Absolutely, if one takes pure evolution on its own, there can be no such thing as morality. Which means we can do what ever we want and it is really just natural selection at work.
How many more evolution smear threads are you going to make?
Quite frankly there is nothing wrong with the scientific theory of evolution. Coupled with a belief in God and the ability to read the Bible less literally it makes sense. However, many people turn it into a religion itself. This can indeed lead to evils. But remember, religion, too, can cause evils. Extremism, for instance. Everything has a limit, and even religion can be pushed too far, just like science.
*Anything *can lead to great evil.
Drink too much water and you’ll drown.
The mistake is in thinking that this theory explaining how human flesh formed by necessity excludes God as it’s primary cause.
Not really. It can be looked at that way, but based on the huge ammounts of scientific evidence for it we must accept it into our religion sooner or later. If this means sacrificing literalistic readings, so be it. St. Augustine warned against that, anyway. God wants us to learn about our world, and He encourages us to ask questions. All science brings greater glory to him, though it can be misused. As we learn about the universe we only see how wonderful a creator he is. I don’t think creation via evolutionary means, with God actively shaping the process, is any less amazing than an instant creation. The chances that a single cell organism could evovle into me… very low. Without the help of God, that is.
The facts are there. We are forced to conclude by looking at science that evolution happened. But we don’t have to exclude God from the process!
The fallacy of Darwinian evolution is it proposes that morality is a product of selective evolution in opposition to a standard for that morality, God. Another way of making us the standard and judging God, the true standard. The video extrapolates a future event based on a fundamentalist literal interpretation of Genesis 6:
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
It is seen that after Cain killed Abel, God raised up a righteous line through Seth:
25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD.
We don’t know what the Nephilim were but the raising up of a righteous line of humanity may give a clue. This is extrapolated as another race of people, different than what is here now. The Catholic rule of faith is the Church and not the Bible alone, so we Catholics are saved from what ever popular opinion is in vogue at the time, this is the latest one on the video. Of course, with time this will change to match the next literal interpretation that comes along. On the Nephilim:ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=455303&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2006&Author=&Keyword=Nephilim&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at
Who is forcing you to believe such a thing? There is no other area of science that depends on blind faith like this occult theory. Wait until there is an observed evolutionary event.
I really don’t understand anyone who would make evolution a part of religion.
Breath too much water and you drown, drinking too much leads to hyponatremia:
Are you being serious? And is Batman Matrix being serious?
Or is this a complicated joke??
Just that name Batmanmatrix, sounds like a joke IMHO.
I reject Darwinian philosophy on morality, but I do accept the science that things evovle. Micro evolution is a proven fact, and the ammount of evidence for macro evolution is quite overwhelming. However, I see God actively acting in the process of evolution, at some point giving early humans, two of them who we know as Adam and Eve, a soul and morality. The fall of man literally did occur, though I daresay I have some doubts as to whether it invovled forbidden fruit. I think this is far more likely to be simply an allegory for sin itself. Another interesting idea I’ve heard is that the leaving of the Garden of Eden represents the transistion from hunter gatherer society to agriculture.
In 1996 His Holiness John Paul II declared: "…new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."
Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) stated: “We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.”
That’s food for though. :twocents:
Quite simply we have too much evidence to ignore it or explain it away. Transistional fostils, including the recently found ‘Ida’ for instance. Do explain how evolution is an ‘occult theory’ to me.
You explain the scientific method to me. You really can’t, because you do not know the difference between occult theory and scientific theory…
Okaaaay… I have no idea what ‘occult theory’ is, but it would seem that Pope John Paul II and myself are/were in on it. Dang.
Now, the scientific method…
Firstly, one must ask a question. Then one must observe. Then at last he will propose his hypothosis. One then performs experiments and observes their results. One tiddies this up, publishes it, and lets other scientists test it.
Now, how is evolutionary theory ‘occult’ and why isn’t it science? I suppose you will point out it cannot be tested. This is true, but it is not active science. Rather, it is historical science. In place of testing, we come to our conclusions via observing. The fosils we have have been throughly observed by generations of scientists.
What you have descibed is called psychometry by occultists, not to be confused with the measurement of mental potentials by psychologists.
Psychometry is a bit like reading crystal balls. The reader gazes at an object and envisions its history.
In starring at a crystal ball the looker on makes up what he or she sees. There’s certainly nothing there. But we have authentic fosils we can look at and consider to base our conclusions on. I just don’t understand your claims.
You can not present your personal impressions as scientific observations, even if you are a scientist. Looking at fossils has nothing to do with scientific observation of an evolutionary event.
All science is based on personal observations. When one scientist makes his own personal conclusions, others look at it, using scientific method and evidence to determine it’s validity. If accepted, it becomes their personal opinion, and if accepted by the majority, the objective scientific ‘truth’ until proven wrong (sometimes this doesn’t happen). Hence, in your view, there is no such thing as science?
Geometer, I have searched the net for occult theory and the scientific method.
I have found no link where the two are linked at all.
Is this an Ideosyncratic thing you have formulated yourself? It seems to exist nowhere but in your own posts.
Can you give me a link?