Creation Evolution - Great video seminar
CS
Scott
"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3c862785$1...@News.Destek.net...
> Visit:
>
> http://www.evolutiondisproved.com
>
In our latest copy of The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition
(Catholic), there is a section titled "Reading Your Bible". It says:
15. How Do You Know?
"Walking into a modern library, you will find all the books neatly
arranged under fiction and nonfiction. It is not that simple in the
library called the Bible. How does one know whether one deals with
history or some form of figurative speech?
"To begin with, we should always be disposed to follow the teaching
authority of the Church. We should also consult renowned Bible
scholars who are experts in Hebrew literature. Sometimes, it is
secular science which gives Christians the lead to reconsider their
Bible understanding. The discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo made
Christians aware that Genesis 1 is not a sacred lesson in science but
a poem on creation (no. 7). Most scientists hold that the human
species has developed somehow from lower kinds of life. This
knowledge helped Christians to understand that Genesis 2 and 3 is not
a lesson in Anthropology, but an allegory, teaching us the lesson that
sin is the root of all evil (no. 16b).
"However, one problem remains: You may hear interpreters of the Bible
who are literalists or fundamentalists. They explain the Bible
according to the letter: Eve really ate from the apple and Jonah was
miraculously kept alive in the belly of the whale. Then there are
ultra-liberal scholars (outside the Catholic Church!), who qualify the
whole Bible as another book of fairy tales. Catholic Bible scholars
follow the sound middle of the road, keeping a balance between
fundamentalists and scholars who are too liberal. You may make your
own choice as long as it is not contrary to the teaching authority of
the Church."
In Part 7. Conditioned Thought Patterns, it says:
"Though inspired (guided) by God, the Hebrew authors were free to
choose their literary genres to convey the message. As a matter of
fact, these literary forms were conditioned by time and culture. Read
the well-known poem on creation in Genesis 1. The ancient Hebrews saw
the earth as a large plate with a huge vault over it. Above the vault
is God's place. This outlook conditioned Genesis 1. Do not be
shocked about this! We know that the sun neither rises nor sets;
nevertheless we go on speaking of sunset and sunrise, since we did
not know better for a long time."
A quote from Part 9. Poems in The Bible:
"Poetry, like any other meaningful writing, is a communication from the
writer to the reader -- usually the communication of a feeling as well
as of a thought. The poet wants to pack as much meaning as possible
in a few lines. That is why he uses figures of speech, since they
involve imaginative comparisons. But biblical poems in particular can
easily be misunderstood. Read them as poems and not as scientific or
historical reports."
CS
disprove it.
Plus Roman Catholic Church doesn't require one to believe in evolution.
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4yqh8.63164$NF7.153...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
Scott
"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3c8659a9$1...@News.Destek.net...
> It's not the Bible that disproves the evolution, it's the latest
scientific discoveries that
> disprove it.
The posters at talk.origins love hearing about the latest scientific
discoveries on evolution. Have you posted there yet?
> Plus Roman Catholic Church doesn't require one to believe in evolution.
>
The Church doesn't require anyone to believe or not believe in any
particular science theory. You're free to believe what you want in that
respect. It's when someone steps outside theory and attaches a
theological/philosophical opinion to a theory. For example, claims the
theory of evolution lead to atheism.
George V. Coyne, S.J.
http://www.meta-library.net/bio/coyne-body.html
http://www.meta-library.net/media/evolution.ram
http://www.meta-library.net/media/sci-theo.ram
http://www.meta-library.net/media/sci-theo2.ram
Scott
CS
> theory of evolution lead to atheism.
I believe that in most cases yes, this evil theory does lead many people (not all, but very many) to
atheism
and that's why I think it should be the number one priority of every Christian to fight it. It is
virtually impossible
to convince any sincere believer in evolution about existence of God.
Scott
"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3c866942$1...@News.Destek.net...
That maybe true but only for those whose personal image of God has been
concretized.
CS, are you Catholic?
Scott
CS
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6iuh8.63205$E74.155...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
Alan Ferris
So what of those who believe in evolution and are believers in God?
--
Alan Ferris
eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
Denizen of Darkness #42
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A pervert once again strikes.. posing as Duke......"
<granp...@earthlink.net> 21/01/02
-----------
"This does not belong in this post......It was copied or cut and pasted by
you......" <granp...@earthlink.net> 23/01/02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.arcerland.com
ICQ UIN: 12811297
Scott
"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3c86728c$1...@News.Destek.net...
> Yes, I am.
then I suggest you brush up on Catholic teachings and history.
CS, when you concretize your personal image of God, you ineffect create
idoiltry. It isn't for Him to conform to your image of what you desire Him
to be. It's the other way around.
