[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Not going to bother debating it with you, it would be a waste of my time. The fact that you can criticise macroevolution for being unscientific while claiming that God created everything is utterly farcical and pathetic.[/quote]
both require the same step of faith in something more than what can be proven through actual experimentation.
What an ironic name to have…Rational Gaze. I don’t see any rationality.
The premise behind the scientific theory is to test any testable hypothesis false through experimental designs. Macroevolution is untestable, yet is accepted as almost a damn near fact. Yet the existence of God, which is also untestable, is just some fairy tale.
Complete and utter double standards.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Not going to bother debating it with you, it would be a waste of my time. The fact that you can criticise macroevolution for being unscientific while claiming that God created everything is utterly farcical and pathetic.[/quote]
both require the same step of faith in something more than what can be proven through actual experimentation. [/quote]
Agreed.
My username is a reference to a song by Meshuggah, not some claim to higher authority. But if you’ve already reduced yourself to criticising my choice of online pseudonym, then I will take that as an admission of defeat.
The creation myth is not a scientific theory and has no supporting evidence. Microevolution is a scientific theory, has a wealth of supporting evidence, and is even accepted by many theists as irrefutably true. Macroevolution is essentially microevolution over greater timescales. It is consistent with empirical data.
If you are seriously suggesting that it is more rational to base a theory on the origin of species on a holy book that is riddled with errors and inconsistencies than it is to believe in a theory developed from scientific observation then I pity you deeply.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
My username is a reference to a song by Meshuggah, not some claim to higher authority. But if you’ve already reduced yourself to criticising my choice of online pseudonym, then I will take that as an admission of defeat.
The creation myth is not a scientific theory and has no supporting evidence. Microevolution is a scientific theory, has a wealth of supporting evidence, and is even accepted by many theists as irrefutably true. Macroevolution is essentially microevolution over greater timescales. It is consistent with empirical data.
If you are seriously suggesting that it is more rational to base a theory on the origin of species on a holy book that is riddled with errors and inconsistencies than it is to believe in a theory developed from scientific observation then I pity you deeply.[/quote]
I have a feeling that all these errors and consistencies with the Bible is just something you heard from several people then it MUST be true.
Would you care to point out any of these errors? I would be more than happy to address them.
I’ve read the bible many times, actually. Off the top of my head I’ll think of a couple of glaring errors. Luke and Matthew describe the genealogy of Jesus in great detail, only to contradict themselves by saying he is the son of God making everything they’ve written meaningless. Then there’s the bit in Genesis which says God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, meaning that Cain and Abel are the only other people in existence. But after Cain kills Abel he goes to live in some other land and God says he will be cursed among men, which begs the question who was living in that land and where did they come from?
Anyway, I’m not interested in debating the bible, because the point is that creationism is not a credible theory in any sense, and it doesn’t matter how it’s dressed up.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
I believe the Bible makes clear when something is a metaphor and when something is literal. Since no where does the beginning of Genesis state that the creation “story” was just a story to illustrate mankind falling or other whatnot’s, I believe it is literal and anyone who claims God’s power cannot deny his ability to create the world in six days.
I also do not believe macroevolution and God’s creative power can go together, mainly because if evolution is a result of death (from the stressors of the environment) then that means death entered into the world before man, and therefore man was not the cause of sin. It also begs the question, if we evolved from a lower form of species, then in reality we are nothing more than animals, which is clearly in stark contrast to being created in the image of God.
I also realized I never stated a question…[/quote]
I don’t think any Christian, as well as I, are denying the ability of God to create the world in six days. I think what evolutionist are pointing to is that, truth cannot contradict itself. So, if science says that evolution is how the world came around, then it is perfectly plausible (G.K. Chesterton was not against the idea of evolution, and even said the same) that God created man slowly.
As well, the Hebrew understanding of the six days, the word days translates to something equivalent to “long time periods.” So, I tend to understand the creation story as one that is more about a deeper message than the three days, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope B16, before he became Pope B16) actually wrote a beautiful book on the subject called, In the Beginning.
