Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
On the one hand, as a theist, they believe in events that are not supported by scientific evidence: virgin gives birth, water becomes wine, dead comes to life, etc., etc., etc.
On the other hand, as an evolutionist, they do not believe in events because they are not supported by scientific evidence: 900 year lifespans, global flood, talking donkeys, etc., etc., etc.
They believe in events that are not supported by scientific evidence, and they do not believe in events because they are not supported by scientific evidence.
Sorry that I keep harping on parts of your post, I keep finding little bits that I can't help amplifying. Please do let me know if you think I am ever taking things out of context.
The last two clauses interest me greatly.
"I do not find it logical to believe that natural causes are sufficient [to create the workings of the cell]"
and
"I have no reason to believe that [natural causes] have that power [to create the workings of the cell]".
Do you agree that these two clauses are logically equivalent?
Um, news flash here: Pope Benedict was the president of that commission.
So the statement he crafted with them is certainly relevant as to his personal opinion.
Surely you aren't saying that as the president of the commission, he would help craft and then reslease a statement he disagreed with?
Besides, as we saw before, the statement makes it clear that the agreement and the support for common descent aren't quotes of the scientific account, but are supported by the commision, headed by (now) Pope Benedict.
To the extent that one sees evolution as requiring naturalistic belief, then of course not - he's the Pope. He supports evolution as Theistic Evolution, not as Atheistic Evolution.
Pretty much. I was being redundant. For me,sufficient causation means necessary power. So when scientific explanations for how cells originate and function portray amino acids and proteins as doing everything,the implication is that they have the necessary power. But if amino acids and proteins,and their chemical reactions,are considered in themselves,and compared with the purposeful activity of cells,there is no reason to believe that they have the potential to create cells.
He does not seem to have written the document
and it does not say that either he or the ITC agrees with the scientific account of origins.
How do you know he crafted it with them,or that he agrees with the scientific account of origins?
The mere statement of the scientific account of origins would not be objectionable to him,even if he did disagree with what it said.
Anyone can see that the document is not about justifying the scientific explanations,but about the doctrine of humans being created in the image of God.
Cardinal Schoenborn denied that the document endorses the theory of evolution in his New York Times article,probably at the request of the pope.
The theory is itself naturalistic in content,and it is intended to be read that way.
The pope obviously does not accept all the claims evolution theory makes about the history of organisms.
As the president of the commission, of course he was involved with, and approved of, what it says. Are you stating that his fingers were not the actual fingers that did the typing? How would you know, and why would we care?
Even if it only quoted the scientists (which would require something like quote marks to delineate it), and didn't follow that with a reversal, like "this is what they state, but we disagree). Then even that would be sufficient to show that they agree.
While that would be sufficient to show that the Pope and the ITC support common descent, we have even more than that.
You can see yourself that they didn't use quotemarks, and have plenty of statements from themselves in there in support of common descent, in agreement with all the other recents statements from the Pope. So that's 2 for 2 in favor of the ITC and the Pope supporting common descent.
If he were just a member of the commission, that would be sufficient. But even more clearly, he's also president of the commission. So yes, he agrees with himself. It sounds like you are saying that even though he's president of the commission, he just hid in the back room whenever they met, and wasn't actually president of the commission.
Surely you aren't saying that as the president of the commission, he would help craft and then reslease a statement he disagreed with?
Indeed you were being redundant, and you have been being redundant for the past two weeks or so. Whenever you are asked to back up a statement you have made, you simply repeat it with slightly different wording and expect us to respond as if your arguments suddenly have a force behind them that they didn't have before, almost as if you had actually supplied evidence.
It is like the atheist who says, when asked why he doesn't believe in God, that:
"Well, it's obvious that God doesn't exist."
"Why? Because it's ridiculous for God to exist!"
"Why? Because for anything to have the kind of attributes attributed to God would be impossible."
"Why? Because it's obvious that God doesn't exist."
And so he might go on, all day long, restating his atheism with liberal use of the thesaurus but very little use of his mind.
Tell me something. How do you actually determine that a particular causal power is unable to cause a certain observed effect?
For example, is it possible to know that the course of my life is not affected by the motions of the planets (as anyone who trusts in horoscopes must believe)?
How would I determine, in this case, that the causal powers of planets in motion cannot cause the effects of my having a better business or improved relationships?
Papias:
Anyone can see that Pope Benedict has clearly stated that those two are not in opposition. The statement says that yes, humans are created in the image of God, who used the process of evolution over billions of years as his way of creating.
Papias:
The Cardinal clarified that any purely mechanistic, Godless, materialistic view of evolution is obviously not compatible with Catholicism - something that I've been saying all along, and that is also supported by all the Pope's statements.
