I'm glad to see that you finally agree with me, KFC.

That is all fine and well, but it doesn't give you the right to "combine" these two ideas when talking about evolution.

Belief in a Creator creating the universe and life is something that both Creationists and scientists can believe in. And atheism is also something that both supporters of "Intelligent Design" and scientists can believe in.

They are not two positions (atheism and evolution vs theism and Creationism) but four:

1. G-d created the universe and all species (Creationism).

2. G-d created the universe and (possibly) life but species exist because of evolution (Catholicism/Judaism/all rational religions).

3. There is no god or it doesn't matter and some entity created all species (Creationism/"Intelligent Design").

4. There is no god or it doesn't matter and life started somehow but species exist because of evolution (Dawkins).

The battle between Creationism and science is not a battle between religion and atheism, even though and if Creationists and Dawkins want to make it into one.

Dawkins is a brilliant scientist and the most arrogant and ignorant idiot when it comes to theology and tolerance. His statements backed by research about evolution are correct and we should all learn from him and understand his points; but his statements about religion/morality/theology/philosophy are those of a complete amateur in those areas and those of an arrogant know-it-all whom people shouldn't listen to.

Dawkins: scientist, NOT a religious/philosophical/moral authority.

Genesis in the Bible is the shortest version of the Semitic legend of Creation. It doesn't say anything about physical events. The evidence for Genesis being about spiritual is in the words used. The word game between the words surrounding the root DM (examples below) works only in Hebrew (and presumably Aramaic) but not in all languages that myths were known in before Moses' time.

The Tora's Genesis story was a summary of Semitic legends. It was NOT new. The legends were already known and earlier versions went into more detail (and contradicted each other). The Tora's version took out most of the contradicting stuff (which was also scientifically wrong) and concentrated only on the spiritual. It does NOT contradict evolution or the theory that the earth is much older than 7000 years.

Relevant words:

'DVM ("adom") = "red"

'DMH ("adama") = "red earth" (the material)

'DM ("adam") = "human being" (i.e. "made of adama", just remove the Hey)

DM ("dam") = "blood" (i.e. the red stuff inside "adam", just remove the Alef)

These word games work only in Semitic versions of the story, but the story is older. IF the account of Creation was LITERALLY TRUE and described physics rather than spirituality, the word game would have appeared in an older language. Moses received the Tora 3200 years ago, the Hebrew words above are not older than 4000 or 5000 years. But the Creation legend is older than that.

Semitic gods, including YHVH, are the same as Sumerian gods, but the Sumerian culture is older than the Semitic cultures. The Creation account is Sumerian in origin (like most of the very ancient legends surrounding Semitic/Sumerian deities). The connection between "red" and "earth" (the material) is present in both Hebrew and Akkadian (the Semitic language spoken in Mesopotamia, i.e. in Iraq). I don't know if the word game works in Sumerian (I doubt it), but the legend of man being created from red earth is Sumerian in origin.

In fact the Sumerian name for the creator god is "Enki" which derives from the Sumerian words for "heaven and earth" = "anu na ki". I don't think "ki" could be used as a base for the same word game.

But here's the most surprising part, at least for me. The word for "I" used in the Tora when referring to G-d is not Hebrew "ani" (Alef Nun Yud), but "anoki" (Alef Nun Kaf Yud, that's how the word "I" appears in the first commandment). This seems to be a remnant of the relationship between Tora and Sumerian legends that referred to the creator god by that same word.

Either way, if Genesis describes physical creation, it means, theologically, that (I) the Sumerians were the people told by G-d, not the Israelites, and (II) the Israelites had a funnier version of the story. And that would contradict both the premise that the Israelites were the chosen people and the premise that Tora is a serious book.

If on the other hand the Tora's version of Genesis is about the spiritual values that can be deduced from a version of the story without the details (as the Tora's version of the legend is a summary as I said before), the Israelites are indeed the first people told by G-d (about the spiritual relevance of the legend) and the Tora is indeed a serious book as befits holy scripture.

(Note that I cannot figure out why the word game would already work in the Akkadian version of the legend. I assume that the word "adam" is an Akkadian invention based on the Sumerian legend.)

That's also when I object.

There is (currently) no scientific theory that explains the beginning of life and the beginning of life should therefor not be taught in science class as a related subject to evolution.

