Poll: The creation narrative in Genesis is scientifically and historically accurate down to the last detail, including 6 literal 24-hour days. Yes or No?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
20
0%
0 0%
12
0%
0 0%
75
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Are Trads Required to be Biblical Literalists?
#31
Doesn't Evolution contradict Adam and Eve, directly. Doesn't a Catholic who thinks Genesis needs to be explained have to reconcile Evolution with that, and especially because Darwin wrote that if the "missing links" are not found quickly his theory is hogwash. Nearly 200 years and not one iota of eveidence for any missing links. How can Evolution be reconciled with the genetic evidence that we came from a single woman 12,500 or so years ago ?

Biology ain't physics. it has no elegant foundational mathamatics. There is no inverse square law, it's all bits and pieces with out any over arching laws. At best it is anecdotal. Dawkins says that DNA is like information theory. That's telephony baloney. Information theory is about the quantity of information that can be put through a wire with out any consideration about the information. Genetics is all about the quality of the information and the quantity. Natural Selection is negative genetics. By the action of the predator it removes the many varied DNA limiting the species to a single kind. This is why he believes in the theory of aliens, it is his substitute for God, as in Aliens in the gaps.

Now for the whacky physicists. Doesn't Quantam physics lead to multiple universe with multiple starts. God said he did it once. String theory
as I remeber has thirteen strings outside of time and the universe which obviates thirteen times for their "big bangs". The big bang itself is an attempt to bolster the mistaken theory of Evolution. Remember these guys are all Atheists and deny God's existence except in some condescending way referring to the unwashed and unedjucated (for effect). They are in an echo chamber.

tim

tim
Reply
#32
(05-07-2011, 10:53 AM)timoose Wrote: Doesn't Evolution contradict Adam and Eve, directly. Doesn't a Catholic who thinks Genesis needs to be explained have to reconcile Evolution with that, and especially because Darwin wrote that if the "missing links" are not found quickly his theory is hogwash. Nearly 200 years and not one iota of eveidence for any missing links. How can Evolution be reconciled with the genetic evidence that we came from a single woman 12,500 or so years ago ?

Biology ain't physics. it has no elegant foundational mathamatics. There is no inverse square law, it's all bits and pieces with out any over arching laws. At best it is anecdotal. Dawkins says that DNA is like information theory. That's telephony baloney. Information theory is about the quantity of information that can be put through a wire with out any consideration about the information. Genetics is all about the quality of the information and the quantity. Natural Selection is negative genetics. By the action of the predator it removes the many varied DNA limiting the species to a single kind. This is why he believes in the theory of aliens, it is his substitute for God, as in Aliens in the gaps.

Now for the whacky physicists. Doesn't Quantam physics lead to multiple universe with multiple starts. God said he did it once. String theory
as I remeber has thirteen strings outside of time and the universe which obviates thirteen times for their "big bangs". The big bang itself is an attempt to bolster the mistaken theory of Evolution. Remember these guys are all Atheists and deny God's existence except in some condescending way referring to the unwashed and unedjucated (for effect). They are in an echo chamber.

tim

tim

Our bodies physically evolved, but we all still come from one pair that were the first humans -- in some way God intervened possibly to change things physically, but certainly to create an immortal soul in His image in them.  they were in a sinless state but fell.

That's how I reconcile evolution with Adam and Eve.
Reply
#33
(05-06-2011, 10:04 PM)Raskolnikov Wrote: Trads are more faithful to the Catholic tradition of biblical hermeneutics by not being biblical literalists. The literal-fundamentalist method is a Protestant innovation and it has been condemned by the Holy See.

Agree.
Reply
#34
(05-07-2011, 10:53 AM)timoose Wrote: Doesn't Evolution contradict Adam and Eve, directly. Doesn't a Catholic who thinks Genesis needs to be explained have to reconcile Evolution with that, and especially because Darwin wrote that if the "missing links" are not found quickly his theory is hogwash. Nearly 200 years and not one iota of eveidence for any missing links. How can Evolution be reconciled with the genetic evidence that we came from a single woman 12,500 or so years ago ?

When a child asks "where do babies come from?"  a parent, depending on the situation, might answer "they are created by God" or explain the facts of life.  Is either of those answers false?  Do they contradict each other?  I think it no harder to reconcile Genesis with the theory of evolution.  I agree that Darwin's formulation of the theory is not exactly right, but I see nothing inherently wrong with having parallel theological and physical explanations for the same phenomenon.
Reply
#35
(05-07-2011, 10:53 AM)timoose Wrote: Doesn't Evolution contradict Adam and Eve, directly. Doesn't a Catholic who thinks Genesis needs to be explained have to reconcile Evolution with that, and especially because Darwin wrote that if the "missing links" are not found quickly his theory is hogwash. Nearly 200 years and not one iota of eveidence for any missing links. How can Evolution be reconciled with the genetic evidence that we came from a single woman 12,500 or so years ago ?

