Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Personal Growth & Spirituality  › Spirituality › Religious Studies › literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ?
New Posts  All Forums:
 

literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ? - Page 4

post #61 of 294
8/16/07 at 10:52pm

I'm sorry, but what is your point?

That a ring species should become incapable of breeding due to a physical separation has exactly WHAT to do with evloution? As for the gull example: it's still a bird, but it can't breed with a sparrow, even though they are both definitely birds. So, what is it that you expect that isolated gull "ring" species to now become? A bat? A hummingbird? It's not going to happen.

Please demonstrate how a single cell became an organized species of any kind, by a series of random coincidences from a primordial soup and somehow magically organized itself into, say, an antelope! Or, no, hey - a frog! LOL How utterly ridiculous.

Just as we would not doubt that a watch has a watchmaker and could not organize it's very intricate parts by itself to tell the time, so do all the creatures on earth, even more complex than the watch, have a Maker.

You may also like:

Sitting or Squatting: What's Really Best in the Bathroom?
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby
post #62 of 294
8/16/07 at 11:38pm
You state that as fact when it is infact opinion.
post #63 of 294
8/16/07 at 11:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pynki View Post
You state that as fact when it is infact opinion.
You mean you found a watch that made itself???

Of course what I stated is a fact. God is the Maker and Creator of all things in Heaven and on earth.
post #64 of 294
8/17/07 at 1:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Just as we would not doubt that a watch has a watchmaker and could not organize it's very intricate parts by itself to tell the time, so do all the creatures on earth, even more complex than the watch, have a Maker.
: You got your BS in biology, but somehow managed to miss the first semester of philosophy.
post #65 of 294
8/17/07 at 2:40am
Evolution means change over time. It's not more specific than that.

Biological evolution is the process of descent (as in descendants) with modification. Biological evolution happens on both small and large scales.

It can bother you, but that doesn't necessarily make it less true.
post #66 of 294
8/17/07 at 2:49am
Here is a good link about Evolution 101 from Berzerkeley. [sic ]
post #67 of 294
8/17/07 at 3:06am
Why can't it be a blending of both? Seriously, a greater power sets something in motion that then science can explain?

Sorry, that's a rhetorical comment not meant to thwart the discussion.
post #68 of 294
8/17/07 at 3:16am
Heket, that was somewhat the point of merpk's article up thread.
post #69 of 294
8/17/07 at 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy View Post
: You got your BS in biology, but somehow managed to miss the first semester of philosophy.
I know! Unfortunately, back then I was completely ignorant of theology or Thomistic philosophy and had bought the lies the university was selling hook, line, and sinker.

I became Catholic in my early 30's, thanks be to God.
post #70 of 294
8/17/07 at 11:42am
Stacy, seeing that you are the final authority on all things Catholic, I would think you'd know that the Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution. We are not Creationists, nor are we Biblical literalists, by any stretch of the imagination.
post #71 of 294
8/17/07 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzywan View Post
the Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution. We are not Creationists, nor are we Biblical literalists, by any stretch of the imagination.

The Pope is allowed to give his own personal opinion on any topic, including evolution. It does not hold any binding weight of obligation as he is not speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith or morals.

It is similar to his recent opinion that one can "hope" that the souls of the unbaptized innocent go to Heaven, instead of to Limbo. It is merely his opinion.

P.S. Catholics are "Biblical literalists" in the sense that we believe the Bible is the Divinely inspired and inerrant Word of God. Therefore, the Genesis account is literally true. I guess this makes Catholics "Creationists" too.
post #72 of 294
8/17/07 at 2:05pm
I vehemently disagree.

The first thing that we learned in grade 9 religion is that the Bible holds spiritual truth, not necessary literal truth. How else do you explain all the contradictions and inconsistencies. We were also taught evolution. This was reinforced throughout my Catholic high school and university education.

IT's funny that I just ran into my grade nine religion teacher at lunch.
post #73 of 294
8/17/07 at 2:08pm
huh?
post #74 of 294
8/17/07 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
I vehemently disagree.

