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.
ebia said:That's not an accusation. It's a statement of ourposition in answer to the title question.
This is an accusation:
And this:
My point was, that you shouldn't go around telling other people to not make accusations while doing so yourself.ThaiDuykhang said:What kind of arrogance it is when Dracil said I don't understand evolution?
betrays the fact that you don't understand evolution."imperfect" in evolution means "inferior". in evolution, ancient human compared with modern human is imperfect, do you agree?
Then it was a bit dumb to start with an OP with several "Catholic Only" points in it.I don't like debating evolution with other Catholic is my own feeling any accusation in it?
That's not my call. I'm not a Catholic, so I'm happy to go with what the last two Popes have said was acceptable Catholic belief.Do you think he has proved he follows Tradition or the opposite?
And what do you think of the points in the first post?
Demonstrably untrue.1. No faithful can ever discover evolution as Creationism is a required belief before the appearence of evolution. It has to be discovered by some pagan/agnostic/atheist. When God hid this "truth" from the faithful?
Absurd.2. afterlife consequences for following evolution and wrong is far more severe than following Creationism and wrong. In fact I don't think following Creationism and wrong has any consequences.
Because it's not a theological error.3. Jesus can detect the slightest theology error in apostles and fix it, why He didn't correct them if evolution is right?
It's not.4. Bible is God's words. God doesn't wish to create misunderstanding. then why without any non-theological interference it's always interpreted in favor of Creationism?
God did create us directly. Evolution is the mechanism - it no more denies the direct working of God in creating us than the biological understanding of conception and gestation in the womb does.5. God wish the relationship with man as close as possible. on the other hand God is omnipotent. The bond between God and human is stronger when God created human directly. then Why He choose the method which forms a weaker bond?
N/A6. For Catholics only. Apostolic Tradition always teaches Creationism is truth and evolution is unacceptable(see Baltimore Catechism and Roman Catechism etc). How can one accept evolution against tradition?
N/A7. For Catholics only. All papal documents that are ambiguous in words on this issue have never explicitly states "A Catholic can accept evolution without damaging faith"
The important understanding of most of the bible is symbolic. Some of it is also factually true.8. symbolic interpretation of Genesis paved way for symbolic interpretation of the whole Bible. for example: Adam died at 930 years old. Moses died at 120. Why Moses lives only 1/7.75 the years of Adam. A Catholic evolutionist from another forum said scripture regarding Moses's life are also symbolic.
I've made points(accusations if you like to call them) but they're not empty.ebia said:My point was, that you shouldn't go around telling other people to not make accusations while doing so yourself.
Ancient human's brain according to evolution theory leaves much to be desired, don't you think?ebia said:betrays the fact that you don't understand evolution.
you forget, I also said "but it has to be done"ebia said:Then it was a bit dumb to start with an OP with several "Catholic Only" points in it.
recent 2 popes said nothing about it, though you may interpret it into something and call past popes heretics. I can say nothing about it since you're not Catholic.ebia said:That's not my call. I'm not a Catholic, so I'm happy to go with what the last two Popes have said was acceptable Catholic belief.
What's Anglican Church's teaching on this matter before Darwin?ebia said:Demonstrably untrue.
you can't refute me at least. do you like the statement "If you believe in God and He doesn't exist, you lose nothing, If you don't believe in God and He exists you lose everything"?ebia said:Absurd.
suppose the word you're emphasizing is "theological"ebia said:Because it's not a theological error.
The why apostles interpreted it that way?ebia said:It's not.
directly means "don't use the result of previous work"ebia said:God did create us directly. Evolution is the mechanism - it no more denies the direct working of God in creating us than the biological understanding of conception and gestation in the womb does.
You must have had a hard time deciding which paragraph is literal and which paragraph is symbolic and finding reasons why it's not literal for some paragraphebia said:The important understanding of most of the bible is symbolic. Some of it is also factually true.
ThaiDuykhang said:Ancient human's brain according to evolution theory leaves much to be desired, don't you think?
ebia said:God did create us directly. Evolution is the mechanism - it no more denies the direct working of God in creating us than the biological understanding of conception and gestation in the womb does.
ThaiDuykhang said:1. No faithful can ever discover evolution as Creationism is a required belief before the appearence of evolution. It has to be discovered by some pagan/agnostic/atheist. When God hid this "truth" from the faithful?
2. afterlife consequences for following evolution and wrong is far more severe than following Creationism and wrong. In fact I don't think following Creationism and wrong has any consequences.
3. Jesus can detect the slightest theology error in apostles and fix it, why He didn't correct them if evolution is right?
4. Bible is God's words. God doesn't wish to create misunderstanding. then why without any non-theological interference it's always interpreted in favor of Creationism?
5. God wish the relationship with man as close as possible. on the other hand God is omnipotent. The bond between God and human is stronger when God created human directly. then Why He choose the method which forms a weaker bond?