Anthony, you do see the difference between atheistic evolution, and theistic evolution, right?
I am afraid that would make you an OEC, and Old Earth Creationist.
I though Gap was closest, though you are also partial Day Age, with the first few days lasting ages while the days after at are 24 hours.Gap Creationism (one of the OEC theologies) almost hits the marker on which I believe, but my idea of the age of Earth is not symmetrical for what it establishes. ANd I definitely do not come close to any other form of OECism.
And it is that one respect that means Gap isn't YEC. Creationists certainly, but not young earth. Gap was an attempt to reconcile the interpretation of Genesis with the old age of the earth shown by the geology of the time. Which made them Old Earth Creationists. You've got your own interpretation of Genesis, which is a good thing, but it still falls in the OEC category. Remember, when Day Age and Gap were the main Fundamentalist interpretations at the end of the nineteenth century, these Old Earth Creationists thought, as science said, that the earth was hundreds of millions of years old. You are ok with billions of years. That is even older.The literal context of which I believe would be a middle-aged Earth I guess, and since gap theory is YECism in every respect except one, I consider myself a YEC.
I though Gap was closest, though you are also partial Day Age, with the first few days lasting ages while the days after at are 24 hours.
And it is that one respect that means Gap isn't YEC. Creationists certainly, but not young earth. Gap was an attempt to reconcile the interpretation of Genesis with the old age of the earth shown by the geology of the time. Which made them Old Earth Creationists. You've got your own interpretation of Genesis, which is a good thing, but it still falls in the OEC category. Remember, when Day Age and Gap were the main Fundamentalist interpretations at the end of the nineteenth century, these Old Earth Creationists thought, as science said, that the earth was hundreds of millions of years old. You are ok with billions of years. That is even older.
I'm didn't say "involved",I said "written".
there is no indication that he accepts the "scientific account" of origins as true.
The footnote to the document says this:
....... submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication. >
It wasn't the business of the commission to approve or disapprove the scientific account.
But it does state that materialistic and reductionist and neo-Darwinian theories are incompatible with the faith. Now,I ask you,what scientific theory of evolution does not fit that description?
.. and...
So what scientific theory of evolution is not mechanistic,godless,and materialistic?
But the theory does not allow God to be doing anything.
It portrays natural processes as doing things they do not have the ability to do.
It isn't sufficient to show that. Only evolutionists interpret section 63 that way.
You don't have to use quotation marks in order to state other people's positions.
An ITC document is not the place for the pope to state his merely personal opinions on scientific theories.
Sections 64 - 70 give the Catholic position on the question of biological origins,which are completely different in content from section 63.
The document does not say that God used the process of evolution over billions of years as his way of creating.
If you realise there are different ways to interpret Genesis, how do you know TE isn't one of them?Old Earth is not old universe. I believe the 1st day was an age, and that God made the Earth on the second day.I offer people different possibilities to open up their minds and steer away from TE (which is vain, really),I though you said the 24 hour days didn't come in until God created the sun on the fourth day? Anyway didn't God create the earth back on day one?
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth doesn't that mean the earth was created in verse 1? Certainly the earth is already in existence in verse 2 The earth was without form and void.which you may have seen me bust them out like a gattling gun in certain threads lol. But my actual theology is that when God made Earth, it was within a few days. Most OEC's believe that God 'simmered' the Earth slowly, or was originally of the universe, but I find the first verse of the Bible to state that the Earth was non-existent.
Interesting take on it, doesn't Genesis 1 say God created mankind and the animals on day 6?Adam was already in the Garden on day 4, so things were already in motion. However long it took Adam to name all the animals and the Adversary to tempt Eve is the gap form day 4 to their fall, so I believe in a young Earth.
And the animal fossils?I've mentioned before that plants and herbs were set to die out and produce fossil fuels, and many other things to tilt science-bent theists, but I personally believe a flood occurred.
It is actually quite important to have common terminology if we want to discuss these issues, otherwise people are simply going to talk at cross purposes.I commonly try to avoid that idea with others because even though I have the rationale for it, people have become so fixated on the Deistic approach that it's just frustrating to debate.
Anyways, I don't understand why terminology as far as belief goes is laid out the way it is. The universe is quite irrelevant, I think some YEC's just simply do not want to abandon their standing for the sake of pride.
You're splitting hairs. He was likely involved in the process, could well have written sections and contributed to discussion, and I think we both agree it is irrelevant if he actually did the typing himself.
The bottom line is that as president of the commision, of course he agrees with himself, and presents the view he agrees with as leader of the commission.
This is like a President giving a speech. Sure, President Obama may not write every word of his speeches, but they do undoubtedly contain phrases and thoughts he has used, and more importantly of course he agrees with everything in them.
