Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[Brian2]

I like that.

What unites us is bigger than disagreements about relatively minor things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are biblical issues that are not there to be reinterpreted or debated.

Adam and Eve were our first parents, created around 4 millennia BC. In the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures they are taken as real people, who begin genealogies with characters like Enoch, seventh from Adam (Jude 14), or Noah, three generations after him in the same family line. Or Abraham, who was born only two years after Noah died.

No science can determine, as if it were certain, how many male and female apes were the original parents of humans... so that is a matter that science will never make a Christian deviate from what even Jesus himself taught .

Matt. 19:4 In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”

Read Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 2:24.

What makes you think that scientists cannot determine past populations? By the way, you seem to have forgotten that people are apes. In fact there never was a "first human".

Oh and by the way, the "male and female" bit, that goes way way way back to the Precambrian.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway.

Why do you have so much faith to the people who claim evolution is true?

I don't.

I just accept evidence.
The people who make the claims are irrelevant. What matters is what they claim and what evidence they can offer to support said claim.

You don't need "faith" when you have verifiable evidence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There are biblical issues that are not there to be reinterpreted or debated.

Adam and Eve were our first parents, created around 4 millennia BC. In the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures they are taken as real people, who begin genealogies with characters like Enoch, seventh from Adam (Jude 14), or Noah, three generations after him in the same family line. Or Abraham, who was born only two years after Noah died.

No science can determine, as if it were certain, how many male and female apes were the original parents of humans... so that is a matter that science will never make a Christian deviate from what even Jesus himself taught .

Matt. 19:4 In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”

Read Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 2:24.

Happy to accept your answer on your behalf, but I was interested in what @Tinkerpeach meant.

Not sure what the rolling eye emoji was about, but my question is merely one of curiosity and clarification.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe you're grossly overestimating the number of denominations.

I don't really care what you believe
You might be surprised at how many Christian denominations there are in the world

Actually, it is modern science, archaeology, historical technology, and the Reformation that has caused the great rifts in the interpretation of the Pentateuch by the divisions in Christianity.

Bingo

 

[ChristineM]

The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches accept more books in the OT than the Protestants do. The Protestants line up with the Jews in what books are accepted.
Many newer translations reflect the scholarship which tells us which passages may have been added later (eg the last half of the last chapter of Mark and the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery at the beginning of John 8) These are either left out or indicated in the footnotes as probably not authentic.

So different then? Thanks

 

[Audie]

I believe you're grossly overestimating the number of denominations.

I gave you an opportunity to over a conflicting Bible compilation that is only accepted by one church. There are at least two distinct examples. The Bible of the Roman Church (RCC) has more books than is accepted by the Protestants, and it justifies some beliefs the Protestants do not accept. The Jehovah's Witnesses translated their own Bible and accepted no other, though the Bible itself is not much different. Of course, the KJV is the foundation Bible of virtually all Protestant Churches, but it is only the conservative fundamentalists today that consider it the only true Divinely inspired translation.

The NIV and RSV are widely accepted by liberal Protestant Churches. These versions contain some verses and translation differences that reflect recent archeological discoveries. The changes do not affect significant belief differences among the churches.

Then again actually the translations do not do very much concerning the Pentateuch including Genesis.

Actually, it is modern science, archaeology, historical technology, and the Reformation that has caused the great rifts in the interpretation of the Pentateuch by the divisions in Christianity.

First and last lines do so much to encapsulste why
Christianity is such an intellectual disaster zone.

First, the choice to just believe whatever suits.
To look into it, be informed, go with fact v faith
just is not spiritual.

Then the last.

The faith would never figure out its nonsense on Its own.
But-
There are those who do think, investigate,
exercise diligence and intellectual integrity.

Thus we see the " Faith" confronted with contrary facts ,
undeniable to all but the most dedicated idiots.

And the faith scatters like a ball of mercury hitting
the floor.
Until all have their own singular True Faith.
Lo here!
We must " reinterpert"! (Rewrite ) until each target is
centered where the arrow struck!

Lo here!
We must rewrite the facts until they fit the text!

 

[shunyadragon]

There are biblical issues that are not there to be reinterpreted or debated.

Well the various conflicting Christian divisions do indeed reinterpret, debate, accuse each other of various crimes against God, create false science to justify ancient tribal mythology, and try and rewrite history.

Adam and Eve were our first parents, created around 4 millennia BC. In the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures they are taken as real people, who begin genealogies with characters like Enoch, seventh from Adam (Jude 14), or Noah, three generations after him in the same family line. Or Abraham, who was born only two years after Noah died.

There is no objectively verifiable evidence outside ancient tribal texts without provenance.

No science can determine, as if it were certain, how many male and female apes were the original parents of humans... so that is a matter that science will never make a Christian deviate from what even Jesus himself taught .

Yes, what you state above is a sincere attempt to remain faithful to ancient tribal scripture without science, but it has no basis in reality today.

