Genesis literally?  The Catholic Church, in adopting the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.”  Since each and every early Church Father who commented on the subject interpretted Genesis literally, what makes you and modern "theistic evolutionists" so special?

What is the evidence that you cling to in believing in a super old earth?  The long ages of the earth were devised by the evolutionists so their theories would make sense (although they do not).  By accepting these long ages, you are giving indirect support to atheistic evolutionism.  There is MORE evidence that the earth is quite young - it is just that the "scientific" journals and textbooks that you read won't allow you to see that.  The theory of evolutionism and an old earth has more holes in it than swiss cheese, and you say the YEC are naive.  From the perspective of the global flood, the geological rock strata that evolutionists and old-earthers cling to to try and support their theory makes perfect sense, and so does the fossil record.  The fossil record shows RAPID BURIAL.  The rock strata is perfectly uniform over VAST amounts of land, and NO erosion is noticed.  This is simply the scientific process of LIQUEFACTION that produced the layered rock strata - which was all caused by a massive global flood in which the waters came from "the fountains of the great deep."  Before the Flood, the earth was greatly different than today.  Great amounts of water were beneath the earth and under great pressure in the form of "supercritical water."  When the crust of the earth ruptured, the fountains of the great deep burst forth with the power equivelent to 300 trillion nitrogen bombs.  Look at the mid-Oceanic ridge, especially the mid-Atlantic ridge - the ridges that wrap around the earth the seam of a baseball.  This is were the waters burst forth some 5,000 years ago and changed the earth forever.  The crack opened and followed the path of least resistance around the globe.  As the ridge grew higher and higher from the jetting waters, the continents that we know today actually "slid away" in a sense from the rising ridge, lubricated by escaping high-pressure water beneath that was rushing toward the opening to burst forth.  As the continents, or "hydroplates" slid away from the rising mid-Atlantic ridge, they thickened as the water beneath was exhausted, thus opening up huge ocean basins.  This is when the mountains formed, which so happen to be parrallel from the ridges from which they slid.  Think of it like sliding a rug across a slick floor, when the rug hits its first resistance, it stops and the end that first hit the resistence buckles upward - kinda like the Rocky mountains and the Andes!   The jetting fountains caused torrential rainfall and in more northern latitudes, muddy hail as it caused the temperature to drop extremely rapidly - freezing the mammoths and rhinos of Siberia instantly (some still had food in their mouths!) and Alaska, which at that time were at latitudes more comparable to mid Canada.  Nearly all of the modern earths characteristics were caused by this catastrophic event - from the production of methane gases and oil to the towering mountains that we see today (the mountains pre-flood were MUCH smaller, probably no higher than 6,000 feet).  Mountains were pushed up in days and concreted by the quartz that was released in the sediments of the fountains of the great deep, as were all of the rock strata.  This is why we can see layered strata in mountains.  For this to occur, mountains HAD to have been in the consistency of putty when they were formed!

As for old-earthers ever so vaunted "radiocarbon dating," there couldn't be a process more flawed.  Radiocarbon dating requires knowing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere when the organic matter being dated was a part of a living organism.  The assumption, which few know is being made, is that the ratio has always been what it was before the industrial revolution - about one carbon-14 atom for every trillion carbon-12 atoms.  During the Flood, carbon-12, released from the subterranean water chamber, diluted the carbon-14 in the atmosphere and oceans even more.  If one thought that the C-14/C-12 ratio had always been what it is today, one would INCORRECTLY conclude that small amounts of carbon-14 in fossils meant much time had passed.  Instead, less C-14 was in those organisms when they died.  Therefore, radiocarbon dating is NOT accurate at all, only somewhat accurate back to the time after the Flood had occured and the earth changed and gained a new equilibrium.  Before or during the Flood, all bets are OFF.  Different parts of the same mammoth (the Fairbanks Creek mammoth) were radiocarbon tested.  The lower leg had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 while the skin and flesh were 21,300 radiocarbon years old!  There are many accounts just like this.

Ever wonder why man just popped up in civilizations about 5,000 years ago?  Ever wonder why there are more ancient great flood legends than any other type of legend on the face of the earth, among nearly ALL civilizations.  The evidence for a young earth and a Global Flood are simply overwhelming.

This is just a very small taste of the very complex and scientific theory that I subscribe to in full.  There are no "miracles" involved in this theory, although God could have performed miracles if He so desired.  The best thing is that this theory jives completely with Holy Scripture, something that EVERY Christian should prefer instead of trying to compromise atheistic science with Holy Scripture and Tradition.