The first thing that we learned in grade 9 religion is that the Bible holds spiritual truth, not necessary literal truth. How else do you explain all the contradictions and inconsistencies. We were also taught evolution. This was reinforced throughout my Catholic high school and university education.
This was my experience as well. In 17 years of Catholic education, I had not once heard that Genesis was literally true. *Some* parts we take as literal Truth -"This is My Body - This is My Blood" - but certainly not Genesis.

ETA: If it's the Pope's personal opinion that evolution is acceptable, then it's glaringly obvious that Genesis can't be taken as literal truth. I doubt the Pope would contradict Church teaching.
post #75 of 294
8/17/07 at 3:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Please demonstrate how a single cell became an organized species of any kind, by a series of random coincidences from a primordial soup and somehow magically organized itself into, say, an antelope! Or, no, hey - a frog! LOL How utterly ridiculous.
There have been scientists who are attempting to recreate the primordial soup of ancient earth with some very interesting results.

And if it weren't from single cells, did frogs and antelopes just *poof* from out of thin air by the power of God? What was so utterly unconvincing from your coursework in biology?
post #76 of 294
8/17/07 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by witchygrrl View Post
There have been scientists who are attempting to recreate the primordial soup of ancient earth with some very interesting results.
And they have yet to get any cells to organize themselves into well, ...anything at all! Not even a simple organism. Hmmmm... wonder why that is?

Perhaps because God did, in fact, poof! - make them?

Also, wanted to add that He made all things out of nothing (read: no thing) and He made Adam and Eve from the slime of the earth.
post #77 of 294
8/17/07 at 3:30pm
Sorry for the head banging Stacy, I suppose it was over the top. It wasn't directed at you though.

I was just posting a simple example of evolution in action on a scale that we can all see, not over a long time fossil record, where species evolve into seperate species, by the definition of not being able to breed, that is.(IME some ID-ers don't believe in the timescales of millions of years, so I was just hilighting something on a timescale even a strict YEC or IDer can appreciate)

Quote:
Again, as I just posted, this is ADAPTATION, not 'evolution.'
Am I right in assuming you are meaning micro versus macro- evolution? (like the word "kind" this idea is also something that is the invention of ID, not a real biological idea) You should know this though (Stacy) your degree is in Biology? So I'm not sure.

OK, so let me understand then, you want a succession of fossil records showing one thing evolving into something else? How will I know if it a different "kind", you want one kind --> a different kind, but how, since it isn't a real scientific distinction, how will I know if my examples are different kinds? Since it is a made up term, you could just keep saying, oh those are the same kind, YK? But I will find and link to a sucession, a good one hopefully. Some are a pain to read and don't have good pics and I doubt people would take the time to actually read them (don't blame anyone, some are boring!) I'll just do my best.
post #78 of 294
8/17/07 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
I vehemently disagree.

The first thing that we learned in grade 9 religion is that the Bible holds spiritual truth, not necessary literal truth. How else do you explain all the contradictions and inconsistencies. We were also taught evolution. This was reinforced throughout my Catholic high school and university education.

IT's funny that I just ran into my grade nine religion teacher at lunch.
Wow, that is truly scary.

I'm an adult convert so I never attended Catholic school, but this is probably why Archbishop Fulton Sheen made his famous statement (paraphrasing), "I'd rather have a Catholic child go to a government (public) school and have to defend their faith then go to a Catholic school and lose it."
post #79 of 294
8/17/07 at 3:37pm
The Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Father Pope Benedict agree that the theory of evolution has a scientific basis. There is no Catholic teaching that holds otherwise.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...002700,00.html

in case anyone might be confused by the discussion amongst the Catholics.
post #80 of 294
8/17/07 at 3:40pm
Thanks chfriend.

I'm really curious how some people claim things are or are not Catholic when the Vatican says otherwise.
New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies

You may also like:

Sitting or Squatting: What's Really Best in the Bathroom?
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Personal Growth & Spirituality  › Spirituality › Religious Studies › literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ?