Evolution
(01-06-2011, 12:49 AM)InNomineDomini Wrote:
(01-04-2011, 05:28 PM)Nic Wrote:   Evolutionists needed extremely long time spans to make their unbelievable mechanisms seem even remotely workable. 

Yet still there is no fossil record.

Nor could there ever be one.

The word of God is infallible.
Reply
(01-06-2011, 01:37 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Nor could there ever be one.

The word of God is infallible.

Sorry, I hope by this you don't think I support evolution  ;D Just clarifying.
Reply
(01-06-2011, 01:46 AM)InNomineDomini Wrote:
(01-06-2011, 01:37 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Nor could there ever be one.

The word of God is infallible.

Sorry, I hope by this you don't think I support evolution  ;D Just clarifying.

I know you don't, Father.

A true Christian believes in Scripture and Tradition, not in fanciful theories that contradict our faith.
Reply
The significant result of evolution is speciation, where a type of pre-split and divided into several new groups, which are new species. There are several ways in which this happens.
Reply
(01-01-2011, 12:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(01-01-2011, 09:15 AM)Nic Wrote: That article on "wikipedia" (a known defender of true Catholicism lol - and one that you seem to endlessly link insteaed of traditional Catholic sources) …

Please show me where I have “endlessly” linked to Wikipedia. I have posted close to 200 times on this forum, and have referenced Wikipedia maybe half a dozen times – and two of those are just pointing people back to my original citation of this article.

Believe it or not, there are all kinds of good sources of information out there. Some of them are “traditional Catholic sources” and some are not. Wikipedia happened to be the easiest place to find what I was looking for, which was the history of the Church’s teaching on evolution and Biblical literalism. I believe all the quotes from Popes and Church documents in that article are accurate. If you don’t think they are, one of the great things about Wikipedia is that it gives sources and references, so you can check for yourself.

Quote:Pope Leo stated concerning Scripture:  Catholic scholars should not "depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires."  This alone reduces evolution and the fanciful interpretation of Genesis to dust, for there is no reason or necessity to interpret Genesis any other way but literally concerning previous Magesterium and the Tradition of the early Church Fathers.

You don’t want to admit it, but reason does make a literal interpretation of Genesis untenable, and later Popes have made that explicit. Modern science shows the earth to be much older than 6500 years, and since you seem to be ignoring it, I will repeat my assertion that this includes several different branches of science, and is independent of whether or not the theory of evolution is true. If you want to hold to a young earth theory, you have to throw out almost all of modern science, and then you better not ever get on an airplane or use a computer, because those technologies (as well as a host of others) depend on modern science.

Quote:The truth of Creationism is a huge part of the very foundation of our Faith.  Christ spoke of it, the Apostles, the early Fathers, the Medievals - all through history this truth has been proclaimed - only overshadowed by man and his arrogance in these modern times,for man needed a system of belief that totally removed God from the equation so man could worship himself.  This truth is almost intertwined into our very being, with the VAST majority of Americans holding to Creation over evolution in spite of it being force fed to them at every turn.

The majority of Americans are not Catholics, and the VAST majority of those who are, are not traditional Catholics. If you’re going to be a slave to majority opinion, you should start attending the Novus Ordo Mass, or better yet, become a Protestant – because that’s what the majority of Americans do. I don’t care about majorities – I care about truth. And I’m not willing to discard all of modern science just to preserve a literal interpretation of Genesis that even the Church no longer insists on.

We are starting to repeat ourselves, so I’m going to stay out of this thread for the most part. You’ve made your case; I’ve made mine. Others can decide who makes more sense. I’m going to start doing more productive things than arguing with you.

The old earth theory is based primarily on the theory of stratigraphy stipulated by Nicolas Steno. Based on his assumptions, he came to determine an age of the earth that contradicted the once accepted truth that earth was indeed a young planet. The theory of evolution is based on this flawed theory which in reality, is still taught in schools today. As Nic pointed out earlier, evolution takes the issue of time as a causative factor - something which in truth, should not be considered - and for that reason, requires long periods of time in order to work itself out. During the nineteenth century, paleontologists devised a method of determining the age of fossils using the principles of stratigraphy developed by Steno. As a result, emerged a geological and paleontological time scale that in reality was devised to confirm the hypotheses of evolutionary biology. Today, we are still living under this reality.

