Whenever I play with the word “REASON”, logic, rational and the ability to think clearly and coherently comes up … but I cannot find a reference to the irrational?

First you want me to prove that God doesn’t exist for you … now you want me to point out where science has failed you, tisk, tisk, tisk. You keep up this nonsense about the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls” and whatnot as supporting all your stuff ... and you want me to tell you why it doesn’t??? Don’t you think it would be easier if you went a tad further and told me what it is you believe so resounding and scientifically supportive so my job would be a little less time consuming … All I can tell you as you ponder this quarry is, know that I couldn’t find the least bit to support your claims. If you want more, go find it yourself.

Divine (connected with, coming from, or caused by God) Faith (belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof) pretty well describes things for you … but I am still working on the part that really comes first … the part where God is proven to exist outside of scripture is all. … Still waiting!

 

Ha, and I just left a post on Farenheit urging you onward!

Too generic for me. If the survival of my family is at stake it takes priority. If the survival of my State is at stake, then this takes priority. This is a fluid situation for me and varies on many variables. And if religion is at stake ... you are on your own, because you have made enemies of everything and everyone who follows another piper ... even those who do not follow pipers, go figure. You are literally at war with the rest of the world???

You write:

If I had to be the one to write about the existence of God, this God would not close the doors to any living creature that did not follow a curtain set of rules

God is the Creator and we are the created with an immortal soul, an intellect and free will.  God in His Infinite Wisdom gave the human race certain rules to live by. These rules are for our own good.

God is All Just and will secure the absolute balance justice demands on the day we die.If He were to allow every sinner to go without punishment as unbelievers say He should do, by having no Hell for the wicked, then He would not be Just. Now God has promised to punish sin and since He is Infinitely True, He must keep His promise.

If we take your scenario and apply it here, we'd be in chaos. 

A just judge gives the sentence exactly in accordance with the guilt. If the judge dismissed every prisoner no matter how guilty, without punishment, he would not be just, but unjust.

.......................

You write:

but would open the doors to all who believed that there was more to life than the rights of the just the individual, rather the individual is only a small portion of a global or universal community that includes all living life on this planet and anywhere in the universe.

To me a man of God does not kill animals, plants or even insects out of the notion that we are greater than or more deserving than other forms of life. My God would hold the life of a human with the same value of the life of an ant as we are all part of the same system and dependent on everything one might call mother nature.

The Catholic Church teaches:

Man stands apart from anything else in creation becasue he is composed of a body (matter) and soul (spirit) and made in the image and likeness of God.

Why did God create us? What is the purpose of our life on this earth? What is the end of man?

Man is created to praise, love and serve God in this life and by doing so to attain eternal life with God hereafter. 

We understand that human life is not with the same value as that of an ant  by amnsweing the question what is the end of man?

The end of a thing is the purpose for which it was made. The end of a watch is to keep time. The end of a pen is to write, etc.

A thing is good only to the proportion to the way it fulfills the end for which it was made. A watch may be beautifully made but it it doesn't keep time, it is useless as a watch and the same with the pen.

 

For what purpose was man made? If we discover that we know his end. When we look around the world we see a purpose or an end for everything. We see that the soil is made for plants and trees to grow in, and so we must have soil.  The vegetables and plants are made for animals to feed upon, while the animals themselves were made for man that they may help him in his work or serve him for food. So, it's evident that everything in the world was made to serve something else.

What then was man made for? Was it for anything in the world? We see that all classes of beings were created for something higher than themselves. The plants are higher than soil becasue they have life and the soil does not. ANimals are higher than plants because they not only have life but they feel and plants cannot. Man is higher than animals becasue he not only has life and can feel, but he also has reason and intelligence and can understand while animals cannot.

Therefore, we must look for something higher than man himself but there is nothing higher than man in this world and so we must look beyond it to find that for which he was made. And looking beyond it and considering all things, we find that he was made for God--to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him both in this world and in the next.

Again, we read in Genesis 1 that at the Creation of the world all things were made before man and that he was created last. THerefore if all these things could exist without man, we cannot say that he was made for them. The world existed before him and can exist after him. 

The world goes along without man. Neither was man made to stay here and become rich, powerful, learned, becasue all do not become rich, as some are poor, all are not educated as some are ignorant, and all are not powerful as some are slaves.