[/quote]
You also have to look at the evidence science is using to base their claims (and also the fact that secular science…if you want to call it that…explicitly denies any form of devine being). The fossil record that we have of our evolutionary transition is small. Much of the earth remains uninhabited and unsearched. There are very well thousands of undiscovered species all all kinds, let alone several thousand of extinct species.
Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man. Just because there are similarities between species does not mean they share a common ancestor, like between us and chimpanzees or gorillas.
Anyways, this thread is not about such a topic that has no doubt been argued numerous times to no avail.
I say lets separate church and state. Then the government cannot corrupt or pervert the Word of God and still call it God’s will.[/quote]
How would you explain the fusing of chromosomes to create chromosome 2? Surely it can’t be coincidental that science believes humans evolved from a species then our genetics contain evidence to support a claim, can it? http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.
The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.
The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]
But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?
Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. You are making sweeping broad strokes. There are certain stories that the Catholic Church has not morally or absolutely made Dogma. Like the creation story, you can be a young earth or a evolutionist, like I am.[/quote]
I actually remember reading that the church lionized darwin initially, celebrating that he documented how god went about creating all the animals and such. Only recently has “creationism vs evolution” been a wedge issue.[/quote]
Yes, they loved them some scientist. The Church holds science against her bosom and isn’t disconnected from science. And, well I’ll point out that the fundamentalist are good at convincing some people of their opinion.
I’ll try and find a book written by a bishop who explains how the Church looks at evolution. [/quote]
It’s acceptable unless it insinuates the human soul isn’t divine, that’s the summary of it anyway. It’s almost a psuedo theistic evolution.
[/quote]
What do you mean by the human soul isn’t divine?[/quote]
My stance on the subject or in regards the church’s stance?
[/quote]
What you mean in your statement, “insinuates the human soul isn’t divine.”[/quote]
A scientist saying the soul doesn’t exist in the Christian sense.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Education>Abortion[/quote]
Agreed. Proper sex education, easy access to contraceptives, and the ability to provide for children > abortion.
However, the answer of the right is to not tell young people about sex at all, preach only abstinence, denounce condoms and allow only those who can afford it birth control, and, when (as a result of these practices) unwanted pregnancies happen, tell the woman “tough shit, deal with it”.[/quote]
Contraceptives like the pill are abortifacient.
[/quote]
No they are not-
They fake a pregnancy just enough so that no new fertile ova are produced. just as they would not be produced in the case of a real pregnancy.[/quote]
Okay, the Pill doesn’t prevent conception, it prevents implantation (most of the time, 4 out of a 100 still report pregnancy on the Pill). That’s called abortifacient
[/quote]
This is flat out wrong.
An abortifacient induces an abortion in mammals.
The pill prevents any ova to be produced that could be aborted.
No ova → nothing to fertilize → nothing to abort.
Now in those cases where this does not happen it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, but to call this an abortion is a bit fishy because a pregnancy starts when it does exactly that, and for very good reasons, because most ferilized eggs do not.
So to call a drug that does suppress ovulation and then prevents any fertilized ova to nest in the uterus which in all likelyhood they would not have done anyway an abortion is a stretch.
[/quote]
Actually, it’s the medical definition. At contraception a woman will show she is pregnant, it takes 7-8 days to implant.
http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html[/quote]
When Does Pregnancy Begin?
Although widespread, definitions that seek to establish fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy go against the long-standing view of the medical profession and decades of federal policy, articulated as recently as during the Bush administration. In fact, medical expertsÃ?¢??notably the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)Ã?¢??agree that the establishment of a pregnancy takes several days and is not completed until a fertilized egg is implanted in the lining of the woman’s uterus. (In fact, according to ACOG, the term “conception” properly means implantation.) A pregnancy is considered to be established only when the process of implantation is complete.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html
So AMA and ACOG beg to differ, ACOG claims that conception is only completed after the cell is implanted in the uterus.
“Pharmacists for life” might disagree but they are not exactly an unbiased source.