For starters on the brushing up:
Saint Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430)
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Essays/augustin.html
it could've been written last week.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
F. Fundamentalist Interpretation
Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible,
being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and
interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it
understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which
excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its
historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of
the historical-critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific
method for the interpretation of Scripture.
The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the
Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of
Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in
Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.
The actual term <fundamentalist> is connected directly with the American
Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895. At this meeting,
conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism":
the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal
birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at
the time of the second coming of Christ. As the fundamentalist way of
reading the Bible spread to other parts of the world, it gave rise to other
ways of interpretation, equally "literalist," in Europe, Asia, Africa and
South America. As the 20th century comes to an end, this kind of
interpretation is winning more and more adherents, in religious groups and
sects, as also among Catholics.
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible,
the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its
five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in
an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach
might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points
of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and
salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind
of critical research.
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that,
refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical
revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the
incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks
to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit
that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that
this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors
possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to
treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the
Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in
language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention
to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the
biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over
long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical
situations.
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain
details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events
or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from
the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything
that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take
the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems
presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek
form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or
present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the "re-readings"
(<re-lectures>) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.
In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the
development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of
this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the
words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism
neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities
themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his
message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic
origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus
misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.
Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It
accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply
because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a
broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its
relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to
reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by
prejudices-racism, for example-quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.
Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone,"
fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition,
which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with
Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. It fails to realize that
the New Testament took form within the Christian church and that it is the H
oly Scripture of this church, the existence of which preceded the
composition of the texts. Because of this, fundamentalism is often
anti-church, it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and
liturgical practices which have become part of church tradition, as well as
the teaching function of the church itself. It presents itself as a form of
private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the church is founded
on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who
look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive
these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory,
instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an
immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so
many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual
suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses
the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human
limitations.
Scott
CS
have evolved
humans from apes if he wanted to, but did he really ? No, there is absolutely no evidence to support
it. It amazes me
that a Christian would defend the idea of evolution.
"Alan Ferris" <al...@ildana.com> wrote in message news:retc8u8hlh2qaeve7...@4ax.com...
DawnoftheForest
>From: "CS" nas...@nospam.com
>Date: 3/6/02 2:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3c866942$1...@News.Destek.net>
Since when is evolution an evil theory? Knowledge is not evil. Ignorance and
supersition may cause evil though, as in the case
of the Christian Right --- Dawn
CS
Please read the following:
The Scientific Case Against Evolution
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke08-20-01.htm
http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke08-21-01.htm
Did you know there were many saints who believed in 6 day creation ? There are also many scientist
who believe in creation also.
What's wrong with that? There is certainly no science to disprove it.
Evolution was invented solely for the purpose of explaining how the world could have come
to be without God. There is certainly no science in it. Evolution is not even a good hypothesis.
Also, Bible clearly teaches that there was no death before Adam sinned and this is were the trouble
for theistic evolution
begins. If evolution is true the death was already here even before Adam & Eve existed. This is
irreconcilable with the
Church's teaching. I think the Catholic Church should officially condemn this theory.
Frankly, I don't understand how can someone believe in God and in evolution. I mean yes, God could
have evolved
humans from apes if he wanted to, but did he really ? No, there is absolutely no evidence to
supportit. It amazes me
that a Christian would defend the idea of evolution.
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:MIuh8.63211$OC4.155...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
CS
> as in the case
> of the Christian Right --- Dawn
Or liberal left
Alan Ferris
>Frankly, I don't undestand how can someone believe in God and in evolution. I mean yes, God could
>have evolved
>humans from apes if he wanted to, but did he really ? No, there is absolutely no evidence to support
>it. It amazes me
>that a Christian would defend the idea of evolution.
You believe more fanciful things on faith.
Also you show your ignorance of Evolution. We and Apes shared a
common ancestor. Now wonder you are struggling with it.
CS
> Also you show your ignorance of Evolution. We and Apes shared a
> common ancestor. Now wonder you are struggling with it.
Apes or no Apes doesn't matter to me. There is no science to it
Scott
"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3c867b04$1...@News.Destek.net...
> Scott,
>
> Please read the following:
>
> The Scientific Case Against Evolution
> http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke08-20-01.htm
and for you, from another Catholic:
http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Behe.html
and Behe believes in evolution, anyway. It's not a good example from your
argumentive POV.
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke08-21-01.htm
>
and this is Front Page is suppose to be unbiased with regurads to science?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/dh/archive/bio_short.htm
> Did you know there were many saints who believed in 6 day creation ?
What does that prove? You told me your videos were all based on science.
