Evolution
(12-30-2010, 03:54 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-30-2010, 07:26 AM)Nic Wrote:
(12-29-2010, 01:32 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-29-2010, 07:19 AM)Nic Wrote: Catholic "Thinker" - holding to evolutionism while trying to maintain Catholicism is what is truly "intellectually dishonest" when we have all the proof necessary from Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium - not to mention TRUE science backing it up.

I'm extremely suspicious of any "TRUE science" that starts out with the assumption that the book of Genesis is literal truth, and then picks and chooses its data to support that assumption. That's not how science works. A real scientist starts with an open mind, looks at all the data and goes wherever it leads him or her. There is a bunch of real scientific evidence (from many branches of science, not just the theory of evolution) supporting the fact that the universe and the earth are billions of years old, that life on earth has existed for millions of years, and that man has existed for much longer than the 6000-10,000 years given by those who interpret Genesis literally. This has nothing to do with evolution -- that's a separate question, and the scientific evidence for it is more speculative. But the notion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old is just laughable. If that's true, God went to a whole lot of trouble to plant evidence to the contrary, and why would He do that? Even the Church (and not just the modern Church -- this goes all the way back to St. Augustine) admits that we need to adjust our interpretation of Scripture to match observed reality, lest we become laughingstocks for the rest of the world.

The evolutionist starts with the assumption that God does NOT exist and the Bible is wrong, and then builds upon that.  Everything that you listed is based on that assumption.  If these scientists would take off their "evolution glasses" for just one moment, they would realize that the evidence actually supports what the Bible states.  Instead, they pick and choose evidence to accept and ignore to support their theory.  Just read that book by Dr. Walt Brown.  He begins his theory with only ONE assumption, which is FAR less than evolutionists begin with.  His main assumption is that the world at one time had massive amounts of water under the crust in interconnected chambers, about ten miles deep.  Everything else is explained scientifically from that one beginning assumption - it all flows in order from it.  THAT is true science, not fabricating evidence and picking and choosing.  Also, true science is observation.  How in the world can one observe so-called macro-evolution?

Good scientists do NOT start with the assumption that God does not exist and the Bible is wrong. They make no assumptions one way or the other about God and the Bible, because God and the Bible are outside the domain of science. Science deals with nature; God is supernatural. Therefore, science can say nothing meaningful about God -- and it doesn't try to. Ideally, it assumes nothing, except for the basic laws of physics and such -- things that have previously been tested and shown to be true.

Proposing, on the other hand, that the earth once had massive amounts of water in underground chambers is a HUGE assumption, and there is no reason to make it -- unless you are already convinced of the literal truth of Genesis, and you need a pre-existing condition to make things work out that way. And again, that's not how science works. You look at the data and draw conclusions from it. You don't just make things up. If the rest of the book depends on that silly assumption, I'm even more convinced that reading it would be a waste of time.

Evolutionists/atheistic science makes hundreds if not thousands of assumptions concerning origins!  Dark matter for one, which is the only way their "Big Bang" theory will work.  The layered strata and MANY other features of the earth absolutely SCREAM for the fact that there was a major, worldwide flood in antiquity.  There is only ONE scientific process that can create layering the way the rock strata is, and that is LIQUEFACTION.  Evolutionists have made things up for years now.  They could never figure out how there were marine fossils on the highest mountaintops, so they made up things to get around the most simple explanations to figure into their pet-theory.  For the longest time evolutionists tried to say that the fossils on mountaintops weren't fossils at all, they were just rocks that looked like fossils!  How's that for desperation!?  They cannot figure out how mountains have perfectly layered strata just like everywhere else - their "plate tectonics" models are impossible concerning the laws of physics.  Atheistic science definitely has an agenda - and that is to ignore any evidence that would give credence to the Biblical account, pick and choose other evidence and force feed it into their theory or straight-up manufacture evidence to meet that same end.

You're a Catholic for God's sake!  You would rather trust in modern atheistic science than what you should know to be absolutely infallible truth!  Scripture, Tradition and Magesterium have shut the door on the possibility of evolution and any fanciful interpretations of Genesis (like cramming billions of years in between two verses!).  If you cannot accept that truth and try to find ways to weasel around it, then I honestly don't know what else to tell you.
Reply
(12-30-2010, 04:44 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Grasshopper how do u woodpecker lip sacred scripture and choose what literal truth to belive literally and what literal truth to dismiss? U don't take genesis literally do u take the gospels literally? Did Christ really raise from the dead on the third day or is that jut an allegory to you?
Just trying to get how ucan dismiss the word of God in genisis and not dismiss the word of God in rhe Gospels

A complete answer would take more time and space than I have, but the short answer is that I follow the advice of the Church and take it all literally, except where I have a good reason not to. Much of Genesis is at odds with science, common sense, and itself (i.e., it has internal contradictions); it was written many hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of years after the events described in it, by people who did not witness those events; and it reads like myth/allegory.