8. symbolic interpretation of Genesis paved way for symbolic interpretation of the whole Bible. for example: Adam died at 930 years old. Moses died at 120. Why Moses lives only 1/7.75 the years of Adam. A Catholic evolutionist from another forum said scripture regarding Moses's life are also symbolic.
ThaiDuykhang said:No empty accusations please. if you somehow feel unwilling to debate, you can leave this thread alone
ThaiDuykhang said:1. No faithful can ever discover evolution as Creationism is a required belief before the appearence of evolution. It has to be discovered by some pagan/agnostic/atheist. When God hid this "truth" from the faithful?
2. afterlife consequences for following evolution and wrong is far more severe than following Creationism and wrong. In fact I don't think following Creationism and wrong has any consequences.
3. Jesus can detect the slightest theology error in apostles and fix it, why He didn't correct them if evolution is right?
4. Bible is God's words. God doesn't wish to create misunderstanding. then why without any non-theological interference it's always interpreted in favor of Creationism?
5. God wish the relationship with man as close as possible. on the other hand God is omnipotent. The bond between God and human is stronger when God created human directly. then Why He choose the method which forms a weaker bond?
6. For Catholics only. Apostolic Tradition always teaches Creationism is truth and evolution is unacceptable(see Baltimore Catechism and Roman Catechism etc). How can one accept evolution against tradition?
7. For Catholics only. All papal documents that are ambiguous in words on this issue have never explicitly states "A Catholic can accept evolution without damaging faith"
8. symbolic interpretation of Genesis paved way for symbolic interpretation of the whole Bible.
for example: Adam died at 930 years old. Moses died at 120. Why Moses lives only 1/7.75 the years of Adam. A Catholic evolutionist from another forum said scripture regarding Moses's life are also symbolic.
What's foolish about that.ThaiDuykhang said:If you mean after creating every other species, God took some dust, made it into bacteria then insects,fish,reptile, (non-human) ape then finally human. then it IS direct. but God isn't foolish,.
No. Evolutionary theory doesn't make value judgements. The only value judgements we have are "... and God saw that it was good." All of it, not just humans.Ancient human's brain according to evolution theory leaves much to be desired, don't you think?
That's Pascal's wager and (a) it doesn't work for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that there is more than one religion to choose from and (b) evolution doesn't deny God anyway - you are not debating with atheists remember.you can't refute me at least. do you like the statement "If you believe in God and He doesn't exist, you lose nothing, If you don't believe in God and He exists you lose everything"?
The Anglican Church doesn't teach a mechanism for creation, just that God created.suppose the word you're emphasizing is "theological"
Then why every church including Anglican Church keep teaching it?
Says who. I very much doubt the apostles would have a modern view of historical fact.The why apostles interpreted it that way?
So God didn't create me directly, since he used things he had previously created (an egg and a sperm). You can't have your cake and eat it.directly means "don't use the result of previous work"
Not at all.You must have had a hard time deciding which paragraph is literal and which paragraph is symbolic and finding reasons why it's not literal for some paragraph
First I think this is directly against all forms of TE. I don't know there's a version that believes God enjoys doing repetitive work.ebia said:What's foolish about that.
God saw it was good then why the size of brain keeps growing. you don't need the brain to hang up like WinXP to declare it imperfect?ebia said:No. Evolutionary theory doesn't make value judgements. The only value judgements we have are "... and God saw that it was good." All of it, not just humans.
Pascal's wager with atheist is the same my wager with TEsebia said:That's Pascal's wager and (a) it doesn't work for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that there is more than one religion to choose from and (b) evolution doesn't deny God anyway - you are not debating with atheists remember.
Anglican Church taught "humans are directly created by God" before Darwin. Just like it taught artificial contraceptions are wrong before 1930ebia said:The Anglican Church doesn't teach a mechanism for creation, just that God created.
All apostles are Creationists. if you think you're better in faith than them, well, you know what that's called.ebia said:Says who. I very much doubt the apostles would have a modern view of historical fact.
you're as special as me. in short nothing special. however Jesus is special andebia said:So God didn't create me directly, since he used things he had previously created (an egg and a sperm). You can't have your cake and eat it.
Not at all.
ThaiDuykhang said:First I think this is directly against all forms of TE. I don't know there's a version that believes God enjoys doing repetitive work.
God saw it was good then why the size of brain keeps growing. you don't need the brain to hang up like WinXP to declare it imperfect?
Pascal's wager with atheist is the same my wager with TEs
Anglican Church taught "humans are directly created by God" before Darwin. Just like it taught artificial contraceptions are wrong before 1930
All apostles are Creationists. if you think you're better in faith than them, well, you know what that's called.
you're as special as me. in short nothing special. however Jesus is special and
He exihibits Jesus' specialty by creating his human body without using sperms.
What?ThaiDuykhang said:First I think this is directly against all forms of TE. I don't know there's a version that believes God enjoys doing repetitive work.