From a Catholic point of view it does not matter anyway, but from a technical point of view you cannot abort what does not exist.
[/quote]
So, it’s not a human until it attaches to a mother. I don’t remember that description in defining a human.[/quote]
Irrelevant, because that is not about the definition of human but about the definition of pregnancy.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Not going to bother debating it with you, it would be a waste of my time. The fact that you can criticise macroevolution for being unscientific while claiming that God created everything is utterly farcical and pathetic.[/quote]
He did either casually or directly.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
riddled with errors and inconsistencies[/quote]
Proof
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Not going to bother debating it with you, it would be a waste of my time. The fact that you can criticise macroevolution for being unscientific while claiming that God created everything is utterly farcical and pathetic.[/quote]
both require the same step of faith in something more than what can be proven through actual experimentation. [/quote]
Agreed.[/quote]
Ring species.
You are welcome.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
I’ve read the bible many times, actually. Off the top of my head I’ll think of a couple of glaring errors. Luke and Matthew describe the genealogy of Jesus in great detail, only to contradict themselves by saying he is the son of God making everything they’ve written meaningless. Then there’s the bit in Genesis which says God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, meaning that Cain and Abel are the only other people in existence. But after Cain kills Abel he goes to live in some other land and God says he will be cursed among men, which begs the question who was living in that land and where did they come from?
Anyway, I’m not interested in debating the bible, because the point is that creationism is not a credible theory in any sense, and it doesn’t matter how it’s dressed up.[/quote]
Glad you “read” the Bible many times. Makes you an expert. I believe Luke describes the genealogy through Mary, and Matthew through Joseph. How is it a contradiction? I don’t understand.
Yes, Adam and Eve were the first woman and man. And, you completely misunderstood Genesis 1-3 then. See what happens when you “read” the Bible.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
My username is a reference to a song by Meshuggah, not some claim to higher authority. But if you’ve already reduced yourself to criticising my choice of online pseudonym, then I will take that as an admission of defeat.
The creation myth is not a scientific theory and has no supporting evidence. Microevolution is a scientific theory, has a wealth of supporting evidence, and is even accepted by many theists as irrefutably true. Macroevolution is essentially microevolution over greater timescales. It is consistent with empirical data.
If you are seriously suggesting that it is more rational to base a theory on the origin of species on a holy book that is riddled with errors and inconsistencies than it is to believe in a theory developed from scientific observation then I pity you deeply.[/quote]
I have a feeling that all these errors and consistencies with the Bible is just something you heard from several people then it MUST be true.
Would you care to point out any of these errors? I would be more than happy to address them.[/quote]
Good.
What happened the day Jesus died, and in what exact order?
Did John know Jesus was the Messiah or did he not?
What was Josephs exact geneology?
When exactly did the last supper take place?
How did Judas die? Did he die at all?
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
I believe the Bible makes clear when something is a metaphor and when something is literal. Since no where does the beginning of Genesis state that the creation “story” was just a story to illustrate mankind falling or other whatnot’s, I believe it is literal and anyone who claims God’s power cannot deny his ability to create the world in six days.
I also do not believe macroevolution and God’s creative power can go together, mainly because if evolution is a result of death (from the stressors of the environment) then that means death entered into the world before man, and therefore man was not the cause of sin. It also begs the question, if we evolved from a lower form of species, then in reality we are nothing more than animals, which is clearly in stark contrast to being created in the image of God.
I also realized I never stated a question…[/quote]
I don’t think any Christian, as well as I, are denying the ability of God to create the world in six days. I think what evolutionist are pointing to is that, truth cannot contradict itself. So, if science says that evolution is how the world came around, then it is perfectly plausible (G.K. Chesterton was not against the idea of evolution, and even said the same) that God created man slowly.
As well, the Hebrew understanding of the six days, the word days translates to something equivalent to “long time periods.” So, I tend to understand the creation story as one that is more about a deeper message than the three days, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope B16, before he became Pope B16) actually wrote a beautiful book on the subject called, In the Beginning.