Biology ain't physics. it has no elegant foundational mathamatics. There is no inverse square law, it's all bits and pieces with out any over arching laws. At best it is anecdotal. Dawkins says that DNA is like information theory. That's telephony baloney. Information theory is about the quantity of information that can be put through a wire with out any consideration about the information. Genetics is all about the quality of the information and the quantity. Natural Selection is negative genetics. By the action of the predator it removes the many varied DNA limiting the species to a single kind. This is why he believes in the theory of aliens, it is his substitute for God, as in Aliens in the gaps.

Now for the whacky physicists. Doesn't Quantam physics lead to multiple universe with multiple starts. God said he did it once. String theory
as I remeber has thirteen strings outside of time and the universe which obviates thirteen times for their "big bangs". The big bang itself is an attempt to bolster the mistaken theory of Evolution. Remember these guys are all Atheists and deny God's existence except in some condescending way referring to the unwashed and unedjucated (for effect). They are in an echo chamber.

tim

tim

Make that a state and corporate supported echo chamber!  :laughing:

Reply
#36
Do you understand that if we are evolved and then God intervened at a specific point giving us immortal souls you are positing God in the gaps. This denies ex nihilo. God thought and it was made. If the earth and all it's flora and fauna is on a course and God intervenes at certain points only, then it is a clock work. Me and several others here are engineers but God is not.

I firmly believe we can discover many of the laws of the universe according to the amount of intelligence left in us after the fall. I also believe we should pursue that goal. But, but, there is an elegance which is revealed when we have hit on a true piece of the puzzle. When a theory has to goldbergized and appendages must be added at anywhere on a theory, you can be pretty sure it's an artifact.

Physics has these: EMF =I*R, or F = M*A, these are elegant. Positing that a theory is the truth begs it's proof. There are no proofs in Biology. I know of nothing in Biology or Chemistry which are elegant. The only other science with this elegance is Math. We have come to this point where we can manipulate numbers with Calculus but can not explain them analogously so all can understand. This is our limit. If you can not quantify in words so most can understand it's arcane and un-understandable. Dare I say gnostic or alchemical ?

Our brains are not more evolved than our Ancestors, we have more knowledge. So much so we have invented ways to "keep" it outside of ourselves because we can not retain it all. If we took a homo-sapien-sapien from 5,000 BC, cleaned him or her up, sent him or her  to school, inculturated him or her, he or she would be the same as us. Certainly we know more things by addition through discovery, not by evolution. Our modern languages are less limited, but remember they invented them, not us. We fix them little by little. This shows our limitations, and also our learning by our additions to knowledge.. We rebelled and God banished our parents taking away their preternatural intelligence, but in no way whatsoever did He limit our stupidity.

tim
Reply
#37
Tim,

Pius XII addresses some of these issues / concerns in Humani Generis  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

I confess to being a bit of an “agnostic” on this issue (is the Genesis creation account “literal”?), though I am prone to think there are probable “more of the story details” to be discovered by human scientific investigation.

For me it is similar to the filioque issue with the Nicene Creed.  I believe in One God, three Divine Persons: The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost.  Who the Holy Ghost proceeds from through , over , under , around

I have recited the Creed in English, both with and without the filioque, I have sung it in Latin (with the filioque) and in Greek (without the filioque), and however I do it, I still believe in One God, three Divine Persons: The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost.  My belief in, and concept of, the mystery of the Holy Trinity doesn’t change.

As I mentioned in reply #5
Quote:Whether the actual creation of the world happened in six days, six decades, six centuries, or six millennia I don’t know, I don’t care, and it doesn’t matter to me, or my faith.

Whether Adam came from the earth and Eve from the rib, or they were beamed down from the celestial kingdom, or at some point two primordial human ancestors were infused with souls I don’t know, I don’t care, and it doesn’t matter to me, or my faith.

What the Church requires us to believe is that God is the Creator of all things (First Cause) and that Adam and Eve were the first parents of the human race (as stated in the citations from the Baltimore Catechism I gave in reply #5).  The details are freely left to theological and scientific inquiry, as permitted by the Church, and under Her guidance (ref. Humani Generis).
Reply
#38
Moneil, we are essentially saying the same thing, but Evolution has failed. It only works as natural selection which the biologists admit isn't evolution. I'm dead set against beating a dead horse. That's all I'm saying. Further basic scientific inquiry will reveal a better solution which fits more of the known facts, until then we need to get off the dead horse and see if we can find another which can carry us a litttle further.

tim
Reply
#39
If a catholic is required to do something, why do we need to differentiate between a trad and a non-rtad.  We are Catholics first.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#40
After studying protein folding, and viewing the work done on molecular machines on Youtube videos, I can not give any credence to evolution.  It is preposterous.  However, I mostly believe in old earth.  I say mostly because of recent fails in modern science, like Global Warming and finding deep oil in the Gulf outside of the "hydrocarbon window". 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)