Evolution

[KOIfriend]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1622784' date='Aug 9 2008, 05:25 PM']Oh, I don't like that one at all. The first picture fits my image of you ever so much better. [/quote]

I don't pick my nose.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I have no proof of that.

[KOIfriend]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1622795' date='Aug 9 2008, 05:31 PM']I have no proof of that.[/quote]

I do have a fishing poll though. I love fishing!

[Farsight one]

So anyways. Does anyone have something of substance to add to what we were talking about before this got off track? Questions?

[quote name='mortify' post='1616662' date='Aug 3 2008, 08:11 PM']Peace in Christ
Dr Ott was familiar with the theory of evolution and addressed it in the book I quoted from.[/quote]If he addressed it in the book, then I must ask a question. The good doctor was an expert on doctrines and papal declarations and the like. But, from this sentence, I gather that conveying the meaning of the popes was not his goal in this book, am I right? In which case, can you really accept it for what you want it to be? To me, that seems like a Calculus expert writing a book on theoretical math, and you attempting to learn Calculus from it. Can you clarify, because I clearly have not read the book myself?

[iheartjp2]

Yes, it's compatible with the Church's teachings if God did it.
No, there's no sufficient scientific evidence to believe it so no one should bother.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1623361' date='Aug 10 2008, 10:00 AM']Yes, it's compatible with the Church's teachings if God did it.
No, there's no sufficient scientific evidence to believe it so no one should bother.[/quote]
Why do people keep saying that there isn't sufficient evidence when evolution has been DIRECTLY OBSERVED hundreds of times over?

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1623495' date='Aug 10 2008, 12:24 PM']Why do people keep saying that there isn't sufficient evidence when evolution has been DIRECTLY OBSERVED hundreds of times over?[/quote]

Breeding fruit-flies through multiple generations and getting a different variety of the same thing isn't evolution, at least not on the quack scale that some people are pushing it to be. There has been and there never will be an observable evidence of a newt becoming a lion or a polar bear becoming a penguin over multiple mutations. When Darwin came up with that quack theory, there wasn't even sufficient knowledge of the cell. When that came, so did the death of the legitimacy of the theory of evolution. Richard Dawkins and the like can't even give a viable explanation besides putting together a few "suppose this"s and "imagine that"s and with a slight of hand, some smoke and mirrors, voila! The theory of evolution is "proven". The theory of evolution has never been proven, and if so, why is there still an ongoing debate? The only way it's still going is because those who need it to be true to push their wacky view of the universe on us want it to keep going on until those who have the brains and the courage to fight it just sit down and shut up, which isn't going to happen.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1626606' date='Aug 14 2008, 12:51 AM']Breeding fruit-flies through multiple generations and getting a different variety of the same thing isn't evolution, at least not on the quack scale that some people are pushing it to be.[/quote]First of all, fruit flys are only one tiny example. Second, you're talking about the difference between mIcro and mAcro evolution, right? Unfortunately, this is only one of scale. Saying that mIcroevolution is possible but mAcroevolution is not is akin to saying it's possible to walk a meter but not a kilometer. If you start walking meters, eventually, you will have walked a kilometer unless some outside force stops you. Likewise, if changes occur on a mIcro scale, eventually, they will appear on a mAcro scale unless some outside force stops it.

[quote]There has been and there never will be an observable evidence of a newt becoming a lion or a polar bear becoming a penguin over multiple mutations.[/quote]This is an amusing statement every time I hear it because if a newt ever did begat a lion or a polar bear begat a penguin, that would throw evolutionary theory completely into question. And I don't mean they'd have to rework it to make things fit. I mean they'd pretty much have to throw it out the window and start looking into concepts similar to intelligent design. So you say it'll never happen, but really, you should be hoping that it does.

[quote]When Darwin came up with that quack theory, there wasn't even sufficient knowledge of the cell.[/quote]It might shock you to learn this, but Darwin didn't actually come up with it. In fact, Origin of Species mentions it only once. In reality, the general concept of evolution has been around since before the birth of Christ.

[quote]When that came, so did the death of the legitimacy of the theory of evolution. Richard Dawkins and the like can't even give a viable explanation besides putting together a few "suppose this"s and "imagine that"s and with a slight of hand, some smoke and mirrors, voila![/quote]And now I must say that it is obvious you know nothing about evolution. for one, with comprehension of the cell came mounds upon mounds of evidence that actually supports evolution. For another reason, there are no suppositions when it comes to evolution. It is tested and understood like any and every other scientific theory. Though, we are probably like minded in our dislike of Dawkins.

[quote]The theory of evolution is "proven". The theory of evolution has never been proven, and if so, why is there still an ongoing debate?[/quote]That is a question you should be asking yourself - why IS there an ongoing debate? That's because people up and decided one day that hundreds of thousands of scientists who have devoted their entire lives to understanding biology, geology, and the like, aren't as credible as average Joe high school graduate's personal comprehension of a small portion of less than a percent of the total data on the subject.