[/quote]
You also have to look at the evidence science is using to base their claims (and also the fact that secular science…if you want to call it that…explicitly denies any form of devine being). The fossil record that we have of our evolutionary transition is small. Much of the earth remains uninhabited and unsearched. There are very well thousands of undiscovered species all all kinds, let alone several thousand of extinct species.
Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man. Just because there are similarities between species does not mean they share a common ancestor, like between us and chimpanzees or gorillas.
Anyways, this thread is not about such a topic that has no doubt been argued numerous times to no avail.
I say lets separate church and state. Then the government cannot corrupt or pervert the Word of God and still call it God’s will.[/quote]
How would you explain the fusing of chromosomes to create chromosome 2? Surely it can’t be coincidental that science believes humans evolved from a species then our genetics contain evidence to support a claim, can it? http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.
The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.
The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]
But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?
Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. You are making sweeping broad strokes. There are certain stories that the Catholic Church has not morally or absolutely made Dogma. Like the creation story, you can be a young earth or a evolutionist, like I am.[/quote]
I actually remember reading that the church lionized darwin initially, celebrating that he documented how god went about creating all the animals and such. Only recently has “creationism vs evolution” been a wedge issue.[/quote]
Yes, they loved them some scientist. The Church holds science against her bosom and isn’t disconnected from science. And, well I’ll point out that the fundamentalist are good at convincing some people of their opinion.
I’ll try and find a book written by a bishop who explains how the Church looks at evolution. [/quote]
It’s acceptable unless it insinuates the human soul isn’t divine, that’s the summary of it anyway. It’s almost a psuedo theistic evolution.
[/quote]
What do you mean by the human soul isn’t divine?[/quote]
My stance on the subject or in regards the church’s stance?
[/quote]
What you mean in your statement, “insinuates the human soul isn’t divine.”[/quote]
A scientist saying the soul doesn’t exist in the Christian sense.
[/quote]
Well the soul isn’t “divine,” it came from a Divine source though.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
I believe the Bible makes clear when something is a metaphor and when something is literal. Since no where does the beginning of Genesis state that the creation “story” was just a story to illustrate mankind falling or other whatnot’s, I believe it is literal and anyone who claims God’s power cannot deny his ability to create the world in six days.
I also do not believe macroevolution and God’s creative power can go together, mainly because if evolution is a result of death (from the stressors of the environment) then that means death entered into the world before man, and therefore man was not the cause of sin. It also begs the question, if we evolved from a lower form of species, then in reality we are nothing more than animals, which is clearly in stark contrast to being created in the image of God.
I also realized I never stated a question…[/quote]
I don’t think any Christian, as well as I, are denying the ability of God to create the world in six days. I think what evolutionist are pointing to is that, truth cannot contradict itself. So, if science says that evolution is how the world came around, then it is perfectly plausible (G.K. Chesterton was not against the idea of evolution, and even said the same) that God created man slowly.
As well, the Hebrew understanding of the six days, the word days translates to something equivalent to “long time periods.” So, I tend to understand the creation story as one that is more about a deeper message than the three days, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope B16, before he became Pope B16) actually wrote a beautiful book on the subject called, In the Beginning.
[/quote]
You also have to look at the evidence science is using to base their claims (and also the fact that secular science…if you want to call it that…explicitly denies any form of devine being). The fossil record that we have of our evolutionary transition is small. Much of the earth remains uninhabited and unsearched. There are very well thousands of undiscovered species all all kinds, let alone several thousand of extinct species.
Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man. Just because there are similarities between species does not mean they share a common ancestor, like between us and chimpanzees or gorillas.
Anyways, this thread is not about such a topic that has no doubt been argued numerous times to no avail.
I say lets separate church and state. Then the government cannot corrupt or pervert the Word of God and still call it God’s will.[/quote]
How would you explain the fusing of chromosomes to create chromosome 2? Surely it can’t be coincidental that science believes humans evolved from a species then our genetics contain evidence to support a claim, can it? http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.
The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.
The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]
But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?
Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. You are making sweeping broad strokes. There are certain stories that the Catholic Church has not morally or absolutely made Dogma. Like the creation story, you can be a young earth or a evolutionist, like I am.[/quote]
I actually remember reading that the church lionized darwin initially, celebrating that he documented how god went about creating all the animals and such. Only recently has “creationism vs evolution” been a wedge issue.[/quote]
Yes, they loved them some scientist. The Church holds science against her bosom and isn’t disconnected from science. And, well I’ll point out that the fundamentalist are good at convincing some people of their opinion.
I’ll try and find a book written by a bishop who explains how the Church looks at evolution. [/quote]
It’s acceptable unless it insinuates the human soul isn’t divine, that’s the summary of it anyway. It’s almost a psuedo theistic evolution.
[/quote]
What do you mean by the human soul isn’t divine?[/quote]
My stance on the subject or in regards the church’s stance?
[/quote]
What you mean in your statement, “insinuates the human soul isn’t divine.”[/quote]
A scientist saying the soul doesn’t exist in the Christian sense.
[/quote]
Well the soul isn’t “divine,” it came from a Divine source though.[/quote]
A divine source would be necessary to endow the human race with such a thing.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Not going to bother debating it with you, it would be a waste of my time. The fact that you can criticise macroevolution for being unscientific while claiming that God created everything is utterly farcical and pathetic.[/quote]
He did either casually or directly.[/quote]
Ultimately it’d have had to create humans directly. And if it didn’t create humans directly what’s the motivation to believe it created anything at all?
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
I believe the Bible makes clear when something is a metaphor and when something is literal. Since no where does the beginning of Genesis state that the creation “story” was just a story to illustrate mankind falling or other whatnot’s, I believe it is literal and anyone who claims God’s power cannot deny his ability to create the world in six days.
I also do not believe macroevolution and God’s creative power can go together, mainly because if evolution is a result of death (from the stressors of the environment) then that means death entered into the world before man, and therefore man was not the cause of sin. It also begs the question, if we evolved from a lower form of species, then in reality we are nothing more than animals, which is clearly in stark contrast to being created in the image of God.
I also realized I never stated a question…[/quote]
I don’t think any Christian, as well as I, are denying the ability of God to create the world in six days. I think what evolutionist are pointing to is that, truth cannot contradict itself. So, if science says that evolution is how the world came around, then it is perfectly plausible (G.K. Chesterton was not against the idea of evolution, and even said the same) that God created man slowly.
As well, the Hebrew understanding of the six days, the word days translates to something equivalent to “long time periods.” So, I tend to understand the creation story as one that is more about a deeper message than the three days, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope B16, before he became Pope B16) actually wrote a beautiful book on the subject called, In the Beginning.
[/quote]
You also have to look at the evidence science is using to base their claims (and also the fact that secular science…if you want to call it that…explicitly denies any form of devine being). The fossil record that we have of our evolutionary transition is small. Much of the earth remains uninhabited and unsearched. There are very well thousands of undiscovered species all all kinds, let alone several thousand of extinct species.
Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man. Just because there are similarities between species does not mean they share a common ancestor, like between us and chimpanzees or gorillas.
Anyways, this thread is not about such a topic that has no doubt been argued numerous times to no avail.
I say lets separate church and state. Then the government cannot corrupt or pervert the Word of God and still call it God’s will.[/quote]
How would you explain the fusing of chromosomes to create chromosome 2? Surely it can’t be coincidental that science believes humans evolved from a species then our genetics contain evidence to support a claim, can it? http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.
The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.
The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]
But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?
Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. You are making sweeping broad strokes. There are certain stories that the Catholic Church has not morally or absolutely made Dogma. Like the creation story, you can be a young earth or a evolutionist, like I am.[/quote]
I actually remember reading that the church lionized darwin initially, celebrating that he documented how god went about creating all the animals and such. Only recently has “creationism vs evolution” been a wedge issue.[/quote]
Yes, they loved them some scientist. The Church holds science against her bosom and isn’t disconnected from science. And, well I’ll point out that the fundamentalist are good at convincing some people of their opinion.
