Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific


#765

You should perhaps not be on a Catholic site @rossum the Buddhist, arguing against creation by God, because our scripture says “the fool says there is no God.” If you reject that it is better to play with Buddhists and cease your heresy here
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


#766

Well it’s a good thing the Psalms were not originally written in English! Hebrew words have many meanings, “living” in this case used figuratively to say that God was active in the presence of His people. Plenty of other Scripture verses state that God created the world and life from nothing.


#767

Hey, let’s be charitable here. Rossum doesn’t come to these evolution threads to argue against God. What he does is refute literalistic creation arguments. So in that sense he is attempting to enlighten people about a really interesting science of our world. Remember that the Vatican doesn’t have issues with evolution and how Pope JPII called faith and reason the two wings of human spirit. Being able to understand our world better is a good thing. If you want to personally hold a literalistic view, okay, but when you post things against evolution that don’t hold water, people (including Rossum) will correct you. Mich in the same vein you attempt at correcting what you hold to be errors in evolution.

Also, CAF is made richer by having other faith traditions. Our non-Catholic brethren help us understand other points of view and it’s quite interesting. I’ll also point out that Rossum has only brought up his Bhuddism in these threads when people bring up the Bible or other aspects of Catholic faith as disallowing evolution. (Again, contrary to what the Church allows.) He also does it in a respectful manner. Like you, I’ll disagree with his theology, but I’d be hard-pressed to find him being disrespectful.


#768

Personal attacks on someone else’s religion has no place in this forum. Rossum has not argued against any teaching of the Catholic Church - only against a small minority view of some within the Church. You would do well to confine your criticisms to issues and not other members of this forum.


#769

So, your God is not a “living God” but a “non-living” God. Strange, since most Christians, and Catholics, insist that their God is alive.

rossum


#770

That is up the the owners of Catholic Answers, not to you. Thus far they seem content to allow me to post here.

rossum


#771

You seem to take “living” as used in the Psalm that God the Father is a created being with a body. That is not our belief. Our belief is that God is being itself, as expressed by his revealing Himself to Moses as “I AM.”

But the Psalm uses living in the sense that God is actively guiding His people.

Do you read the Buddhist Scriptures in their original language, or in English? I would venture to guess that there are similar instances of having to translate certain words to best convey the meaning as first written.


#772

The Christian God is a living God because He exhibits some of the most important characteristics of what we normally calling “living.” That is, interacting with us with sentience and caring. We do not insist that He conform to all the characteristics of normal biological life, such as digestion and reproduction. (Until the time of the incarnation, at which time God did become - for a while - fully human.) As for being the “first living being,” that need not be a contradiction to the notion of God creating the first biological life form. He himself need not have been created if He has always existed. There never was a time “before there was God” in Christian cosmology. That being said, as you know from my other postings, I do not consider any of this to bear on the scientific question of evolution, which I most certainly consider a scientific theory, and one with much support.


#773

You should not use language like “since most Christians, and Catholics”. It shows that you don’t understand Catholicism. All Catholics Are Christian
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


#774

Actually, he does , something about prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells and deep ocean vents.


#775

I think you will find he is arguing that he made himself, and that God did not make everything through and for Jesus.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange


#776

All Buddhist scriptures we have now are translations. The Buddha spoke Maghadi. The closest we have today is Pali.

I can read Sanskrit, some Pali (which is very similar) and a little Tibetan. I know about a dozen Chinese characters. A few years ago I could not find a good translation of Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika so I started translating it for myself, with the help of the then existing translations. I had done about eight or nine chapters when a much better English translation came out, so I bought a copy of that and gave up on my own version. Although incomplete, that translation helped my to understand a very complex work.

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from samsara.

Whatever is the end of nirvana, that is the end of samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

rossum


#777

Not quite. Prokaryotes came first, Eukaryotes are definitely later – look at the origin of mitochondria. Deep ocean vents are certainly one possibility, though there are others. Currently abiogenesis research has a lot of possible hypotheses and is working on eliminating the incorrect ones.

rossum


#778

I just wanted to set the record straight…you do have an alternative idea of how life started. :slight_smile:


#779

Material life started through abiogenesis on at least one, and possibly more, planets. Immaterial life had no beginning, though the individual living beings are all finite, with a start and an end.

rossum


#780

It is his MO. When out of arguments always attack the person. It is so tiresome…


#781

That was easy. LOL


#782

I cannot recall when you have ever done this.


#783

He said many true and irrelevant things in his video. Of the things there were relevant to the question, those did not follow from the true stuff. That is why I say he is just wrong.


#784

And that was even easier…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.