Evolution
(12-31-2010, 08:01 AM)Nic Wrote:
(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).

I'll just make two observations here: (1) Carbon dating is only useful to about 50,000 years. It could not and would not ever give an age of 15 million years for anything -- that is way beyond its limitations. (2) In my recent posts in this thread, I have not said anything about evolution per se. I am arguing in favor of the age of the earth being much greater than 10,000 years. The scientific arguments for that make NO ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL, other than the consistency of the basic laws of physics.

If you're going to argue with me, please stick to statements that I've actually made.
Reply
(12-30-2010, 05:28 PM)Nic Wrote: 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.

Substitute "Protestant fundamentalist" for "Catholic" and this statement might make sense. The Catholic Church has never condemned the theory of evolution, and it no longer insists on a literal reading of Genesis. There is nothing un-Catholic about my views on these subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Ch..._evolution
Reply
No longer insists on a literal reading of Genesis? Care to explain + find support please?
Reply
(12-31-2010, 08:07 PM)InNomineDomini Wrote: No longer insists on a literal reading of Genesis? Care to explain + find support please?

Uh - he's Catholic.  Catholics have *never* "insisted" on a "literal" reading of the passages you're referring to.  Read the thread.
Reply
I was simply asking for supporting quotes for a blanket statement.  No need to become sarcastic or snippy please.
Reply
(12-31-2010, 08:07 PM)InNomineDomini Wrote: No longer insists on a literal reading of Genesis? Care to explain + find support please?

The Wikipedia article that I referenced contains all kinds of support for my statements, including quotations from Popes and official Church documents. Also see the long list of references at the end of the article.

I was taught evolution in a Catholic grade school in the 1960s. Some of that may have been the influence of Vatican II, but Pius XII had already softened the Church's stance on evolution and Biblical literalism well before Vatican II.
Reply
(12-31-2010, 08:28 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(12-31-2010, 08:07 PM)InNomineDomini Wrote: No longer insists on a literal reading of Genesis? Care to explain + find support please?

Uh - he's Catholic.  Catholics have *never* "insisted" on a "literal" reading of the passages you're referring to.  Read the thread.

IND- is a priest.  I think he deserves a bit more respect than this.
Reply
(12-31-2010, 08:57 PM)violet Wrote:
(12-31-2010, 08:28 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(12-31-2010, 08:07 PM)InNomineDomini Wrote: No longer insists on a literal reading of Genesis? Care to explain + find support please?

Uh - he's Catholic.  Catholics have *never* "insisted" on a "literal" reading of the passages you're referring to.  Read the thread.

IND- is a priest.  I think he deserves a bit more respect than this.

Stating a few simple facts is disrespectful?  It is not.  I did not mean any disrespect at all, but, frankly, someone who things that a "literal reading" of Genesis is part of Tradition is mistaken.

(I hope you will call for similar respect in other threads where "NO priests", "NO bishops", and the Pope are subject to the vilest and most slanderous insults with wild abandon.)
Reply
(12-31-2010, 09:16 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(12-31-2010, 08:57 PM)violet Wrote:
(12-31-2010, 08:28 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(12-31-2010, 08:07 PM)InNomineDomini Wrote: No longer insists on a literal reading of Genesis? Care to explain + find support please?

Uh - he's Catholic.  Catholics have *never* "insisted" on a "literal" reading of the passages you're referring to.  Read the thread.

IND- is a priest.  I think he deserves a bit more respect than this.

Stating a few simple facts is disrespectful?  It is not.  I did not mean any disrespect at all, but, frankly, someone who things that a "literal reading" of Genesis is part of Tradition is mistaken.

(I hope you will call for similar respect in other threads where "NO priests", "NO bishops", and the Pope are subject to the vilest and most slanderous insults with wild abandon.)

You addressed him directly.  Simply talking about a priest or bishop is a different matter entirely.
Reply
For what it's worth, I also thought that "Read the thread" was a bit snippy -- especially given that it's a 19-page thread. We are used to being a bit snippy with each other from time to time, but I agree that a priest deserves a little more respect. And even though I disagree with Father on these issues (evolution and Biblical literalism), I will be happy to discuss it respectfully with him.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)