But since all men are alike and equal in this, .... that they have bodies all formed in the same way and all souls that are immortal, they should all be made for the same end. Although men differ in many things, they are all alike in the essential thing, viz. that they are composed of body and soul and made to the image and likeness of God. 

 

Therefore, as pens are only made to write with, so all men must have only one and the same end, namely to serve God and be with Him in everlasting life.

Myfist0 posts #115

You're describing Theistic Evolution, an attempt to make God a part of Evolution. It is in effect a compromise position which seeks to accomodate evolutionary beliefs.Unfortunately many Catholics uncritically accept this mistaken venture.

We can't have both for theological and scientific reasons. For now, I'll just give the scientific. Science, particularly molecular genetics, has since shed light on DNA and genetics has no profs for evolution. It does not confirm postulated evolutionary sequences. There are no progressive changes say from fish to amphibians, to reptiles to mammals. Molecular genetics confirms systematics, not phylogeny. Linnaeas, not Darwin.

The bottom line: Science has failed to supply evidence for Evolution. The theory keeps looking for evidence and failing to find it moves on to other postulates.

 

You show a picture of a wolf and a dog.

This is not Evolution. Rather it is "Variety Within Kind" due to reshuffling of genes (recombination) and it should not be confused with Evolution which is a molecules to man natural transformation in which new, higher, genetic information is gained which was not posessed by one's ancestors. In other words, Evolution is the idea of change into something vastly different is the common understanding held across society. 

 

 

BT posts #68

Here you are painting belief in the existence of the One God, in Jesus Christ, and His Christian Faith as irrational. Is it?  NO.

By man's very nature, he is free to attain knowledge of the One God. Man has two natural ways of discovering the existence of God ... through reason and through created things perceivable through the senses. 

It's possible to know about God without His having to reveal Himself through supernaturally revealed truths.

We know this from the Book of Wisdom 13:1-9  followed by St.Paul's reference to inexcusable ignorance of the existence of God. Romans 1:20-23.

Wisdom says that pagans, who. led astray by the beauty, power and greatness of created things, took these things for gods, should have known that all this perfection came from their Author, for "from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator."

The fact that it's possible to know God by the use of natural reason means that pagans who choose not to worship Him are blameworthy. Their position is comparable to that of contemporary atheists and unbelievers who deny the existence of God despite the fact that as human beings they do know Him in some way from the depth of their conscience. 

.................

I'm Catholic as you know. It's true that I spontaneously assumed Catholicism from my parents. I graduated from high school in the 60s, at the time the sexual and cultural revolution and that's when the questioning started. After pondering all the different proposals those offered for my life, and going through a period of hard knocks, I made a choice and came to the reasoned conclusion that my religious faith offered a better explanation for reality than materialistic accounts.

What I'm saying is believing in God and His religion doesn't suspend rationality or contradict reason. It depends on them.

Atheism involves a choice too as reason doesn't compel a thinking person to deny God's existence. The decision not to believe involves the free will.

It is no wonder we are miscommunicating here. You think your Guy having snapped his fingers is the natural conclusion for anyone to come to ... and I say only if they are as smart as a rock. I can just see the axes flying in a B.C. cartoon where the priest walks up and explains that they now have dominion over the the people because it says so on page 27 of this book ... whoosh ... woosh  ... uggh

For now, let this be my first introduction to empirical science and evolution. It was a one clicker to find you know on google?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

BT posts #5

Regarding the highlighted, I shall address that later.

Interesting that you apply "on faith alone" to us believers, yet seem oblivious to the fact that your crowd operates on the basis of faith alone too.  

The Origins-- of the universe and of man-- debate is all about beliefs. Atheistic Evolution, Theistic Evolution or Special Creation … what one believes is their “faith” system. You have expressed your belief  that you find Robert Gilman’s idea of the evolution of man “factual”, but how can that be since there has been no, nada, zilch empirical scientific data provided to prove evolution of man. Therefore, don’t you know you must believe it by faith alone?

Evolutionists have provided a genealogy evolutionary formula for the origin of the universe which posits that nothing exploded and expanded and produced the universe and all living things. But you know what? They too have not provided empirical science to prove that and have to believe it on the basis of faith in random chance.

 

 The whole time of scientific endeavor trying to prove this postulate of materialist philosophy called macro-evolution was wasted  If the science of genetics had been known in the 1800s, macro-evolution would have been seen as mistaken. True scientists know the theme of descent with modification has failed and the elusive mechanism has never been found and will not ever be found.

But a retreat on a matter as important as Evolutionism would be catastrophic for the Darwinist establishment, and so the beat goes on. We are dealing with belief systems and Darwin's Evolutionism has become a world wide materialistic philosophy that extends well into politics, sociology, and education. 

In Death of Evolution, Wallace Johnson writes: "Today when the theory of evolution can be shown to be not credible, we hold the paradox of a new surge of evolutionary propaganda flooding the world through the mass media and our educational systems. It must be terribly important for some people to persuade men that they are only animals and that science needs no God. Newman Watts ...warned, every attack made on the Christian Faith made today, has, as its basis, the doctrine of evolution."

Evolutionism is sooooo popular among Atheists and Agnostics because it provides a concept for which a transcendent Creative God is not required. As applied to your side of the debate, empiricanism is not the primary value at stake. What's at stake is to maintain the materialistic philosophy and with it the presige of "science" as the source of all important knowledge.  

People uncritically take for granted Evolutionism as fact. And so goes the thinking ... Evolution is true and mankind evolved from animals and then we are no different from animals. Evolution is true and man and nature are constantly being lifted to a higher plane, and man is liberated from God's standards and is sufficient in himself and answerable only to his own intellect and will. In short, there is no absolute right or wrong. Evolution is true and there is no need of God, Creation, the Fall, Sin, Jesus Christ and Redemption, etc. Evolution is true and the Holy Bible can be completely dismissed.  

The ethical system that flows from the Evolutionism is atheist and agnostic humanism has become a way of life....and one I might add that has lead only to negative moral consequences for it has supplanted Christianity in shaping the wider culture and look at the mess this world of ours is in. Remember my post 36 about how the world, families, society, nations are in turmoil? 

 

 

 

 

"Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale." Macroevolution - evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups. I can live with that but I prefer “The Modern Synthesis” myself.

'Hence, use of the term "macroevolution" is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is "properly" neo-Darwinian or not."
 

I did not think you really wanted to go here … humm… Lula, what you are doing here is as hypocritical as it gets. You proclaim this as being presented as facts as you conveniently skip the pronouncements like “... is often viewed as typical examples…” or “Evolution may occur…” or “It is thought to occur…” I do not have a problem teaching Creationism if it is not presented as factual either, which of course you will not tolerate. Creationism is religion and as such, it doesn’t belong in our public schools.
 
"The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was an herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus."

"Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical or behavioral characteristics, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution may occur when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such variation are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from common ancestors, which are described by Charles Darwin as "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful"."

It is thought to occur in multiple ways such as slowly, steadily and gradually over time or rapidly from one long static state to another.

"The scientific study of evolution began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species evolve. The mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theory of natural selection was independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace in 1858. In the early 20th century, Darwinian theories of evolution were combined with genetics, palaeontology and systematics, which culminated into a union of ideas known as the modern evolutionary synthesis. The synthesis became a major principle of biology as it provided a coherent and unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth."

"Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist. He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection. All I can say is we have scientifically come a long way beyond Darwin's abilitry to comprehend and express himself with."

Science always evolves but the Bible never changes so it doesn't allow people to evolve. You are being foolish here and IMO making a big mistake trying to use rational thought processes of the sciences to somehow justify your beliefs. It isn't going to happen.



And this proves my point which is:

Truth is the distinction between genetic variation (change within each basic kind aka microevolution) and macroevolution (postulated sequences, progressive changes from fishes to amphibians, to reptiles to mammals) is not only fundamental, but also crucial.

Why? becasue generic variation is a truthful reality and scientifically proven whereas modern molecular genetics has proven macroevolution is an impossibility and a lie that is being masqueraded and sold as fact.

Evolution is often described as "Macroevolution" and genetic variation as "microevolution", but perhaps these terms should not be used. After all, macroevolution is Evolution, as theorized by Darwin, but microevolution is not Evolution.

............................