You listen to the experts on theology. You listen to the experts on chemistry. You lisen to the experts on mathematics. You listen to the experts on literature. Why, all of a sudden, do you decide that the experts in biology should be not only rejected, but accused of intentional disinformation and inflation of facts but continue to accept the words of the experts in pretty much every single other school of knowledge on the entire planet?

[quote]The only way it's still going is because those who need it to be true to push their wacky view of the universe on us want it to keep going on until those who have the brains and the courage to fight it just sit down and shut up, which isn't going to happen.[/quote]Now I'm not saying you're stupid, but clearly, when it comes to evolution, it is not brains you are using to fight it. One only needs to give a casual read to your post to know that it is emotion that drives you in regards to evolution. And courage? Be careful not to confuse that with being stubborn. I used to do that quite a bit.

Be honest with yourself - how can you possibly believe that something is wrong when you know almost nothing about it? Doesn't it frustrate you when anti-Catholics try and tell you your beliefs are wrong when they don't even understand them? And if so, how can you consider yourself fair minded when you do the exact same thing to evolutionists?

Edited August 14, 2008 by Farsight one

[pan!c139]

I believe evolving is compatible and is scientifically proved. But not evolution.

God had a plan for us, and that was not to start out as monkeys. We were always human beings, nothing less. Animals have no free will, and act purely by instinct. We, however, can choose between right and wrong and can control our desires.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='pan!c139' post='1626635' date='Aug 14 2008, 02:22 AM']I believe evolving is compatible and is scientifically proved. But not evolution.

God had a plan for us, and that was not to start out as monkeys. We were always human beings, nothing less. Animals have no free will, and act purely by instinct. We, however, can choose between right and wrong and can control our desires.[/quote]I'm a little confused at the "we were always human beings" line. You're saying "we were always us". Yes. Of course, humans have always been humans. I guess I just don't understand the point you're trying to make.

And fyi - evolutionary theory doesn't state that we evolved from monkies. It says we share a common anscestor with apes.

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1626654' date='Aug 14 2008, 03:52 AM']I'm a little confused at the "we were always human beings" line. You're saying "we were always us". Yes. Of course, humans have always been humans. I guess I just don't understand the point you're trying to make.

And fyi - evolutionary theory doesn't state that we evolved from monkies. It says we share a common anscestor with apes. [/quote]

And some of us are more Ape then others! LOL!

I am not a Genetic Mutation, an accident!

[pan!c139]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1628314' date='Aug 15 2008, 04:40 PM']And some of us are more Ape then others! LOL!

I am not a Genetic Mutation, an accident![/quote]

Amen to that!


The "we were always humans" means that we didn't evolve from something less human...nor do I believe that monkeys came from the "same ancestor"...

[cmotherofpirl]

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others.

People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone.

Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.


The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.


The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.


Chronological Reading

According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the six days were standard 24-hour days.

Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.

That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).


The Topical Reading

This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different aspects of the environment.

On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.


Real History

The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).

It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.


Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).


Science and Religion

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp[/url]

[MakeYouThink]

Nice article,

But I am not a Genetic Mutation, an accident. God molded me with his own hands, and will continue to mold every human being with his own hands from now to the end of eternity.

Remember, one of the statements of the Bible not discussed with your article is it says all things mate and have children with their own kind. If were an 'evolved' Ape, why can't we have children with them?

Camels can with Lamas, and Wolves can breed with Dogs, horses with donkeys, but we can't have genetic offspring with Apes?

[Farsight one]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1628550' date='Aug 15 2008, 11:04 PM']Nice article,

But I am not a Genetic Mutation, an accident. God molded me with his own hands, and will continue to mold every human being with his own hands from now to the end of eternity.[/quote]Pardon, but where does evolution say you are an accident? Last I checked it made no claims either way. Whether made from dirt or made through evolution, God made you with a purpose. It's not how you're made. It's that you were made at all that tells you you have a purpose.

[quote]Remember, one of the statements of the Bible not discussed with your article is it says all things mate and have children with their own kind. If were an 'evolved' Ape, why can't we have children with them?[/quote]Well, we didn't evolve directly out of apes for one thing. What you're doing is taking the bible's meaning of "kind" and applying it to evolution. It doesn't work that way. Evolution doesn't even use the word "kind".

[quote]Camels can with Lamas, and Wolves can breed with Dogs, horses with donkeys, but we can't have genetic offspring with Apes?[/quote]Believe it or not, but I saw a special on tv once that suggests that we can. (ew) Evidence for this was an ape creature that a family had been taking care of for years. It walked upright like humans - chimps can do this, but it is painful and hard and this one walked upright 24/7. In fact, it's bone structure was different from a normal chimp's. And the kicker is that it had 47 chromosomes. Since a human parent would pass on 23 and a chimp(or any other ape for that matter) would pass on 24, that comes out to 47 - strongly suggesting that a chimp and a human mated. It really appeared to be a human/ape/thing. It smoked, ate dinner at the table with utensils, was more attracted to human women than chimps, but still couldn't talk and looked mostly like a chimp. I hope that never happens again, but it is interesting. (and fyi - they showed plenty of video footage of the actual ape - this is not some bigfoot style rumor)