What you've done here is a fallacy called:
Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
Definition:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a
point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is
inappropriate if:
-the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
-experts in the field disagree on this issue.
-the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
There are also many scientist
> who believe in creation also.
What is there creadibility?
>
> What's wrong with that?
A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument
from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.
>There is certainly no science to disprove it.
You can't prove a negative.
> Evolution was invented solely for the purpose of explaining how the world
could have come
> to be without God. There is certainly no science in it. Evolution is not
even a good hypothesis.
Someone should explain to JPII
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm his theology is flawed.
>
> Also, Bible clearly teaches that there was no death before Adam sinned and
this is were the trouble
> for theistic evolution
> begins. If evolution is true the death was already here even before Adam &
Eve existed. This is
> irreconcilable with the
> Church's teaching. I think the Catholic Church should officially condemn
this theory.
Whose church and whose authority do you make such a claim about what is
irreconcilable? Maybe you should campaign for the papacy.
>
> Frankly, I don't understand how can someone believe in God and in
evolution. I mean yes, God could
> have evolved
> humans from apes if he wanted to, but did he really ?
..easier than mud.
No, there is absolutely no evidence to
> supportit.
Nor is there evidence for humans having been made from mud. There is
evidence of being made from dust, though. Star dust.
It amazes me
> that a Christian would defend the idea of evolution.
>
Why? If you claim the latest scientific evidence disproves evolution.
Christian beliefs wouldn't be necessary.
What amazes me is how Saint Augustine's revalation about Genesis is so true
today.
Scott
CS
Q: Does this mean that the pope was endorsing evolution?
A: Actually, no. The CNS story has it right when it says: "His point was that evolution was now
accepted by a wide range of scientific disciplines doing independent research."
The native French-speakers inform me that if the pope had wanted to include himself among those
endorsing evolution, French idiom would have required him to use a different construction.
According to them, the way the sentence reads in French implies only that the evidence accumulated
over the last fifty years has led a group of people to a recognition of evolution as more than a
hypothesis, but the pope is neither including or excluding himself in that category, merely stating
that it exists. If he had wanted to include himself, he would have used a different construction.
Thus the pope's remark about the "recognition" of evolution as more than a hypothesis, according to
the native French-speakers I have consulted, should not be translated "leads us to recognize"
(implying that the pope is among those who so recognize it) but "has led to the recognition"
(implying nothing about who makes this recognition).
In fact, the native French-speakers say that the way the sentence is constructed in French suggests
that the pope was deliberately side-stepping the issue of whether he believes in evolution or not
and was merely stating a fact about how the theory is regarded in the scientific community.
So not even the Pope believes in evolution, if he did he would have made it clear. It is very clever
the way he said it.
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:sTvh8.63217$e26.156...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
Scott
"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3c868d9a$1...@News.Destek.net...
> This is from the link you posted:
>
> Q: Does this mean that the pope was endorsing evolution?
>
> A: Actually, no. The CNS story has it right when it says: "His point was
that evolution was now
> accepted by a wide range of scientific disciplines doing independent
research."
As I've already said, the Church is not in the business of telling Catholics
what science they may or maynot believe in.
>
> The native French-speakers inform me that if the pope had wanted to
include himself among those
> endorsing evolution, French idiom would have required him to use a
different construction.
>
> According to them, the way the sentence reads in French implies only that
the evidence accumulated
> over the last fifty years has led a group of people to a recognition of
evolution as more than a
> hypothesis, but the pope is neither including or excluding himself in that
category, merely stating
> that it exists. If he had wanted to include himself, he would have used a
different construction.
..."more than a hypothesis" equals a theory.
>
> Thus the pope's remark about the "recognition" of evolution as more than a
hypothesis, according to
> the native French-speakers I have consulted, should not be translated
"leads us to recognize"
> (implying that the pope is among those who so recognize it) but "has led
to the recognition"
> (implying nothing about who makes this recognition).
>
> In fact, the native French-speakers say that the way the sentence is
constructed in French suggests
> that the pope was deliberately side-stepping the issue of whether he
believes in evolution or not
> and was merely stating a fact about how the theory is regarded in the
scientific community.
>
>
>
> So not even the Pope believes in evolution, if he did he would have made
it clear.
another fallacy. Just because the pope didn't state his personal opinion
doesn't mean you can infer what he thinks.
Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Definition:
Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven
false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that
since something has not been proven true (the pope stating he believes in
evolution), it is therefore false (the pope must then not believe in
evolution). (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes
that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.)
"Lack of proof is not proof."
It is very clever
> the way he said it.
That's because the Vatican isn't stupid. The Pope was being careful to not
officially endorse a specific scientific theory.
Scott
CS
> There are also many scientist
> > who believe in creation also.
> What is there creadibility?