I’ll try and find a book written by a bishop who explains how the Church looks at evolution. [/quote]
It’s acceptable unless it insinuates the human soul isn’t divine, that’s the summary of it anyway. It’s almost a psuedo theistic evolution.
[/quote]
What do you mean by the human soul isn’t divine?[/quote]
My stance on the subject or in regards the church’s stance?
[/quote]
What you mean in your statement, “insinuates the human soul isn’t divine.”[/quote]
A scientist saying the soul doesn’t exist in the Christian sense.
[/quote]
Well the soul isn’t “divine,” it came from a Divine source though.[/quote]
A divine source would be necessary to endow the human race with such a thing.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Not going to bother debating it with you, it would be a waste of my time. The fact that you can criticise macroevolution for being unscientific while claiming that God created everything is utterly farcical and pathetic.[/quote]
He did either casually or directly.[/quote]
Ultimately it’d have had to create humans directly. And if it didn’t create humans directly what’s the motivation to believe it created anything at all?
[/quote]
The Church demands that if anyone does choose a theory of evolution to explaining the beginning of the universe, that you have to have one that will allow for a direct infusion of the human soul into the human body. The immortal soul cannot come from a natural process as, I believe, nature is not immortal.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
<<< The people who I know who claim the title fundamentalist are, while varied on some details, united by: a hatred for the Catholic Church, >>>[/quote]I can think of plenty of people who hate the RCC that I would never be united with. I am not defined by hatred for anything or anyone specifically. I am defined by my love for my Father who chose me, my Savior who bought me and the Spirit who raised me from the dead. Loving the God of the bible and being indwelt by His presence brings with it an ever maturing love for what He loves and hatred for what He hates of which hatred for something like the RCC is but one manifestation. [quote]DixiesFinest wrote:an unwavering belief in a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, >>>[/quote]This requires qualification. I believe the bible is absolutely true in everything it reports and states in exactly the way it reports and states it. Not everything is intended to be strictly literal and it is usually pretty clear when that is. (Like Forbes said) There are also lies reported in the bible, so while everything in it is truly stated, not everything is a statement of truth. The creation account is reported as fact, reiterated in the law and quoted by Paul and Christ Himself. I dare not revise what God has stated.[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:<<< and are PreMillenialists.[/quote]Nope. Not a chance.
Edited for clarity.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
I believe the Bible makes clear when something is a metaphor and when something is literal. Since no where does the beginning of Genesis state that the creation “story” was just a story to illustrate mankind falling or other whatnot’s, I believe it is literal and anyone who claims God’s power cannot deny his ability to create the world in six days.
I also do not believe macroevolution and God’s creative power can go together, mainly because if evolution is a result of death (from the stressors of the environment) then that means death entered into the world before man, and therefore man was not the cause of sin. It also begs the question, if we evolved from a lower form of species, then in reality we are nothing more than animals, which is clearly in stark contrast to being created in the image of God.
I also realized I never stated a question…[/quote]
I don’t think any Christian, as well as I, are denying the ability of God to create the world in six days. I think what evolutionist are pointing to is that, truth cannot contradict itself. So, if science says that evolution is how the world came around, then it is perfectly plausible (G.K. Chesterton was not against the idea of evolution, and even said the same) that God created man slowly.
As well, the Hebrew understanding of the six days, the word days translates to something equivalent to “long time periods.” So, I tend to understand the creation story as one that is more about a deeper message than the three days, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope B16, before he became Pope B16) actually wrote a beautiful book on the subject called, In the Beginning.
[/quote]
You also have to look at the evidence science is using to base their claims (and also the fact that secular science…if you want to call it that…explicitly denies any form of devine being). The fossil record that we have of our evolutionary transition is small. Much of the earth remains uninhabited and unsearched. There are very well thousands of undiscovered species all all kinds, let alone several thousand of extinct species.
Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man. Just because there are similarities between species does not mean they share a common ancestor, like between us and chimpanzees or gorillas.