The Gospels, on the other hand, are eyewitness accounts (or once-removed from eyewitness accounts); there are four of them, and they more or less agree (and where they don't -- such as the genealogies and the Nativity stories -- I'm skeptical); and although miracles like the Resurrection also defy science and common sense, there are other reasons to believe those stories (for example, would all of the Apostles have been willing to die for some story that they just made up?).

In general, the farther back you go, the less likely things are to be historically factual. Genesis wasn't written to modern standards of scientific and historical accuracy. As Quis said in another thread, "The Bible is about Truth, not facts." I'm not denying the Truth of it. But when some of the "facts" (especially in a "long ago and far away" tale like Genesis) are at odds with observed reality, I'm willing to believe that that particular section of the Bible was written as allegory rather than history. And believe it or not, the Church is OK with that. And so were ancient authorities like Origen and St. Augustine. I'm not making up my own interpretation like Protestants do -- I am following the guidance of the Church to the best of my ability.
Reply
(12-30-2010, 05:32 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-30-2010, 04:44 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Grasshopper how do u woodpecker lip sacred scripture and choose what literal truth to belive literally and what literal truth to dismiss? U don't take genesis literally do u take the gospels literally? Did Christ really raise from the dead on the third day or is that jut an allegory to you?
Just trying to get how ucan dismiss the word of God in genisis and not dismiss the word of God in rhe Gospels
-- I am following the guidance of the Church to the best of my ability.

Now that's a riot!
Reply
(12-30-2010, 05:34 PM)Nic Wrote:
(12-30-2010, 05:32 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-30-2010, 04:44 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Grasshopper how do u woodpecker lip sacred scripture and choose what literal truth to belive literally and what literal truth to dismiss? U don't take genesis literally do u take the gospels literally? Did Christ really raise from the dead on the third day or is that jut an allegory to you?
Just trying to get how ucan dismiss the word of God in genisis and not dismiss the word of God in rhe Gospels
-- I am following the guidance of the Church to the best of my ability.

Now that's a riot!

Not really. Everything he said was accurate.
Reply
(12-30-2010, 05:43 PM)Gladium Wrote:
(12-30-2010, 05:34 PM)Nic Wrote:
(12-30-2010, 05:32 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-30-2010, 04:44 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Grasshopper how do u woodpecker lip sacred scripture and choose what literal truth to belive literally and what literal truth to dismiss? U don't take genesis literally do u take the gospels literally? Did Christ really raise from the dead on the third day or is that jut an allegory to you?
Just trying to get how ucan dismiss the word of God in genisis and not dismiss the word of God in rhe Gospels
-- I am following the guidance of the Church to the best of my ability.

Now that's a riot!

Not really. Everything he said was accurate.

So throw out all of Scripture and Tradition just for what modern atheistic science, the new "infallibility, proposes to be true!  Whatever.
Reply
(12-30-2010, 05:32 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: The Gospels, on the other hand, are eyewitness accounts (or once-removed from eyewitness accounts); there are four of them, and they more or less agree (and where they don't -- such as the genealogies and the Nativity stories -- I'm skeptical)

You are skeptical of the nativity narratives? That seems very un-Catholic, especially during this season of grace in the Church's liturgical year.
Reply
(12-30-2010, 07:26 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(12-30-2010, 05:32 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: The Gospels, on the other hand, are eyewitness accounts (or once-removed from eyewitness accounts); there are four of them, and they more or less agree (and where they don't -- such as the genealogies and the Nativity stories -- I'm skeptical)

You are skeptical of the nativity narratives? That seems very un-Catholic, especially during this season of grace in the Church's liturgical year.

I'm skeptical about some of the details of the Nativity narratives, and about how the only thing they have in common is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Every other detail of the standard Nativity story that we all know and love is present in either Matthew or Luke, but not both, and the two narratives don't necessarily harmonize smoothly. But you're right, this is a bad time of year to bring that up!