What is Darwins credibility ? Do you know he studied to be a preacher ?
He certainly wasn't a scientist and yet it doesn't stop you from believing his nonsense.
> > Also, Bible clearly teaches that there was no death before Adam sinned and
> this is were the trouble
> > for theistic evolution
> > begins. If evolution is true the death was already here even before Adam &
> Eve existed. This is
> > irreconcilable with the
> > Church's teaching. I think the Catholic Church should officially condemn
> this theory.
>
> Whose church and whose authority do you make such a claim about what is
> irreconcilable?
> Maybe you should campaign for the papacy.
"The pope's real meaning, he said, was that it is now POSSIBLE to recognize that the theory of
evolution is more than a hypothesis.
> What amazes me is how Saint Augustine's revalation about Genesis is so true
> today.
What makes you think that Saint Augustine believed in evolution ? And even if he did, he wasn't
infallible. As I said many saints
believed in creation. What makes you think that Saint Augustine (provided he indeeed believed in
evolution) was right and other
saints were wrong ?
CS
> ..."more than a hypothesis" equals a theory.
>
OK, I give you this one. But is it a valid proven theory ?
But, since the pope is not a scientist his opininion doesn't make evolution a valid theory.
>
>
> It is very clever
> > the way he said it.
>
> That's because the Vatican isn't stupid. The Pope was being careful to not
> officially endorse a specific scientific theory.
I agree with you on this one.
>
> Scott
>
>
CS
Did death exist before Adam sinned ?
Bible clearly teaches that there was no death before Adam sinned and this is were the trouble
for theistic evolution begins. If evolution is true the death was already here even before Adam &
Eve existed.
How can this be reconciled with the Bible ?
Scott
"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3c869341$1...@News.Destek.net...
>
> > There are also many scientist
> > > who believe in creation also.
>
> > What is there creadibility?
>
> What is Darwins credibility ? Do you know he studied to be a preacher ?
> He certainly wasn't a scientist and yet it doesn't stop you from believing
his nonsense.
Who cares about Darwin in todays age? There's much more evidence today to
supporting the theory.
>
>
> > > Also, Bible clearly teaches that there was no death before Adam sinned
and
> > this is were the trouble
> > > for theistic evolution
> > > begins. If evolution is true the death was already here even before
Adam &
> > Eve existed. This is
> > > irreconcilable with the
> > > Church's teaching. I think the Catholic Church should officially
condemn
> > this theory.
> >
> > Whose church and whose authority do you make such a claim about what is
> > irreconcilable?
> > Maybe you should campaign for the papacy.
>
> "The pope's real meaning, he said, was that it is now POSSIBLE to
recognize that the theory of
> evolution is more than a hypothesis.
right....a valid theory for the origin of life.
http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/publicns.html
EVOLUTIONARY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, ed: R.J. Russell, W.R. Stoeger and F.J.
Ayala (1998), 552 pp., $24.95,?27.70 ISBN 0-268-02753
>
> > What amazes me is how Saint Augustine's revalation about Genesis is so
true
> > today.
>
> What makes you think that Saint Augustine believed in evolution ?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0005.html
That rationality imposes nothing less than full respect for the ability and
rights of reason. This is why Saint Augustine had already laid down the rule
that whenever a phrase of the Bible conflicts with what can be known by
reason with certainty, it is that phrase that should be reinterpreted
accordingly. Otherwise, he said, infidels would raise their laughter sky
high and rightly so. The rule of Augustine had already been quietly obeyed
in respect to the difference between the Bible's view of the earth as a flat
disk and the truth established by Greek science that the earth is
spherical....
The proper lesson was at long last drawn by the Catholic Church when she
left Darwin alone. Darwin is still resisted by many Christians on the ground
that god made all plants and animals according to their kind. They resist
for the wrong reasons a Darwin who himself failed to realize that the
strongest reasons on behalf of evolution were offered by the metaphysical
abilities of the human mind which he tried to discredit once and for all.
For only that mind can see an interlocking unity across all time and space:
from subatomic particles on to the human body itself, with no gaps in
between whatsoever.
Of course, evolutionary biology is far from having filled all those gaps.
Some of them, buried in the past, it may never bridge. But to try to fill
those gaps with a recourse to God and to the Bible, would be a most
unbiblical thing. First, the history of science has provided countless
examples of filling gaps of knowledge, each time exposing to ridicule a God
whom some ill-advised Christians let perch over this or that gap in their
science. They took improbabilities for impossibilities, which is an
elementary fallacy in reasoning......
