Evolution and Original Sin
#11
INPEFESS:

Doctrine is the teaching of the Church.

Quote:Do you have teachings from the Church relating to the death outside the garden pre-"fall"?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

My conclusion is that these cases are not as clear cut has we are led to believe, at least not on the evidence given.

I think the arguments are profound in themselves.

Additionally, another argument, (plan "B"?) for the defense could be that if the primary point of not stigmatizing the angels is a question of the differences between them, then we can infer from this decision of original sin through progeny is a weak excuse has well, has a woman begets a genetically different human being, not a clone of herself. Given that we can assume justice to the least advantaged, then this request by mankind would be a reasonable one.

The only way these judgments make sense is if a differing standard is being used dependent on the being type. However, these cases imply the same standard is used since the appeal is to our human reasoning. With the use of human reasoning, these cases are not resolved. 

What is common across genus is being ignored, ie: communication and capability. They are able to persuade one another to commit a crime therefore open to culpability. This is true proved out from a crime prevention standpoint, the crime prevention team would look at what they have in common, not what differs between them. Here what makes them different acquits, what they have in common convicts.

Therefore the species explanation seems weak to me based on what is known.

Spence
Reply
#12
X-ray diffraction allowed us to come up with this:


Did you catch the 7000 rpm?  Did you notice the special shape of the mold to make ATP?  And you want to say this evolved?  :laughing: :laughing:
Ask a tool engineer his opinion of that.

This is a good clip too:

This doesn't run unless you let it download (red bar), then  hit pause and play.  Maybe the atheist hacked it.  There are a lot of these animations.  Just google cell machine intelligent design.

On FOSSIL fuels, this is "A" proof of old earth, since according to the theory, it takes 40 million years to turn dinosaurs into crude oil.  This has been debunked.  Even if you wait 1 billion years, organic goo, highly oxidized, low chemical potential waste won't turn into highly reduced, high chemical potential crude oil.  However, at conditions in the mantle, methane will turn into crude oil in about 20 minutes.  This doesn't prove young earth, it just means there is one less proof for old earth.
Reply
#13
(05-23-2010, 06:29 AM)Spence Wrote: INPEFESS:

Doctrine is the teaching of the Church.

Quote:Do you have teachings from the Church relating to the death outside the garden pre-"fall"?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

My conclusion is that these cases are not as clear cut has we are led to believe, at least not on the evidence given.

I think the arguments are profound in themselves.

Additionally, another argument, (plan "B"?) for the defense could be that if the primary point of not stigmatizing the angels is a question of the differences between them, then we can infer from this decision of original sin through progeny is a weak excuse has well, has a woman begets a genetically different human being, not a clone of herself. Given that we can assume justice to the least advantaged, then this request by mankind would be a reasonable one.

The only way these judgments make sense is if a differing standard is being used dependent on the being type. However, these cases imply the same standard is used since the appeal is to our human reasoning. With the use of human reasoning, these cases are not resolved. 

What is common across genus is being ignored, ie: communication and capability. They are able to persuade one another to commit a crime therefore open to culpability. This is true proved out from a crime prevention standpoint, the crime prevention team would look at what they have in common, not what differs between them. Here what makes them different acquits, what they have in common convicts.

Therefore the species explanation seems weak to me based on what is known.

Spence

I apologize, in all sincerity I think I must be dense. I am not sure how you are applying the above to the question of my thread. The question regards, specifically, whether or not death existed outside of the Garden of Eden. I am not sure how angels, crime prevention, or gene mutation is the same as a Church teaching on the matter.

As I stated, I do not wish to recapitulate the previous thread concerning theistic evolution. My question is very specific and pertains to what the Church has taught concerning the death in and out of the garden. It seems impossible that PPXII and JPII could both accept the possibility of evolution while acknowledging that there was no death in the entire world before Adam sinned.

Again, I apologize if I am missing the application. I am a little sick at the moment so my mind isn't quite running at normal speed.
Reply
#14
(05-24-2010, 01:58 PM)James02 Wrote: X-ray diffraction allowed us to come up with this:


Did you catch the 7000 rpm?  Did you notice the special shape of the mold to make ATP?  And you want to say this evolved?   :laughing: :laughing:
Ask a tool engineer his opinion of that.