There are several hypothesises for how life started that don't require supernatural intervention to have happened, and while those could be taught in science class, they should not be taught as part of "evolution", because they are (I) not theories (yet) and (II) not part of evolution.

There is a scientific theory of how the universe started (Big Bang) and it is and should be taught in science class.

_Heavens_, not "heaven". It's important. Plus the word for "heaven" derives from a root that means "water". Also, the word translated as "earth" actually means "land" (which is also what the English word "earth" meant back when the translations were made, plus the Latin translation translates the word as "land" rather than "planet earth").

Yes, and evolution makes no claim to the contrary. If G-d created the universe in which evolution happens, He certainly created everything created in or by that universe too.

The word for "image" used is "tzelem", which is related to the word "tzel" ("shadow"). Plus G-d is incorporeal and "in His image" doesn't refer to the body but to those attributes which man and G-d actually do have in common. It's a spiritual thing, it refers to free will and such things.

The Hebrew word for "created" is "bara" (Beth Resh Alef). It appears three times in 1.27 alone. A quick look at Genesis chapters 1 and 2 and 5 shows me that the word BR' appears many times, certainly more often than three. "Created" is past tense third person singular, which is exactly the root of the word plus /a/ vowels. Those same three letters appear in every form of the word "create", including adjectives, nouns, other verb forms etc..

I don't know if Taltamir is an atheist, but if I recall correctly he does understand Hebrew, probably better than I do.

Hey, and don't call us "atheist buffs". We have more respect for holy scripture than you and spent more time studying Hebrew and scripture and that is part of why we came to different conclusions than you.

This is true Leauki.  Did you know that scripture speaks of three heavens? 

We like to say we see the first heaven by day, the second heaven by night and the third heaven by faith. 

[quote]I'm glad to see that you finally agree with me, KFC.[/quote

Yes.

While there is another number of heavens, seven, that derives from Jewish mysticism, the number three is one I am familiar with.

Apparently the first, the one we see by day, is the blue heaven, i.e. the skies. The second, the one we see by night, is space. And the third, G-d's dwelling place is the one we see by faith.

It is quite possible that Genesis refers to these three.

But we would have to figure out what this has to do with water, a word that also appears in plural in Hebrew.

LEAUKI POSTS: #105

DAIWA POSTS #133

Okay..... So how would each of you describe the process commonly called EVOLUTION and DARWIN'S EVOLUTION THEORY as opposed to Google's definition which follows below?  

This isn't my definition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution...it's Google's  and it's very close to the definition found in most public schools earth science and biology textbooks.   

You are here: Science >> Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time.

Evolution Theory teaches that over eons of time every living thing in the world ultimately originated from a primordial molecular soupy mud that naturally evolved its way up to modern man. For particles-to-people Evolution to be true requires changes that increase genetic inofrmation content.  The gaining of genetic information leading up from  lower to higher levels of creatures is what the average person intuitively understands about "evolution". "Big" genetic changes such as would have to occur for a reptile to give rise to a bird or an ape to give rise to a man.

ET explains this "evolving" was accomplished by "Natural Selection". When a plant, animal or person produces offspring, variations appear. Evolutionists called these variations "natural selection" and declared that they would have caused all life on this planet. We know now that this is false becasue natural selection is "gene reshuffling" which never goes across the species barrier. The only thing that natural selection produced that Darwin observed were changes in bird's beaks. They all started out as birds and ended up birds, no crossover of genetic higher information occurred. Darwin then tried to prove natural selection as the mechanism for EVolution by studying pigeons, but he wasn't able to get his pigeons to become some other kinds of species. And then Evolutionists studied Peppered moths, flies and bacteria....but here again, the moths remained moths, the flies were still flies, and the bacteria even though resisted DDT and now became resistant to antibiotics, no species changes occured, they are still bacteria.  

Eventually, even Evolution scientists recognized that natural selection has never given evidence of one species "evolving" into another one, and so they went to the idea that it is mutations and survival of the fittest which accomplish the changes, and natural selection accomplished the finishing touches. We have now confirmed through molecular biology that none of these can produce the Evolution according to the Google definition, that is genetic change leading up to a higher level of complexity ie. reptile to bird. How does ET explain how/which reptile bred with a bird? Doesn't pass the straight face test.

 We all can recognize that our plant and animal classifications have been made by men and errors in labeling occur.  When I refer to "species" I mean as a fundamental type or kind and the fundamental "kind" as referred to in Genesis 1:12; 21, 25 might refer to "genus" instead of "species".

There are about 3 dozen different breeds of cats, but only a very few taxonimists list them as different species.  Same with dogs, most biologists uniformly recognize that they are all the same species....same with Darwin's finches....different beaks, but all in the same species...birds.  In general, all life forms within a "species" can usually interbreed. Becasue of their repsective DNA barrier, cats (one species) cannot successfully breed with dogs ( a different species). This same explains why claiming apes evolved into ape-like humans is junk science, or pseudo science. If you disagree, then explain the evolutionary science how this occured.

That is not Google's definition of evolution nor of Darwin's Theory

For those interested, check out the 'about us' section from that link and the creators of that information Lula just posted.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/common/aboutus.htm

Wow...

There's actually one sentence in there I can get jiggy with:

"Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history."  Heady stuff.

DAIWA POSTS #133

lULA POSTS:

LEAUKI POSTS #135

DAIWA AND LEAUKI,

When rightly and correctly understood, Evolution is Godless and don't take my word for it, take the word of the makers and shakers of Evolution and Darwin's Evolution Theory.

For the first 240 years of the beginning of modern science, from 1600-1800s, the belief in the Creation of the world and all that's in it was the dominant view in the scientific community. Virtually, every founder believed in Creation, from Keplar, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Mendel, and Kelvin, to name a few. Just to illustrate this, Newton said, "This most beautfiul system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel  and dominion of an intellignet and powerful Being."

 What happened in the 1800s? God was pronounced dead by many in the scientific establishment.

In 1859, Darwin wrote his first famous book which theorized all animals evolved from a common ancestor through purposeless forces over millions of years. 12 years later, he asserted in his  Descent of Man, that humans arose from the same common ancestor as well. Darwin provided the "scientific" theory which included a process called Natural Selection" and Evolution gained scientific legitimacy. This was the time that the world experienced a turning point in history. Darwin referred to natural selection as "my deity" and defended it as "a active power or deity".

The co-founder of Natural Theory, ALfred Wallace went one step further in replacing God with Evolution, He said, "Natural Selection is supreme and not only adequate to regulate and direct all the forces at work in living organisms, but also the more fundamental forces of the whole material universe."

Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's bulldog, showed to what extent Evolution had replaced God,  "i SEE NO REASON FOR DOUBTING THAT ALL ARE COORdinate terms of nature's great progression, from formless to formed, from the inorganic to the organic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will. " So, it's Huxley himself who believed in force directed the evolutionary process from the non-living to the living, and from the non-intelligent to intelligent beings.

Herbert Spencer went one step further, by asserting that evolution was a Cosmic process that explained not only biology but also astronomy, geology, and psychology. Spencer believed and taught that everything is evolving. This led German philosopher and biologist Earnest Haeckel to conclude, "with this simple argument the mysteryof the universe is explained, the deity annulled, and a new era of infinite knowledge ushered in. " No longer did finite man need an infinite God....They said, Science would bring man infinite knowledge.

Karl Marx already a convinced atheist, rejoiced in Darwin's ET. His wirtings are of course the foundation of Communism.

Just 7 years after Darwin announced that man descended from a brute ape-like ancestor, Charles Hodge, a Princeton scholar, summed up the heart of evolution ideology..."What is Darwinism? It is Atheism." This doesn't mean that all who believe it are atheists, but it means that Darwin's ET is atheistic....that the exclusion of Creator God is tantamount to atheism.

So, the fundamental differences between Darwin's Evolution Theory and the Christian belief in the account of Genesis should be clear....if the occurence of the world and all that's in it can be expalined in terms of long periods of time, chance, natural selection, and survvial pressure, then it would seem there's no justification for God's power at work in Creation. Richard Dawkins, zoologist and famous apologist for Darwinism put it this way, "Darwin's theory finally made it possible for one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Well, is Darwinism self-satisfied atheism well placed? How can it be....it's been long known it doesn't pass any true scientific tests and so must be bellieved as a matter of non-rational faith.