Another reason for holding evolution to be true relates to the emphatic
affirmations in the Bible that all matter is good. By saying that matter is
good, the Bible certainly implies that matter is not evil, but it also says
that the edifice raised by God is as good as any other edifice which is
good. But an edifice is good only insofar as it is compact, solid,
consistent in its working. In other words, such a material edifice fully
obeys the rationality of its architect. Why not say all of this, and in a
superlative sense about the material universe made by God? Is God a
second-rate architect, is God a second rate materials physicist or chemist,
or molecular biologist who always has to improve on what he has done
already?
Indeed, all the praises accorded by materialists to matter should pale
beside the praises which Christians should accord to that same matter.
Herein lies the reason why a Christian should be an all-out materialist,
provided the human mind is excepted. This is why a Christian should be an
all-out evolutionist, provided the human mind and the human mind alone is
considered as a special creation of God.
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Essays/augustin.html
On the literal interpretation of scripture vis-a-vis the natural world
The relevant passage is from De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The
Literal Meaning of Genesis), AD 401-415, translated by John Hammond Taylor,
1982 in Ancient Christian Writers: the works of the Fathers in translation,
v. 41 (New York: Newman Press).
``Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of
the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable
eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about
the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he
hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian,
presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these
topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing
situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is
derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred
writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose
salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected
as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they
themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our
books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the
resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of
heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts
which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble
and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their
mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound
by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly
foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy
Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they
think support their position, although they understand neither what they say
nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]''
And even if he did, he wasn't
> infallible. As I said many saints
> believed in creation. What makes you think that Saint Augustine (provided
he indeeed believed in
> evolution) was right and other
> saints were wrong ?
Saint Augustine believed in Science.
I'm having a difficult time believing you're a Catholic, CS.
Scott
Scott
"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3c8694a6$1...@News.Destek.net...
> >
> > ..."more than a hypothesis" equals a theory.
> >
>
> OK, I give you this one. But is it a valid proven theory ?
a proven theory is nolonger a theory. it becomes a fact.
Scott
Scott
"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3c869687$1...@News.Destek.net...
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/OSV/9712jan.html
you won't win with me, CS. I have searched the net over the years on this
science topic in relation to Catholicism. I never loose.
Scott
Matt Silberstein
> Yes, I am.
Is the Pope then insincere about his belief in God? Or insincere about
his acceptance of evolution?
Matt Silberstein
> It's not the Bible that disproves the evolution, it's the latest scientific discoveries that
> disprove it.
Do you have something other than an ad for a videotape that shows
this?
{Cross-posted to talk.origins)
> Plus Roman Catholic Church doesn't require one to believe in evolution.
No, it does not require it. The Church does accept evolution and
thinks it fits quite fine with Church doctrine. You seem to know
better though.
Alan W. Craft
emanated:
>"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote ...
>>Frankly, I don't undestand how can someone believe in God and in evolution. I mean yes, God could
>>have evolved
>>humans from apes if he wanted to, but did he really ? No, there is absolutely no evidence to support
>>it. It amazes me
>>that a Christian would defend the idea of evolution.
>
>You believe more fanciful things on faith.
>
>Also you show your ignorance of Evolution. We and Apes shared a
>common ancestor. Now wonder you are struggling with it.
No human being has ever descended from a lower primate,
and I say that not out of pride nor shame. Rather, our physical
bodies are simply patterned after those of the lower primates. This
is why scientists will never find the so-called "Missing Link".
Alan
Scott
"Matt Silberstein" <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:76998029.02030...@posting.google.com...
Hello, Matt. What brought you over from t.o. I didn't know you read
a.r.c.r-c.
Scott
Larry Thibodeaux
I wouldn't say that it is "impossible", but it is certainly very difficult
and takes a long time. I have spoken to atheists on a psychological level
with honest logic and they have come to accept things over time that were
different than what they believe. The Holy Sprit is who needs to be prayed
to in order to break through that mind set.
--
________________
Larry Thibodeaux
http://www.catholic-truth.org
An explanation of Catholic
Truth by a Catholic layman
John Smith
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Jixh8.63226$AH7.157...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
OK, I read the whole thing and it doesn't give me a clear answer to my
question.
John Smith
> That rationality imposes nothing less than full respect for the ability
and
> rights of reason. This is why Saint Augustine had already laid down the
rule
> that whenever a phrase of the Bible conflicts with what can be known by
> reason with certainty, it is that phrase that should be reinterpreted
> accordingly.
Yes, I agree. If the Bible conflicts with what can be known by reason with
certainty. But evolution doesn't fit this category. Theory of evolution is
an insult to a normal intelligent human being. And I highly suggest that you
read some books on this subject. You have obviously been indoctrinated with
it. Have you ever read about any arguments against evolution or are you just
blindly accepting whatever is being served to you by the mainstream media ?