Anyways, this thread is not about such a topic that has no doubt been argued numerous times to no avail.
I say lets separate church and state. Then the government cannot corrupt or pervert the Word of God and still call it God’s will.[/quote]
How would you explain the fusing of chromosomes to create chromosome 2? Surely it can’t be coincidental that science believes humans evolved from a species then our genetics contain evidence to support a claim, can it? http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.
The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.
The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]
But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?
Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. You are making sweeping broad strokes. There are certain stories that the Catholic Church has not morally or absolutely made Dogma. Like the creation story, you can be a young earth or a evolutionist, like I am.[/quote]
I actually remember reading that the church lionized darwin initially, celebrating that he documented how god went about creating all the animals and such. Only recently has “creationism vs evolution” been a wedge issue.[/quote]
Yes, they loved them some scientist. The Church holds science against her bosom and isn’t disconnected from science. And, well I’ll point out that the fundamentalist are good at convincing some people of their opinion.
I’ll try and find a book written by a bishop who explains how the Church looks at evolution. [/quote]
It’s acceptable unless it insinuates the human soul isn’t divine, that’s the summary of it anyway. It’s almost a psuedo theistic evolution.
[/quote]
What do you mean by the human soul isn’t divine?[/quote]
My stance on the subject or in regards the church’s stance?
[/quote]
What you mean in your statement, “insinuates the human soul isn’t divine.”[/quote]
A scientist saying the soul doesn’t exist in the Christian sense.
[/quote]
Well the soul isn’t “divine,” it came from a Divine source though.[/quote]
A divine source would be necessary to endow the human race with such a thing.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Not going to bother debating it with you, it would be a waste of my time. The fact that you can criticise macroevolution for being unscientific while claiming that God created everything is utterly farcical and pathetic.[/quote]
He did either casually or directly.[/quote]
Ultimately it’d have had to create humans directly. And if it didn’t create humans directly what’s the motivation to believe it created anything at all?
[/quote]
The Church demands that if anyone does choose a theory of evolution to explaining the beginning of the universe, that you have to have one that will allow for a direct infusion of the human soul into the human body. The immortal soul cannot come from a natural process as, I believe, nature is not immortal.[/quote]
The immortal soul is just a long held concept in the world of mythology, it dates all the way back to the ancient Egyptians.
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
I believe the Bible makes clear when something is a metaphor and when something is literal. Since no where does the beginning of Genesis state that the creation “story” was just a story to illustrate mankind falling or other whatnot’s, I believe it is literal and anyone who claims God’s power cannot deny his ability to create the world in six days.
I also do not believe macroevolution and God’s creative power can go together, mainly because if evolution is a result of death (from the stressors of the environment) then that means death entered into the world before man, and therefore man was not the cause of sin. It also begs the question, if we evolved from a lower form of species, then in reality we are nothing more than animals, which is clearly in stark contrast to being created in the image of God.
I also realized I never stated a question…[/quote]
I don’t think any Christian, as well as I, are denying the ability of God to create the world in six days. I think what evolutionist are pointing to is that, truth cannot contradict itself. So, if science says that evolution is how the world came around, then it is perfectly plausible (G.K. Chesterton was not against the idea of evolution, and even said the same) that God created man slowly.
As well, the Hebrew understanding of the six days, the word days translates to something equivalent to “long time periods.” So, I tend to understand the creation story as one that is more about a deeper message than the three days, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope B16, before he became Pope B16) actually wrote a beautiful book on the subject called, In the Beginning.
[/quote]
You also have to look at the evidence science is using to base their claims (and also the fact that secular science…if you want to call it that…explicitly denies any form of devine being). The fossil record that we have of our evolutionary transition is small. Much of the earth remains uninhabited and unsearched. There are very well thousands of undiscovered species all all kinds, let alone several thousand of extinct species.
Do we see fossil’s with “primate” like characteristics? Of course we do. But does that mean they were our ancestors? Probably not. They could have easily been deformed human beings, or simply a species of its own that was not on its way to becoming man. Just because there are similarities between species does not mean they share a common ancestor, like between us and chimpanzees or gorillas.