I think that, most of modern science is based on principles which in reality, may or may not be true. For example, I am convinced that the earth stands at the center of the universe but I am of the opinion that it cannot be proven scientifically with any certainty whether heliocentrism or geocentrism is true. However, geocentrism and its necessity, can be proven theologically. I am convinced that the foundations of many modern theories are erroneous. This does not mean however, that it is impossible based on them to arrive at any workable truths whatever. In the contrary, we can still understand much of the workings of nature and this, using our own natural powers. Nevertheless, we must come to the realization that, although science has realized scores of modern-day miracles, it is not infallible in the last analysis.
Reply
Consider this: evolution happened just like scientists say. The human body evolved gradually from apes, and when this primate had a large enough brain to accommodate a soul, the human soul was sent down and incarnated into this creature we call Homo Sapiens. If you take the Fall story as metaphorical, the pre-fall state would consist of human souls somewhere in paradise, and when the Fall happened, God sent the souls down into physical bodies. If the Garden of Eden was somewhere in heaven and not a physical place, evolution would actually make perfect sense. There is a non-Christian myth of the fall of man which I embrace (from the Hermetica), and it states in short that God created human souls and placed them in a certain level of the universe and instructed them to remain there and help Him with the creation. They created physical life on the earth, but then began to disobey God's orders, whereupon He created human bodies and cast the souls into them as punishment. Something like this is perfectly compatible with evolution, as is the Genesis account in my opinion.
Reply
(01-19-2011, 04:47 AM)Metatron Wrote: Consider this: evolution happened just like scientists say. The human body evolved gradually from apes, and when this primate had a large enough brain to accommodate a soul, the human soul was sent down and incarnated into this creature we call Homo Sapiens. If you take the Fall story as metaphorical, the pre-fall state would consist of human souls somewhere in paradise, and when the Fall happened, God sent the souls down into physical bodies. If the Garden of Eden was somewhere in heaven and not a physical place, evolution would actually make perfect sense. There is a non-Christian myth of the fall of man which I embrace (from the Hermetica), and it states in short that God created human souls and placed them in a certain level of the universe and instructed them to remain there and help Him with the creation. They created physical life on the earth, but then began to disobey God's orders, whereupon He created human bodies and cast the souls into them as punishment. Something like this is perfectly compatible with evolution, as is the Genesis account in my opinion.

How tight is that embrace?  Just curious.  :tiphat:
Reply
(01-01-2011, 07:55 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: What do you mean by genetically pure?  I don't know much about genetics.

I'm actually waiting for an answer to this question

on the other hand, what about the argument of the average height of human beings growing throughout the years, is that not evolution?
Reply
(04-04-2011, 06:11 PM)someguy Wrote:
(01-01-2011, 07:55 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: What do you mean by genetically pure?  I don't know much about genetics.

I'm actually waiting for an answer to this question

on the other hand, what about the argument of the average height of human beings growing throughout the years, is that not evolution?
Well, isn't the increase in height largely a result of better nutrition and the like? I would assume that something has to be the result of natural selection for it to be considered evolution. I am not an expert though.
Reply
(04-04-2011, 06:19 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(04-04-2011, 06:11 PM)someguy Wrote:
(01-01-2011, 07:55 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: What do you mean by genetically pure?  I don't know much about genetics.

I'm actually waiting for an answer to this question

on the other hand, what about the argument of the average height of human beings growing throughout the years, is that not evolution?
Well, isn't the increase in height largely a result of better nutrition and the like? I would assume that something has to be the result of natural selection for it to be considered evolution. I am not an expert though.

It is considered "micro-evolution", which is evolution within a species. That intra-specific evolution occurs is proved. The most controversial aspect of evolution usually concerns "macro-evolution", which is evolution between species. That inter-specific evolution occurs is but a theory and has not been proved.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)