Sure there is. He has it in there when the subject comes up as to what is right (the whole purpose of the commission), and never indicates he disagrees with it, and even more clearly, he, as part of the commission, has put the scientific account into his own, theistically compatible words, clearly and unambiguously supporting theisitic evolution.
Thank you. case closed. Obviously, Pope Benedict supports Theistic Evolution.
Well, it was the business of the commission to say what the correct view of origins was, and that requires one to discuss the scientific account, which was approved in it's bare facts, with the added clarification (especially in sections 64-70) that this is THEISTIC, not atheistic evolution.
Theistic evolution, which is compatable with the scientific account in its bare facts, and specifies that evolution is guided by God. So of course materialistic approaches are incompatible with faith. Duh.
Sure it does.
God is doing everything, upholding the whole natural process (see Hebrews).
To deny that is to deny scripture and to endorse a deistic God who doesn't do anything except through things like poofism.
This kind of deism is very common among YECs, and greatly dimishes God.
Natural processes don't have the ability to do anything without God, not even attract by gravity, or move by momentum. God empowers natural processes to work, and in some cases, to evolve.
If you realise there are different ways to interpret Genesis, how do you know TE isn't one of them?
One thing that must be realized is that the 1st day (as I mistakenly imply) isn't actually a day but rather the beginning. The term, whether age or 24 hours, had never come about. The universe was still nothing.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth doesn't that mean the earth was created in verse 1? Certainly the earth is already in existence in verse 2 The earth was without form and void.
Well, we see in Genesis 2:19 that God formed all the animals for Adam to name. So this must be day four of Creation when God made all the animals.Interesting take on it, doesn't Genesis 1 say God created mankind and the animals on day 6?
Surprisingly, I agree with you hereOne thing that must be realized is that the 1st day (as I mistakenly imply) isn't actually a day but rather the beginning. The term, whether age or 24 hours, had never come about. The universe was still nothing.
Genesis 1:5
God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day.
So what some may see as day 2 is actually day 1, and so on. The ending context of each day completes this.
A title is certainly is one way to read the text, as is the translation "in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth..." which you find some bible give as an alternative translation in their notes. Though the implication of both of these is that Genesis doesn't begin with an act of ex nihilo creation, but like an Ancient Near East creation story begins off with God creating order from chaos. That is not to say the bible doesn't teach ex nihilo creation "All things were created through him..." just that it isn't in Genesis 1Verse one is the opening so to speak. Like saying 'this is how God created the Heavens and the Earth'.
Doesn't God's formation of land by moving the water out of the way imply the land was there under the deep? It isn't "Let there be dry land" but "Let dry land appear".Verse two is implying that the Earth and the Heavens wasn't even there- 'darkness was over the face of the deep'. God created light, which would be the Big Bang in my interpretation.
You are running into one of the contradiction between the literal interpretations of Genesis 1 & 2.Well, we see in Genesis 2:19 that God formed all the animals for Adam to name. So this must be day four of Creation when God made all the animals.
I agree. The Sabbath in Genesis was a promise of the Gospel. You can read about it in Hebrews 3&4.Day 5:
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
Genesis 3:5
For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
But God shows little remorse when they eat from the Tree of Knowledge, as predetermination and free will wholly exist in unison.
This is God saying He is omniscient.
Day 6 is vague. We see that it is all summed up in one verse
Genesis 2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
Day 7
Genesis 2:2
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
This day became the Sabbath. Now why would God have this for Adam and Eve if they were already living in grace?
Actually what you see there is that there is no room for TE in your interpretation of Genesis, but you already seem to realise there is more than one way to understand the text.So the Eden incident was already unfolding during the days of Creation. And as we can see, there simply is no room for what TE's believe, in my own opinion.
So why does Genesis 1 have God creating man after he created the birds and animals? This is one of the main reasons I don't think these chapters of Genesis were meant to be read literally, even though a Day Age or Intermittent Day can fit science quite well. They can't both be literal histories if they describe two completely different sequences of creation, however poetry, metaphor and parables don't need to line up chronologically, because that is simply not what they are telling us.God made all the Animals for Adam to name, which means that man was before creatures.
Genesis 2:5-7In Genesis 2 after God formed Adam he formed all the land animals and all the bird of the air. But in Genesis 1 the land animals and were created before man on sixth day (day 5 the way you count them) and birds were created back on the fifth day (or day 4).
Genesis 1:6-10Doesn't God's formation of land by moving the water out of the way imply the land was there under the deep? It isn't "Let there be dry land" but "Let dry land appear".
Well, what I was implying was that there is no need to bless a day when all is already in grace. This means that Adam and Eve had already fell when this day came.I agree. The Sabbath in Genesis was a promise of the Gospel. You can read about it in Hebrews 3&4.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?