Anyways, this thread is not about such a topic that has no doubt been argued numerous times to no avail.
I say lets separate church and state. Then the government cannot corrupt or pervert the Word of God and still call it God’s will.[/quote]
How would you explain the fusing of chromosomes to create chromosome 2? Surely it can’t be coincidental that science believes humans evolved from a species then our genetics contain evidence to support a claim, can it? http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]AllieD wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
^you pulled all of that from Leviticus, the hebrew law. Not accepted as law by the Catholic Church, as we are not hebrew.
The New Testament includes verses that point to homosexuality as a sin. So no, its not cherry picking, at least the way you are describing it.
EDIT - in reference to allie’s post[/quote]
It’s been awhile since my catholic school days I didn’t realize the old testament has been dropped lol… so the creation story is out? and Moses? and Noah! too bad I always liked those stories!
[/quote]
Win.[/quote]
Lose.[/quote]
Oh yeah right. The old testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus brought a new covenant, except for when people want to quote parts of it to support their own bias, then it still counts.
And the stories in the bible are figurative, except when christians want to claim the bible to be inerrant, in which case all the stories in the bible are literally true, except for the ones christians dont want to take literally. Makes perfect sense.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with fundamentalist christians.
The Catholic Church holds that the Bible is inerrant but many of its stories may very well be just that, recorded stories, a prime example being the creation story. The message of God being behind the creation of the world is inerrant, the details of a literal Adam and Eve etc are figurative and/or metaphorical.
The fundamentalists hold that every word in the Bible has a literal meaning in modern english, meaning that there was a talking snake that gave Eve a fruit etc etc[/quote]
But doesnt that still leave it up to Catholics to decide which are literal and which are figurative?
Perhaps Jesus didn’t literally walk on water or literally turn water into wine. But Catholics still hold true to believing these things which only seem true if you start out believing them.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. You are making sweeping broad strokes. There are certain stories that the Catholic Church has not morally or absolutely made Dogma. Like the creation story, you can be a young earth or a evolutionist, like I am.[/quote]
I actually remember reading that the church lionized darwin initially, celebrating that he documented how god went about creating all the animals and such. Only recently has “creationism vs evolution” been a wedge issue.[/quote]
Yes, they loved them some scientist. The Church holds science against her bosom and isn’t disconnected from science. And, well I’ll point out that the fundamentalist are good at convincing some people of their opinion.
I’ll try and find a book written by a bishop who explains how the Church looks at evolution. [/quote]
It’s acceptable unless it insinuates the human soul isn’t divine, that’s the summary of it anyway. It’s almost a psuedo theistic evolution.
[/quote]
What do you mean by the human soul isn’t divine?[/quote]
My stance on the subject or in regards the church’s stance?
[/quote]
What you mean in your statement, “insinuates the human soul isn’t divine.”[/quote]
A scientist saying the soul doesn’t exist in the Christian sense.
[/quote]
Well the soul isn’t “divine,” it came from a Divine source though.[/quote]
A divine source would be necessary to endow the human race with such a thing.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Not going to bother debating it with you, it would be a waste of my time. The fact that you can criticise macroevolution for being unscientific while claiming that God created everything is utterly farcical and pathetic.[/quote]
He did either casually or directly.[/quote]
Ultimately it’d have had to create humans directly. And if it didn’t create humans directly what’s the motivation to believe it created anything at all?
[/quote]
The Church demands that if anyone does choose a theory of evolution to explaining the beginning of the universe, that you have to have one that will allow for a direct infusion of the human soul into the human body. The immortal soul cannot come from a natural process as, I believe, nature is not immortal.[/quote]
The immortal soul is just a long held concept in the world of mythology, it dates all the way back to the ancient Egyptians.
[/quote]
Okay…and I know this.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
riddled with errors and inconsistencies[/quote]
Proof[/quote]
He’s not the one making outrageous claims of infallibility. Burden of proof has always and will always lie with you.