What sort of brain you need depends on what you are going to do with it. Are we imperfect because we can't smell as well as a dog or hear as well as a bat? The brain of a mouse is well suited to being a mouse.God saw it was good then why the size of brain keeps growing. you don't need the brain to hang up like WinXP to declare it imperfect?
Since Pascal's wager doesn't work anyway, this should give you a big hint.Pascal's wager with atheist is the same my wager with TEs
It still does. The Theory of Evolution does not remove God from the process.Anglican Church taught "humans are directly created by God" before Darwin.
The relevence of this is?Just like it taught artificial contraceptions are wrong before 1930
You asked them? They certainly would not be creationist in the sense you are implying, since they lived in a world that did not distinguish between true myth and history.All apostles are Creationists.
This is relevent how? You don't strengthen your case by chucking in a few random statements.you're as special as me. in short nothing special. however Jesus is special and
He exihibits Jesus' specialty by creating his human body without using sperms.
It's not "versions", but "variants"The Lady Kate said:How many "versions" of TE do you know?
Either off-topic or you're trying to argue for me. please explain your point here.The Lady Kate said:Why settle for good when things can get better?
Give a few examples please?The Lady Kate said:Funny, it fails for the same reasons.
ebia thinks his theology is better than all the forefathers of Anglican Church and apostles.The Lady Kate said:
read the previous paragraph. change "Anglican Church" to the name of your churchThe Lady Kate said:Progress? We've come a long way since the first century AD... feel free to join us at your leisure.
please tell me which of the following points you disagree.The Lady Kate said:What's your point?
ebia said:What?
the brain of ancient man doen't suit modern man, however the brain of modern man suits an ancient man.ebia said:What sort of brain you need depends on what you are going to do with it. Are we imperfect because we can't smell as well as a dog or hear as well as a bat? The brain of a mouse is well suited to being a mouse.
Since you're a Christian instead of an atheist. it has already worked on you. you believe in God because you're afraid of ending up in hell.ebia said:Since Pascal's wager doesn't work anyway, this should give you a big hint.
Change the word "directly" to Creationism if you have trouble with the word "directly"ebia said:It still does. The Theory of Evolution does not remove God from the process.
They trusted God wouldn't deceive them like the serpent in Eden. so they choose to take God's words literally.ebia said:You asked them? They certainly would not be creationist in the sense you are implying, since they lived in a world that did not distinguish between true myth and history.
Read my reply to Kateebia said:This is relevent how? You don't strengthen your case by chucking in a few random statements.
Pascal's wager does not work because there are not just two clear choices with a single possible consequence of each. There are a potentially infinite number of chocies, with at least that many possible outcomes.ThaiDuykhang said:Give a few examples please?
No, I think it's better than what you think the theology of the those people was. I don't pretend to have enough information to know what their theology was, and neither do you.ebia thinks his theology is better than all the forefathers of Anglican Church and apostles.
True.please tell me which of the following points you disagree.
1. Human is special for God
False.2. To show this specialty to human, God need to use a special method
It's not evolution's job to say we are special. That's the role of Genesis.3. Creationism states the origin of human is different from any other species. while evolution failed.
ThaiDuykhang said:TEs also failed to address why Bible, God's Word, was written in a deceptive way that fooled human being for thousands of years
Whether you follow Judaism/Christianity/Islam, you end up follow the same God(at least this is Catholic teaching). You have to explain why you follow Christianity instead of Wiccan? because following Wiccan is no better than following atheism, I guess?ebia said:Pascal's wager does not work because there are not just two clear choices with a single possible consequence of each. There are a potentially infinite number of chocies, with at least that many possible outcomes.
There's simply no alternative to Creationism back then. Do you doubt this?ebia said:No, I think it's better than what you think the theology of the those people was. I don't pretend to have enough information to know what their theology was, and neither do you.
OKebia said:True.
Can God make St Joseph and Virgin Mary(I'm not sure if this offensive to Protestants) produce the body of Jesus through sexual intercourse then inject the soul of Son into it? Of course He can since he's omnipotent. but He wants to show to us that Jesus is special. so He choose a highly unsual method.ebia said:False.
Creationism says the method God created human differs the method God created other species. what's the corresponding argument in TE? What's the role of Genesis? whenever one talks about the role of Genesis, he has to take certain parts literally.ebia said:It's not evolution's job to say we are special. That's the role of Genesis.
Theistic Evolution says God created all life through the evolutionary process.
Special Creation says God created all life by individually.
Either way, it's the proper role of Genesis to tell us about God's purpose for us in all this.
Do you think General Relativity is right? If it's right then the statement "Earth is the center of universe and motionless" can't be falsified.gluadys said:Just like it fooled human beings into believing in a motionless earth for thousands of years.
Author of Bible is God. you can't criticize Him.gluadys said:Was that really the fault of the bible, or the fault of those who wrote it, or of those who did not allow the study of God's world to assist in interpreting His word correctly?
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?