So, we know now the whole point of the 19th century push to justify Darwinian Evolution and Evolution Theory...it isn't becasue they are true science and have been proven....it was then and still is to enable a naturalistic explanaton of our Origins without the need for a trancendent Creator. That's the reason behind the push to not teach both sides of the debate in public educational settings.  

KURTIN POSTS:

  I typed "Darwin's theory of evolution" and hit google search....this is the first one on the page that I opened....

http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm

Here's the whole page.....

		You are here: Science >> Darwin's Theory Of Evolution Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time. Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely... Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4] Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5] And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6] Explore More Now!   Footnotes: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 162. Ibid. p. 158. Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box," 1996. "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," documentary by Illustra Media, 2002. Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1986, p. 250. Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.

Exactly, but just because it hits on Google doesn't make it any more credible than a science project by a first grader.  Google is not an Encyclopedia, nor is it even a tool for hard, discrete research.  The search follows Boolean Logic; it's not 'truth powered.'  Did you read that 'about us' section derived from that site that I posted?  Basically, they state that they use the internet to get their facts and research, and they're, according to the parent site, "allaboutGOD."  That sounds a little fishy to me when coming down entirely on the work of Charles Darwin and any scientific discoveries into evolution since.  Apparently, and this has been discussed in public schools and universities across the country, we've come to an age where people find something on the internet and deduce that it must be true.  Then of course, the cycle proceeds as people like you go and post others' nonsense as evidence for your claims.  It's the 'Trickle-Down Theory' of misinformation.

You are absolutely correct.  Evolution theory has nothing to do with any deity, your God or any other.  Stop trying to force the square peg into a round hole.

Leauki posts #135

 It's no a Creationist lie.

If you'll pay close attention to my post # 162 you'll see that it's actually the Evolutionist followers of Darwin who first identified atheism with Darwinian Evolution and  Evolutionary theory.   It's their own words.  

LEAUKI POSTS: #143

#144

Daiwa posts #146

KFC POSTS: #147

Yes, KFC, of course the evolutionists followers threw our origins in the mix....we have it in their own words what they thought and what they taught....

KFC POSTS:

Absolutely true. Again, Darwin's followers pick Darwin's ball and run with it....they further develop his initial theory...

Again, my post # 162 addresses this. Darwin's true blue evolutionist followers tried to explain how life came from non-life.

According to an Evolutionist by the name of Bur quoted in Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity 1972, pg. 98,

The formula for the evolutionary origin and development of life goes something like this:

Nothing, plus time plus chance equals simple cell and one cell plus time plus chance equals man. The randomness caught on the wing, preserved, reproduced...and thus converted into order, rule, necessity. A totally blind process can lead to anything; it can even lead to vision itself."

According to the Evolution, the origin of life by random means  began some 5 billion years ago and gradually unfolded through a series of 5 stages....

Stage 1... In contrast to the present oxidizing atmosphere of earth, Evolutionists imagine that the atmosphere of the early earth was a rdeucing one made up mostly of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vaper.

Stage 2....which was the formation of small organic molecules such as sugars, amino acids and nucleotiides came about becasue of ultraviolet light, electric discharge and high energy particle bambardment of molecules in a reducing atmosphere.

Stage 3...billions of years later, it's imagined that combinations of stage 2 molecules resulted in the formation of larger polymers such as starches, proteins, and nucleic acids (DNA).

Stage 4... These large molecules supposedly joined together into a gel-like glob call ed coacervates or microspheres which developed into new stucutres called protocells,

Stage 5... Evolutionists believe that finally, at least one of these globs absorbed the right molecules so that complex molecules can be duplicated within new units called living cells. These first cells comsumed molecules left over from earlier states but eventually photosynthesis appeared in cells, in some way and oxygen was released into the atmosphere. As the 5 of oxygen increased, most of the known forms of life on the earth today began to appear. Becasue of the presence of oxygen these early forms destroyed all the molecules from earlier stages and no more chemical evolution was possible.

Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British mathematician and astronomer, developed a team who mathematically determined that the liklihood that a single cell could originate in a primitive environment given 4.6 billion years in which to do it, was one chance in 10 to the 40000 power ...that is one chance in 1 with 40 thousand zeros after it. On top of that everything would suddenly have to be there all at once, it would have to work perfectly and it would have to split and divide into new cells immediately and reproduce offspring quickly. Of course, it would have to be alive.