This is a good clip too:

This doesn't run unless you let it download (red bar), then  hit pause and play.  Maybe the atheist hacked it.  There are a lot of these animations.  Just google cell machine intelligent design.

On FOSSIL fuels, this is "A" proof of old earth, since according to the theory, it takes 40 million years to turn dinosaurs into crude oil.  This has been debunked.  Even if you wait 1 billion years, organic goo, highly oxidized, low chemical potential waste won't turn into highly reduced, high chemical potential crude oil.  However, at conditions in the mantle, methane will turn into crude oil in about 20 minutes.  This doesn't prove young earth, it just means there is one less proof for old earth.

Okay, thank you very much for the videos. I am interested in watching them, but, unfortunately, I am not able to view them at this moment. I will try to watch them tonight when I am at a computer that will support the software.
Reply
#15
(05-21-2010, 04:55 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Because I do not wish to recapitulate this subject already extensively covered here, the scope of this thread, therefore, is the state of the world before original sin as well as the effects of original sin.

The evolution is God's powerful angel which performed the job:

Gen 2:7 7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth

At this point comes the individually created immortal spirit, and the rest.

The modern genetics teaches that all human came from one single genetic source.
Reply
#16
(05-30-2010, 04:50 PM)glgas Wrote:
(05-21-2010, 04:55 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Because I do not wish to recapitulate this subject already extensively covered here, the scope of this thread, therefore, is the state of the world before original sin as well as the effects of original sin.

The evolution is God's powerful angel which performed the job:

Gen 2:7 7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth

At this point comes the individually created immortal spirit, and the rest.

The modern genetics teaches that all human came from one single genetic source.

Yes, I don't deny that it could be true, but I've often heard it said that there was no death in the world until Original Sin. If that is true, then evolution is impossible. But I have yet to be able to substantiate that Church teaching. Was there no death in the world, or was there no death in the garden? Genesis doesn't specify, but given the treatment of evolution by Pius XII (and later JP II), it seems unlikely that they (the Church) would teach that there was no death in the world and then papal encyclicals would treat of its potential truth. I find this very interesting. If it could be shown to not contradict any teaching of the Church, it would surely install faith in the divine origin or Scripture for some who try to use evolution to cast doubt on the reliability of Scripture.

glgas, do you know where this idea - that there was no death in the world until original sin - finds it source in Catholicism?
Reply
#17
(05-30-2010, 10:44 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Yes, I don't deny that it could be true, but I've often heard it said that there was no death in the world until Original Sin. If that is true, then evolution is impossible. But I have yet to be able to substantiate that Church teaching. Was there no death in the world, or was there no death in the garden?  ...
glgas, do you know where this idea - that there was no death in the world until original sin - finds it source in Catholicism?

I learned theology for six years in the traditional times, try to relearn it since 1990, but never heard this idea: they was no death in the Paradise.

According to the Bible the universal darknes 'died' when God created the light, Chaos 'died', when God made the firmament to separate the waters, etc

Also from early childhood I learned that Adam and Eve had to die because they were separated from the tree of life as a consequence of the original sin. Except for tales, like Kipling's Book of Jungle, I heard first may be 10 years ago, the theory that the very nature of the human beings changed by the sin, they became mortal from immortal The procreation as fact excludes the immortality, a  finite system would be filled up shortly. In the heaven there is no sex neither procreation, in the hell could be sex as punishment (read Sartre: No Exit for example) but no procreation.
Reply
#18
(05-21-2010, 04:55 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-13-2010, 05:18 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: There's also other problems, like the fact that death entered the world because of sin. There's no amount of lipservice to evolution that can "reconcile" that.

I have read the creation story many times recently, and I don't see where it tells us that there was no death in the garden - to say nothing of the world outside (which is alluded to after God has created the garden). It seems like man's efforts became doomed to failure, but I cannot find any reference to physical death being non-existent outside of the garden. Perhaps the Church has taught on this. Not sure on this one.

Because I do not wish to recapitulate this subject already extensively covered here, the scope of this thread, therefore, is the state of the world before original sin as well as the effects of original sin.