Re: Evolution - Nic - 10-29-2010

double post


Re: Evolution - The Catholic Thinker - 10-29-2010

(10-29-2010, 05:09 PM)Nic Wrote: Catholic Thinker,

First off, your ideals and theories are all based upon the ideals and theories of modern atheistic science. 

You simply have no idea what you are talking about on these subjects.  At all.  It is impossible to have any sort of actual discussion with you on them.

There is absolutely nothing "atheistic" in the vast body of evidence that demonstrates that the universe is much older than ~6,000 years.  It is simply evidence.  Nor was it an atheist, but rather a Catholic priest, who first (or who was among the first) to propose the Creation event (Big Bang) from the (obvious) evidence.  The fact that you call this evidence "atheistic" demonstrates that you have no understanding of any of it.

YECs almost always seem to be absolutely unable to entangle their "faith" from their "science"; I have much better things to do with my time than continue completely fruitless discussions.

:tiphat:



Re: Evolution - The Catholic Thinker - 10-29-2010

(10-29-2010, 08:09 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(10-28-2010, 10:28 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: Since God knew of the Fall before it occurred (I surely hope no one will debate that), since physical time is merely his creation, there is nothing stopping the consequences of the Fall from being baked-in our universe from the beginning, in ways we possibly can't understand.

That sounds very implausible. Just because all things are possible with God, it doesn't mean we can guess His ways.

The Fall was known by God, but it was solely the CHOICE of Man. God did not create chaos.

What you are proposing - that God simply did not consider the Fall (which He certainly had a priori knowledge of) in the universe we inhabit - for reasons you don't explain - seems arbitrary and naive.

Fortunately INPEFESS has done a good job retorting via the Angelic Doctor.


Re: Evolution - Nic - 10-30-2010

(10-29-2010, 08:59 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(10-29-2010, 05:09 PM)Nic Wrote: Catholic Thinker,

First off, your ideals and theories are all based upon the ideals and theories of modern atheistic science. 

You simply have no idea what you are talking about on these subjects.  At all.  It is impossible to have any sort of actual discussion with you on them.

There is absolutely nothing "atheistic" in the vast body of evidence that demonstrates that the universe is much older than ~6,000 years.  It is simply evidence.  Nor was it an atheist, but rather a Catholic priest, who first (or who was among the first) to propose the Creation event (Big Bang) from the (obvious) evidence.  The fact that you call this evidence "atheistic" demonstrates that you have no understanding of any of it.

YECs almost always seem to be absolutely unable to entangle their "faith" from their "science"; I have much better things to do with my time than continue completely fruitless discussions.

:tiphat:

...or discussions that you can't offer any good evidence.  Your idea of the earth being billions of years old yet macro evolution being false is laughable.  They go hand in hand, my friend - hand in hand.  Do you propose that the earth is billions of years old - but man has existed as he is now from the beginning?

How is the theory that I hold not scientific?  If you have the intestinal fortitude, read the book that I proposed to you - and leave your pre-concieved notions at the cover.  Also, remember that Scripture is TRUTH, so our "science" has to jive with it or our "science" is false from the get-go.  What I am saying is that we have a baseline of Truth that must be adhered to or all else is worthless.  This is why I refer to it as atheistic science, because they leave God and the truth of Scripture out of their hypothoses.  There WAS a Global Flood aprox. 5,000 years ago, Scripture is quite clear on this, both New and Old Testaments. To think differently is to call the early Church Fathers and your own Saviour a liar.  It is MUCH better to base your science upon an already established truth than try to figure it all out on your own.  This is the center of the "cult of man" that has taken over the modern world - even in the modern, post-conciliar Church itself (as concerns the human element of the official structure of the Church).  This is why "the dignity of man" is the call of the day.  So, what I am actually saying:  try to be a bit more of a "Catholic Thinker" when it comes to science and origins.


Re: Evolution - Vetus Ordo - 10-30-2010

A "Catholic" thinker who is an evolutionist?

It's a sign of the depraved times we live in.


Re: Evolution - The Catholic Thinker - 10-30-2010

(10-30-2010, 08:48 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: A "Catholic" thinker who is an evolutionist?

It's a sign of the depraved times we live in.

You're an insulting moron who refuses to listen to the Church (even the pre-Council Church).  :pazzo:

And cannot even read: I'm not an evolutionist.

Apparently INPEFESS's words went over your head as well.


Re: Evolution - Vetus Ordo - 10-30-2010

(10-30-2010, 09:21 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(10-30-2010, 08:48 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: A "Catholic" thinker who is an evolutionist?

It's a sign of the depraved times we live in.

You're an insulting moron who refuses to listen to the Church (even the pre-Council Church).  :pazzo:

Of course.

Quote:And cannot even read: I'm not an evolutionist.

Ah....of course not.