Living forms even the most simple cells are too awesome to relagate to the tender mercies of time and chance. It took God's special Creation and special power to make all things, including the incredible complexity of DNA and the impossibility of making itself out of chance, gravel, mud and water.     

C'mon, c'mon Kurtin, now that you've analyzed, ciritiized and put down the link,  it's time for you to go back to my post 159 and refute the first paragraph which is a definition of Darwin's theory of Evolutiolion (which again is basically the same as is in my kid's science and biology textbooks.)

Mathematics is kinda my thing.  While his math is more than likely correct on the inferences he made, one should question whether or not they were properly made.  Take a look at Ian Musgrave's interpretation of why Hoyle should be considered wrong with his interpretations.  Do you see how we could dance around this all day?

Once again, allow me to emphasize, IT IS NOT GOOGLE'S DEFINITION!  Get that through your head.

leauki posts" 135

It's good to know that you believe in God and prophecy.

Much has been said in this discussion about there being apes evolving into ape-like pre-human or proto-humans that evolved into modern man.  They would have had to die out leading up to the arrival of Adam, but Romans 5:12 declares that death only began to occur AFTER Adam's sin of disobedience. So when is a human a human being? The 1994 Catechism of the CC  states that we are human beings precisesly becasue we are animated by a spritual soul/ The idea of these multitudes of ape-like pre-humans does not even qualify as credible speculation. The first male human being on whom the awesome choice of obedience would be placed on behalf of all future mankind, is much more likely to have been specially created as an adult human being. If one holds that this reference to death applies only to human beings, then why do fossils of supposed ape-like transitional forms (Neanderthals) show evidence of the disease of rickets? Are we to believe that Adam and Eve were created upon a vast museum of death and that it was not a good tranquil Creation after all? The buried fossils of the Neanderthals in reality resulted from the global Flood of Noah many years AFTER Adam and Eve.

 Do you believe Christ is the prophecied Messias and therefore God? It would seem that you don't.  

The Old Testament including those 5 Books in the Torah are full of prophecy of the coming of the Messias Christ. But for now, let's get back to Genesis. Consider some things we know about the trustworthy Creator. Genesis tells us the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity was not only the present at the Creation, but actually carried out the work of Creation...."through whom all things were made."  He later took on a human form and carried out the work of redemption in perfect obedience to the Father. He must have been intimately involved in the truth revealed to Moses (who Prophecied His coming and told the Jews to "hear Him"). God can neither deceive nor be decieved, so how can we ignore Christ's various comments regarding the genuine historicity of Genesis, including the global Flood and the concrete reality of Adam and Eve.

Let's not forget that the Second Person did some extraordinary things by human standards such as calmly walking across the rough sea to St.Peter and the other frightened disciples in the boat. We know that He created space, time and matter rapidly at the beginning of Creation, changed water into wine rapidly, brought the dead Lazarus back to life rapidly, created a coin inside the mouth of a fish rapidly, or at least directed St.Peter to a fish that had a coin in  its mouth, multiplied 5 loaves and 2 fises rapidly to feed 5, 000 people. He cured blindness and diseases rapidly, so why balk at His rapid creation of Adam and Eve?

When I consider all of this it's easy for me to believe in the truth of Creation as told in Genesis. So whom should we believe--the trustworthy Divine Second Person who was present at the Creation, or fallible modern human beings such as Darwin, and his followers who were not there?

Oh google, snoogle, yahoo, bahoo.....so what? It's a current working definition and one that school textbooks use.

After being accused of not knowing or understanding Evolution or Darwin's ET, I provided a rebuttal in post 159...

I anticipated that you might refuse that definition and asked

Defend your position, Kurtin....describe the process....how does your definition of Evolution and ET work?

It's not natural selection, it's not intermediate transitional forms, it's not mutations, ....c'mon, smarty pants, what is it?   

Leauki posts: #135

You bet I am Catholic and a follower of the one true faith of the Catholic Church  ....the CC has never been silent in declarations in encyclicals and Councils about Creation and evolution. I certainly haven't dismissed the ones you mention.