The Church has taught on this.  From the decree on Original Sin from the Council of Trent:

Quote:. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

So the Council is clearly saying "that the wages of sin is death".  Animals and plants could have died (thus fitting in an evolutionary framework) , but humans (those with rational souls) could not before the Fall. 
Reply
#19
(05-24-2010, 01:58 PM)James02 Wrote: X-ray diffraction allowed us to come up with this:


Did you catch the 7000 rpm?  Did you notice the special shape of the mold to make ATP?  And you want to say this evolved?   :laughing: :laughing:
Ask a tool engineer his opinion of that.

This is a good clip too:

This doesn't run unless you let it download (red bar), then  hit pause and play.  Maybe the atheist hacked it.  There are a lot of these animations.  Just google cell machine intelligent design.

On FOSSIL fuels, this is "A" proof of old earth, since according to the theory, it takes 40 million years to turn dinosaurs into crude oil.  This has been debunked.  Even if you wait 1 billion years, organic goo, highly oxidized, low chemical potential waste won't turn into highly reduced, high chemical potential crude oil.  However, at conditions in the mantle, methane will turn into crude oil in about 20 minutes.  This doesn't prove young earth, it just means there is one less proof for old earth.

I dread ATP synthase.  I still have nightmares about my biochemistry final...

The video is well-done and a good model of a functioning synthase molecule.  However, it doesn't give the whole story.  I think the big error is to say that life couldn't have begun without a fully functioning ATP synthase molecule is false.  ATP is a high energy molecule used by cells to drive biochemical reactions.  However, it is not the only source of energy.  In certain circumstances, cells can use GTP and a host of other molecules (I believe some amino acids fall in this group but my biochem is sketchy after a year in seminary).  In addition, while I don't have the figures in front of me, I think it might be possible for the phosphorylation of adenosine diphosphate to occur without the synthase enzyme.

What does this mean for cells that existed before the evolution of the synthase enzyme?  First, cells could have used other less efficient biomolecules for to drive biochemical reactions.  Secondly, even if ATP has been used consistently, I believe it is possible for it have been created without a synthase enzyme.  Of course, these early cells would not have been very efficient.  I suppose that's why scientists say it took well over a billion years for the first eukaryotes to come about.  You had a bunch of very living, but unefficient cells that could perform basic functions and succeeding generations would only slowly become more efficient.  However, once the synthase molecule evolved, you got more highly efficient organisms which contributed to "rapid" diversification and evolution.
Reply
#20
(06-10-2010, 01:09 AM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote:
(05-21-2010, 04:55 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-13-2010, 05:18 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: There's also other problems, like the fact that death entered the world because of sin. There's no amount of lipservice to evolution that can "reconcile" that.

I have read the creation story many times recently, and I don't see where it tells us that there was no death in the garden - to say nothing of the world outside (which is alluded to after God has created the garden). It seems like man's efforts became doomed to failure, but I cannot find any reference to physical death being non-existent outside of the garden. Perhaps the Church has taught on this. Not sure on this one.

Because I do not wish to recapitulate this subject already extensively covered here, the scope of this thread, therefore, is the state of the world before original sin as well as the effects of original sin.

The Church has taught on this.  From the decree on Original Sin from the Council of Trent:

Quote:. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

So the Council is clearly saying "that the wages of sin is death".  Animals and plants could have died (thus fitting in an evolutionary framework) , but humans (those with rational souls) could not before the Fall. 

Thank you so much for your post. This was what I was looking for. Yes, it seems that man couldn't die before the fall - of that much I was certain - but it does not say that plants and animals couldn't in the garden, nor does it say that they couldn't outside of the garden (the garden was a place of a special paradisiacal state). This would concur with the statements from Pope Pius XII who seemed to concede to the possibility of man evolving from matter from the sea. Genesis does, after all, say that God brought all life from the sea.

If it were true, it would only strengthen the faith of those familiar with Genesis (that the ancient book would mention the origins of life well before scientists had any idea what we were dealing with is astounding). For others, though, who did not understanding, it would test their beliefs and it would mean a loss of faith in the thousands.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)