However, if we want to have a discussion about that, it might be best to start a new thread -- it really has nothing to do with evolution.
Reply
A lot of the whole evolution conundrum isn't really even theological.  Anyone who understands simply logic and metaphysics should be able to realize that the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory (albeit a very flawed one), it relies upon plausibility rather than actual evidence.  If species did indeed successively evolve from other species,  then shouldn't we be able to successively be able to trace fossil records through the millenia?  Well, we can't.

What about radiometric dating or carbon dating?  Are the dinosaur bones 6,000 years old or 15 million?  Well, separate dating tests have given separate answers.  Evolution is NOT scientific in the least bit, the issue isn't science, it's logic.  Evolution has become the God of the Godless, it has become the temporal answer to the spiritual question, the end of the road.  It represents the black veil thrown over God by the supposed 'thinkers' of the world.  It's not accepted blindly by those with little to no knowledge of scientific processes simply because it's supported by science.  Every other branch of science other than some very complicated Quantum Physics relies entirely upon raw physical evidence, rather than conjecture.

Come on! Wake up!  Macro-evolution did NOT happen.  One only has to look around.  Trace evolution backwards: From lizards to fish, from fish to clusters of cells, from clusters of cells to a single cell, a SINGLE CELL.  Where did this cell come from? According to evolutionists, NON-LIVING MATTER.  Something has to be created! 

I hope you all see the flaw in evolution.
Reply
(12-30-2010, 07:46 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-30-2010, 07:26 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(12-30-2010, 05:32 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: The Gospels, on the other hand, are eyewitness accounts (or once-removed from eyewitness accounts); there are four of them, and they more or less agree (and where they don't -- such as the genealogies and the Nativity stories -- I'm skeptical)

You are skeptical of the nativity narratives? That seems very un-Catholic, especially during this season of grace in the Church's liturgical year.

I'm skeptical about some of the details of the Nativity narratives, and about how the only thing they have in common is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Every other detail of the standard Nativity story that we all know and love is present in either Matthew or Luke, but not both, and the two narratives don't necessarily harmonize smoothly. But you're right, this is a bad time of year to bring that up!

For what it is worth, I think it is likely that the the adoration of the Magi and the flight into Egypt (Matthew) occurred some time (even a year to two years) after Christ's birth, circumcision, and presentation (Luke). This does away with most (if not all) of the seeming discrepancies between the Matthew's narrative and Luke's.

The fact that both St. Matthew and St. Luke (neither of whom appears to have been familiar with the work of the other and the time of composition) record the virginity of our Lady, St. Joseph's marriage to her, and the location of the nativity in Bethlehem is very significant and testifies to the historical credibility of the narratives.
Reply
(12-31-2010, 12:51 AM)InNomineDomini Wrote: A lot of the whole evolution conundrum isn't really even theological.  Anyone who understands simply logic and metaphysics should be able to realize that the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory (albeit a very flawed one), it relies upon plausibility rather than actual evidence.  If species did indeed successively evolve from other species,  then shouldn't we be able to successively be able to trace fossil records through the millenia?  Well, we can't.

What about radiometric dating or carbon dating?  Are the dinosaur bones 6,000 years old or 15 million?  Well, separate dating tests have given separate answers.  Evolution is NOT scientific in the least bit, the issue isn't science, it's logic.  Evolution has become the God of the Godless, it has become the temporal answer to the spiritual question, the end of the road.  It represents the black veil thrown over God by the supposed 'thinkers' of the world.  It's not accepted blindly by those with little to no knowledge of scientific processes simply because it's supported by science.  Every other branch of science other than some very complicated Quantum Physics relies entirely upon raw physical evidence, rather than conjecture.

Come on! Wake up!  Macro-evolution did NOT happen.  One only has to look around.  Trace evolution backwards: From lizards to fish, from fish to clusters of cells, from clusters of cells to a single cell, a SINGLE CELL.  Where did this cell come from? According to evolutionists, NON-LIVING MATTER.  Something has to be created! 

I hope you all see the flaw in evolution.

And life coming from non-life - THAT IS THE BIGGEST ASSUMPTION OF THEM ALL!  And Grasshopper stated that the hydroplate theory, which operates of off one main assumption, had a flaw because massive amounts of water being under the earth in antiquity is a major assumption.  Hardly compared to the hundreds and thousands of assumptions made by evolutionists - assumptions which cross the border of science into fairytale and utter nonsense (breaking rules like the Law of Biogenesis in the process).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)