Yes of course some things in the Wiki site about macro-Evolution are presented properly as theory.

However not all and the part of the Wiki site that I quoted was presented as facts when they never should have been.

Lula, I am no expert on evolution and as such I look on it as a learning experience. Mankind has 'all the time in the world' to coin a phrase to learn and correct misconceptions. If we had all the answers like you claim you have, what would be the point of living at all? After all, all we could do is actually disprove something, cannot have that. We learn as we go but you do not. You would rather drag man back 2000 years and use the beliefs of that time to justify the modern world and you cannot. I do not even understand why you would even attempt this nonsense.

You keep harping on proof when all you offer is mystical conclusions. Make all the distinctions you like but it changes nothing. Besides the fact, I really don’t care about evolution. I know enough now to know that we need better science to go further and that I leave to the actual experts. You use a lot of terms in your explanations that are confusing at best. You are taking everything out of context and you know it. This is an encyclopedia and they make no claim whatsoever as to the perfection of every word of the articles. So why are you trying to assert that? Typical hypocrisy, my book is right and that makes everything else wrong.

Anything that you perceive as ‘against doctrine’ is blasphemous and therefore wrong. Until you step down from your alter and treat the people around you as equals, you will not find any more answers. Every discourse with you starts from the perspective that you are perfectly right. Therefore all you have to do is prove the competition wrong (because they must be) usually by just telling them so. Just another religious acrobatic deformation of logic … and there are many.  Your elders made the world your enemy when they claimed dominion over everything … everything had other ideas.

It's been some time since the Catholic Church’s official position was that the sun goes around the earth. Eventually the weight of evidence forced them to admit they had been mistaken about that. Sixty years ago the Pope proclaimed that whether or not evolution happened, it didn't conflict with faith. In 1996, Pope John Paul II officially recognized evolution as a fact of nature. I do not agree with Wallace Johnson, so why would some quotes from him be meaningful. In other words, there is so much evidence of so many different types of evolution that it is no longer possible to reasonably doubt that evolution happens. So this author, claiming to be a Catholic and a Christian, is not only saying the Pope is wrong; he is also denying reality. If he insists that his God created this reality then he is denying his God, or calling the evidence of his God's creation false … basically calling his God a liar ... catch-22.

The short answer is because the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith is God's plan and Holy will for our salvation. So I cling to the Chruch and the Faith for love of God, of Christ, and my own soul that I might see Him and enjoy Him in everlasting life.

I know that since Christ came and established His Church, the Catholic religion is the only true religion. Moreover, I know by the gift of Divine Faith that the contents of Catholicism are true with the very truth of God. 

When I consider Christ's person, I believe He is Who He claimed to be. When I consider His doctrines together with their effect upon my life, I'm completely satisfied. The argument is strengthened when I see the loss of Christian Faith in a person or even in society or nation leads to vice, discord and despair.

The Catholic Faith gives a quiet, supernatural joy that makes me internally strong and prepared to take upon the great mystery of life. In matters of faith and morals, the CC is my infallible guide, so I know can't go wrong by following her Magisterial teachings which are Christ's teachings.

Being Catholic has a beneficial effect. I have advantage of the fullness of truth and greater means of grace through the 7 Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist, at my disposal.

I've freely accepted Christ's gift of the Church and Christian Faith. They have given me freedom from error and the freedom through the sacraments to use the wonderful means of Divine grace, to progress in virtue and holiness before God and men.

 

You definitely have an inadequate knowledge of Catholicism. I really don't want to get deeper in your personal life, but what happened as a child in your leaving the Church is one thing, but now as an adult having a general instinctive knowledge, you should give the Church and Catholicism more thought and consideration. Just as you were free to leave, the door is always open for you to return.

 

But 9 times out of 10, you don't apply this independence when it comes to your health or in matters of the law.

You know what you must do to safeguard your bodily health. If any serious health troubles threaten, you're sensible enough not to rely upon your independence and inadequate knowledge of medicine and seek advice from one who is qualified in medical training.

Same thing if you find yourself in a legal tangle, you'll consult one competent in legal matters. 

Well, dear, whether you believe it or not, your eternal destiny is at stake, and instead of consulting the Church and those qualified to help you, you consider yourself independent and fully competent to decide the gravest issues for yourself.