I unlike you have investigated both sides and came to the conclusion that it
just doesn't make sense whatsoever.
Scott
"John Smith" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:wBAh8.2227$L2.7...@eagle.america.net...
> > http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0005.html
> > That rationality imposes nothing less than full respect for the ability
> and
> > rights of reason. This is why Saint Augustine had already laid down the
> rule
> > that whenever a phrase of the Bible conflicts with what can be known by
> > reason with certainty, it is that phrase that should be reinterpreted
> > accordingly.
>
> Yes, I agree. If the Bible conflicts with what can be known by reason
with
> certainty. But evolution doesn't fit this category.
Since you made that claim that's for you to prove.
Theory of evolution is
> an insult to a normal intelligent human being.
Says you. But why should we believe you?
And I highly suggest that you
> read some books on this subject.
Oh, I have. How about:
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=1EXAKPKVLU&
mscssid=KH81TBQ0BJU18KKXU8G19C0CTN6TDX5B&isbn=0268027536
Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine
Actions
From the Publisher
This collection of twenty-two research papers explores the creative
interaction between evolutionary and molecular biology, philosophy, and
theology. It is the result of the third of five international research
conferences co-sponsored by the Vatican Observatory, Rome, and the Center
for Theology and the Natural Sciences, Berkeley. The overarching goal of
these conferences is to support the engagement of constructive theology with
the natural sciences and to investigate the philosophical and theological
elements in ongoing theoretical research in the natural sciences.
Introduction
Message to the Vatican Observatory Conference on Evolutionary and Molecular
Biology1
Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences2
Evolution and the Human Person: The Pope in Dialogue11
The Evolution of Life: An Overview21
The Hominid Evolutionary Journey: A Summary59
The Phenomenon of the Eukaryotic Cell79
Darwin's Devolution: Design Without Designer101
Evaluating the Teleological Argument for Divine Action117
Teleology Without Teleology: Purpose through Emergent Complexity151
The Immanent Directionality of the Evolutionary Process, and its
Relationship to Teleology163
Special Providence and Genetic Mutation: A New Defense of Theistic
Evolution191
Neo-Darwinism, Self-organization, and Divine Action in Evolution225
The Thinking Underlying the New 'Scientific' World-views251
Darwin's Revolution in the Origin of Species: A Hermeneutical Study of the
Movement from Natural Theology to Natural Selection281
Evolutionary Naturalism and Religion303
Biocultural Evolution: A Clue to the Meaning of Nature329
Biological Evolution - A Positive Theological Appraisal357
Original Sin and Saving Grace in Evolutionary Context377
Darwin's Gift to Theology393
Five Models of God and Evolution419
Beyond Biological Evolution: Mind, Morals, and Culture445
Supervenience and the Nonreducibility of Ethics to Biology463
Playing God with Our Evolutionary Future491
Evolution, Divine Action, and the Problem of Evil511
Contributors531
Name Index533
Subject Index539
You have obviously been indoctrinated with
> it.
I guess then you must think the Vatican has been indoctrinated too?
Maybe they need your help to straighten out them poor misguided folks in
Rome?
You could start with University of Norte Dame:
http://www.science.nd.edu/science_undergrad/courses/bios_courses.htm
Have you ever read about any arguments against evolution or are you just
> blindly accepting whatever is being served to you by the mainstream media
?
You mean by creation scientist?
> I unlike you have investigated both sides and came to the conclusion that
it
> just doesn't make sense whatsoever.
>
presumptuous of you.
Scott
steven
why do so many people come to this newsgroup with aboslutely no idea
of what science is, or how it works, and yet are convinced that
biology contains no science?
I would suggest that you read readily available journals such as
"Science" or "Nature", available in all public libraries at no direct
cost to you. They come out weekly, and contain a lot of science. Oddly
enough, great chunks every week are devoted to evolutionary biology,
palaeontology, geology and othe science topics.
kindest regards
Steven Pirie-Shepherd PhD
steven
> Visit:
>
> http://www.evolutiondisproved.com
If you believe kent Hovind...oh well
steven pirie-shepherd PhD
Alan Ferris
"These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each
generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil
record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn’t. Instead, it
shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully
complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time."
The fossil record so far found would account for less than 0.000001%
of all creatures that ever lived. So to base a theory on what is
missing is to say the least extreme!
I always wonder what those people think fossil finds are like. Do
they think that every creature that lived ended up as a fossil? That
every step of a creatures evolution was fossilised and therefore
should exist?
In reality the creation of a fossil is very rare and requires specific
events to take place.
To deny a theory based on a lack of fossils is like saying our planets
did not truly form as we have no records of other planets forming.
Science is based on more than what is missing!