Within a few years that Darwin had written his books and Godless evolution theory started being bandied about by his followers,  Pope Leo XIII was concerned that Catholics might fall into this Satan's trap. In 1880, he issued his  encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae  which infallibly taught us Catholics that Adam was made from the slime of the earth and that Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam's body. The four conditions which the Vat. II council would later recognize in Lumen Gentium #25, in order for a doctrine to be proposed infallibly by the ordinary Magisterium had been fulfilled in 1880 with respect to the origin of Adam and Eve. Catholics knew then from this teaching as Catholics know now that Pope Leo XIII implicitly ruled out polygenism i.e. many first parents by insisting on monogenism.

Polygenism was also strongly condemned by Pius XII in Humani Generis. He declared that Catholics "cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents." Therefore polygenism is not an open question for Catholics.

Do you know what the full title of Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis is? It's "Humani Generis on Evolution and Other Modern Errors."  I've got a copy of it in front of me. He wrote it because he saw the shootout was coming between tratitional Catholic teaching and modern thought with its assortment of false philosophical ideas and opinions, dogmatic relativism, denial of Original Sin and the difference between matter and spirit, false ecumenism, and the fad of Evolution as well as a host of others I won't bore you and other readers with.

 Concerning

Ya, the news headlines that followed his address (not infallible teaching btw) was "Pope endorses evolution!" It, of course, is not true as Pope John Paul II's, of happy memory , words were totally taken out of context. (Perhaps it's not surprising given the liberal bias of the media and their total inability to unpack his statement. They latched on to his most sensational phrase and didn't understand it.

The name of his address is "Truth cannot Contradict Truth" and it addresses the relationship between science and revelation. Pope John Paul reminds the members of the Academy of Humani generis's restrictions and THEN NOTES the now famous phrase... some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis....

This is so far from an endorsement of evolution, rather merely a statement of fact....Evolution has gained general recognition....and the two sentences that follow amplify this statement.....he refers to evolution as more than a hypothesis and as a "theory". Scientists understand the words have different meanings. I think we've dissussed the differences here on JU.

The Pope then calls the nature of theory to our attention.  a....theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreteated in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified...wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitablilty. It must be then rethought."

He further notes that we should really speak of "several.theories of evolution" becasue of the different proposed mechanisms and underlying philosophies. "He said, "What is to be decided here, is the true role of philosophy, and beyond it, of theology." Here the Pope reached his main theme....Man was created in the image and likeness of God and can't be reduced to pure means or insturments. He then moves on to repeats Pius's insistence that the man's body is living matter and his soul is immediately created by God. He then states: "Consequently, theories of evolution which ....consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."

As to your second quote on Creation,  I have no clue about that....you'd have to give me more specifics.

I don't know where you got your copy from, but that's not the full title.

The full title is

HUMANI GENERIS
(Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12human.htm

The "false opinions" referred to are not the theory of evolution but its application to human souls. Darwinists do not make claims about evolution of souls.

It looks to me like you got your copy from a place that changed the title to make it look as if the treatise spoke up against evolution.

What do you mean "as opposed to Google's definition"?

This is (paraphrased) Richard Dawkins definition of evolution:

Note that evolution is

(I) non-random (the randomness is removed when natural selection discards random variations that are not needed)

(II) based on replicators (and no distinction is made between small and big variations)

(III) not about the origin of life (hence "survival" rather than "creation")

Evolution is as non-random as a sieve, meaning that even though the you can put randomly-sized pebbles into a sieve, the pebbles that are allowed to pass through the sieve are NOT determined by chance (but by their size).

Evolution doesn't know different types of changes, only change as such, meaning that the replicators change or don't change, but there is no limit as to how much they can change over generations. Any statements about "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" have nothing to do with evolution, as there is no such difference according to the theory.

Evolution doesn't address the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

And he was. Which is why Cardinal Ratzinger made statements further explaining the Catholic Church's position on evolution, and which is why evolution is taught in Catholic schools.

You notice that creationists keep on going about "drawinism" this and "darwin" that... as if they think evolution means treating darwin as jesus or something.

Darwin might have been the first to put it down to paper, but most of his work has been revised or modified by proceeding scientists. Evolution as it is today is beyond what darwin could have imagined.