Alan Ferris
And there is a scientific case for it. You cannot make that go away
by wishing. You have a right to reject a theory, but you have yet to
prove it wrong or false.
By the way, I assume you are going to claim the theory of Genesis by
God is the true answer, so I assume you have something that everybody
lack. Evidence for that? Else if not then you are in no better
position than your you place evolution.
Matt Silberstein
Every so often I look for someone discussing evolution in one of the
alt.religion.christian.* groups.
CS
>
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=1EXAKPKVLU&
> mscssid=KH81TBQ0BJU18KKXU8G19C0CTN6TDX5B&isbn=0268027536
>
> Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine
> Actions
So you selectively picked the books that fit your mindset.
Did you ever read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box ?
I suggest this video, this is done by the real scientists with the
credentials.
A Question of Origins
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005BGSS/qid=1015508739/sr=8-2/ref=
sr_8_1_2/102-2164099-7750541
>
> You have obviously been indoctrinated with
> > it.
>
> I guess then you must think the Vatican has been indoctrinated too?
> Maybe they need your help to straighten out them poor misguided folks in
> Rome?
> You could start with University of Norte Dame:
> http://www.science.nd.edu/science_undergrad/courses/bios_courses.htm
>
Please stop refering to Rome. Vatican never accepted evolution as a valid
theory.
> Have you ever read about any arguments against evolution or are you just
> > blindly accepting whatever is being served to you by the mainstream
media
> ?
>
> You mean by creation scientist?
I can see you have strong bias against anyone who believes in creation. I
suggest that you open up your mind.
CS
highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no religious motivations, who have
declined to concede that evolution has been proved. This is inconvenient for evolutionists who would
like to dismiss their opponents as Bible-thumping hicks and claim that questioning evolution is
tantamount to questioning the value or validity of science."
I guess the fact that there have always been quite a big number of highly distinguished scientists
who have declined to concede that evolution has been proved doesn't mean much to you. These people
are irrelevant to you.
But you should know that every scintific theory that is valid is accepted by just about all
scientist. The fact that there is such a big opposition
against evoluiton among many scientist proves that it far from being a fact.
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:YZBh8.9273$Yz4.188...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Scott
"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3c8771e6$1...@News.Destek.net...
> > Oh, I have. How about:
> >
>
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=1EXAKPKVLU&
> > mscssid=KH81TBQ0BJU18KKXU8G19C0CTN6TDX5B&isbn=0268027536
> >
> > Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine
> > Actions
>
> So you selectively picked the books that fit your mindset.
>
> Did you ever read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box ?
>
> I suggest this video, this is done by the real scientists with the
> credentials.
>
> A Question of Origins
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005BGSS/qid=1015508739/sr=8-2/ref=
> sr_8_1_2/102-2164099-7750541
I went to this link. It listed no scientists at all. Let alone one with
credentials.
But I did do a search on the title. What I found was:
http://www.morethanwords.net/origins.htm
Movie Stats:
Author/Lecturer:
Roger Oakland not a scientist
Commentators:
Richard Milton
Malcolm Bowden
Dr. Mark Eastman
Dr. Duane Gish
Chuck Missler
Dave Hunt
Chuck Smith
Produced by: Eternal Productions
Length: 75 min
and any web sites to these names
Roger Oakland not a scientist
http://www.understandthetimes.org/
Richard Milton we get no credentials listed
http://www.alternativescience.com/pseudoscience.htm
Malcolm Bowden Occupation - Consulting Civil and Structural Engineer
(semi-retired).
http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/indexx.htm
Dr. Mark Eastman we get MD
http://www.marshill.org/products.htm
Dr. Duane Gish
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-ross-debate.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_gish.asp
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/gish.html
Chuck Missler not a scientist
http://www.alienencounters.com/
http://www.alienencounters.com/chuckbio.html
Dave Hunt not a scientist
http://members.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num36.htm
http://www.nisbett.com/comparative/catholic/ect/article103-f.html
http://www.chick.com/information/authors/hunt.asp
Chuck Smith
http://www.calvarychapel.com/olympia/mediaroom/cc_mediaroom.htm
which includes a link to A Question of Origins realaudio online
http://www.understandthetimes.org/
http://www.understandthetimes.org/origin.ram
http://www.calvarychapel.org/library/smith-chuck/index.htm
This name is kind of interesting. Your sig initials are "CS" and last night
you relpied to me as John Smith. Interesting that you and Chuck here have
the same last name and your sig initials begins with "C" as in Chuck. But
that can't be because I asked you yesterday if you were a Catholic and you
said that you are one. But this Chuch Smith is a pastor at Calvary Chapel.
So he can't be you, correct?
>
>
>
>
> >
> > You have obviously been indoctrinated with
> > > it.
> >
> > I guess then you must think the Vatican has been indoctrinated too?
> > Maybe they need your help to straighten out them poor misguided folks in
> > Rome?
> > You could start with University of Norte Dame:
> > http://www.science.nd.edu/science_undergrad/courses/bios_courses.htm
> >
>
>
> Please stop refering to Rome. Vatican never accepted evolution as a valid
> theory.
oh I see, only the pope did.
>
>
> > Have you ever read about any arguments against evolution or are you just
> > > blindly accepting whatever is being served to you by the mainstream
> media
> > ?
> >
> > You mean by creation scientist?
>
>
> I can see you have strong bias against anyone who believes in creation. I
> suggest that you open up your mind.
>
I suggests you get a different sig
Scott
Scott
"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3c87...@News.Destek.net...
> "The first surprising thing Denton points out is that there has always
been a dissident faction of
> highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no
religious motivations, who have
> declined to concede that evolution has been proved. This is inconvenient
for evolutionists who would
> like to dismiss their opponents as Bible-thumping hicks and claim that
questioning evolution is
> tantamount to questioning the value or validity of science."
>
> I guess the fact that there have always been quite a big number of highly
distinguished scientists
> who have declined to concede that evolution has been proved doesn't mean
much to you. These people
> are irrelevant to you.
> But you should know that every scintific theory that is valid is accepted
by just about all
> scientist. The fact that there is such a big opposition
> against evoluiton among many scientist proves that it far from being a
fact.
>
If you claim there is such a big opposition, don't you then think it is up
to you to back up such a statement. Saying so doesn't make it so.
Scott
Alan Ferris
What missing link? The very term shows a total lack of grasp about
what evolution claims are. Nobody claims we descended from a primate.
But they do claim that primates and ourselves shared a common
ancestor.
Alan W. Craft
emanated:
>Alan W. Craft <mauri...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>>On Wed, 06 Mar 2002 20:27:26 +0000, Alan Ferris <al...@ildana.com>
>>emanated:
>>
>>>"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote ...
>>>>Frankly, I don't undestand how can someone believe in God and in evolution. I mean yes, God could
>>>>have evolved
>>>>humans from apes if he wanted to, but did he really ? No, there is absolutely no evidence to support
>>>>it. It amazes me
>>>>that a Christian would defend the idea of evolution.
>>>
>>>You believe more fanciful things on faith.
>>>
>>>Also you show your ignorance of Evolution. We and Apes shared a
>>>common ancestor. Now wonder you are struggling with it.
>>
>> No human being has ever descended from a lower primate,
>>and I say that not out of pride nor shame. Rather, our physical
>>bodies are simply patterned after those of the lower primates. This
>>is why scientists will never find the so-called "Missing Link".
>
>What missing link? The very term shows a total lack of grasp about
>what evolution claims are. Nobody claims we descended from a primate.
>But they do claim that primates and ourselves shared a common
>ancestor.
Would that ancestor not be a primate, and isn't that ancestor
supposed to be the "Missing Link"?
Alan
Alan Ferris
Hard to say if it would be classified as a primate. I was always
taught to think of it as a proto-primate.
The missing link is like saying there must have been something between
the first chicken and the proto-chicken, call it miss1, well according
to the missing link theory, there must then be one between miss1 and
the chicken....and on and on. With evolution, things changed very
slowly, also fossilisation is a very special process and occurred to
such a tiny fraction of creatures that if we did not have gaps in
fossil records something would be really amiss.
Now this does not say fossil records prove anything. But they do give
us a very good guess which is being refined all the time.
Alan Ferris
Scott
"CS" <nas...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3c862785$1...@News.Destek.net...
> Visit:
>
> http://www.evolutiondisproved.com
>
<bored and wasting a little time this morning so....>
Hey chuck you still out there? I'm a curious person so I decided to do a
quick search on your Dr. Hovid. Well guess were the search quickly took me?
It took me to Jack Chick's BS
http://www.chick.com/information/authors/hovind.asp . Not only that!!! I
also did a search for you at Jack Chick's site and looky here what I got:
http://www.chick.com/bc/2001/maryfraud.asp
"In a new video, Messages From Heaven, just released by Eternal Productions,
the claims of this being are brought into sharp contrast with the Bible.
Biblical authorities such as Chuck Missler, Dave Hunt, Raul Ries, and Chuck
Smith, discuss these contradictions between the audacious statements made in
the apparitions and biblical truth. Then it shows how this being has
actually identified herself."
shame on you....and the mother of Jesus too yet. And you told me you were
Catholic. How audacious of you! No?
Now I have a problem. When it comes to having someone to pick on in this
news group what am I going to do? I can't see how Alan is ever going to
measure up to Chuck.
Scott