By the objective evidence, evolution takes place in populations of related life forms in response to changing environments, not two individuals of ancient mythology.

Matt. 19:4 In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”

Read Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 2:24.

Yes, you cite, believe, and remain faithful to a literal Bible as believed by those who wrote it without science. This is the major issue that divides Christianity when many make a vain effort to force ancient texts, like the Roman Church (RCC) to fit the objective reality of our existence.

 

[1213]

...I just accept evidence.
...

Please tell one actual example of evidence that convinces you? Something that is real, and not just someones opinion.

 

[1213]

. . . because the sciences of evolution are based on objectively verifiable evidence and science like what makes airplanes fly and computers work.

That some idea is based on reality, doesn't make it necessary true. Also, if person is right in one matter, it does not mean he is necessary right in every matter.

 

[Audie]

That some idea is based on reality, doesn't make it necessary true. Also, if person is right in one matter, it does not mean he is necessary right in every matter.

This understanding may be new to you
but it's actually very tiresome to have someone point
it out like it's new to others.

 

[Audie]

Please tell one actual example of evidence that convinces you? Something that is real, and not just someones opinion.

Evidence I've seen?

Fossil fragments of long extihct sea creatures
coming up from 1000 meters below a Kansas
wheat field in cuttings from an oil well drill.

How would you explain that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please tell one actual example of evidence that convinces you? Something that is real, and not just someones opinion.

Now you have just admitted that you have no understanding of evolution at all and probably you don't understand the concept of evidence either. How about DNA as evidence? It can be shown that closely related species have DNA similar to each other. As more and more distant relatives are considered the greater and greater the differences in DNA become.

 

[Eli G]

The Scriptures have been shown to be a rock ... They are stable, eternal, true, solid, indestructible. No one can destroy them, no matter how hard they try. In close to 2 millennia those who tried have not been able to; but long before that already others tried to remove what was already written, or change it. Those couldn't either. The Scriptures began to be written in the 15th century before the common era, but a lot of information it contains came a long time before ...and there they are, even though entire civilizations have fallen. Nor can anyone eliminate the people who fully trust them: the Nazis, the communists, the atheists, and an endless number of brave ones (???) tried it... Why do you think they couldn't?

As has already been said in many topics in this forum and everywhere online: scientists are not infallible, they do not always agree with each other, they cannot know everything, they rectify many times, etc.

Believing that science is God is like believing that a house can be built on sand. Who is it that builds his house on the sand?

 

[Audie]

Now you have just admitted that you have no understanding of evolution at all and probably you don't understand the concept of evidence either. How about DNA as evidence? It can be shown that closely related species have DNA similar to each other. As more and more distant relatives are considered the greater and greater the differences in DNA become.

That's not exactly specific

 

[shunyadragon]

That some idea is based on reality, doesn't make it necessary true.

What is objective evidence for what you are claiming based on ancient text?
Something based solely on ancient tribal texts without science and in conflict with the objectively verifiable evidence is necessarily false

Also, if person is right in one matter, it does not mean he is necessary right in every matter.

We are addressing the assertion on the matters you present nothing less and nothing more.

What you, like other Fundamentalist Christians, is the fallacy of arguing from an appeal to authority' without independent supporting evidence. Only those who accept your appeal to authority will believe your argument.

What are some strategies to challenge an appeal to authority fallacy in a respectful way?

Learn what the appeal to authority fallacy is, why it is harmful for problem solving, and how to challenge and avoid it in a respectful way.

www.linkedin.com

What is the appeal to authority fallacy?​

The appeal to authority fallacy is a type of informal fallacy that occurs when someone uses the authority, reputation, or expertise of a person or a source as the sole or primary reason to support their argument, without providing any other evidence or reasoning. For example, someone might say, "You should buy this product because Oprah endorsed it", or "You should believe this theory because Einstein said so". The fallacy implies that the authority figure is always right, infallible, or relevant, regardless of the context, the quality of their argument, or the possibility of alternative views.

Please present independent objective evidence to support your assertions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Scriptures have been shown to be a rock ... They are stable, eternal, true, solid, indestructible. No one can destroy them, no matter how hard they try. In close to 2 millennia those who tried have not been able to; but long before that already others tried to remove what was already written, or change it. Those couldn't either. The Scriptures began to be written in the 15th century before the common era, but a lot of information it contains came a long time before ...and there they are, even though entire civilizations have fallen. Nor can anyone eliminate the people who fully trust them: the Nazis, the communists, the atheists, and an endless number of brave ones (???) tried it... Why do you think they couldn't?

As has already been said in many topics in this forum and everywhere online: scientists are not infallible, they do not always agree with each other, they cannot know everything, they rectify many times, etc.

Believing that science is God is like believing that a house can be built on sand. Who is it that builds his house on the sand?

Weird how we have no originals of these "stable, eternal, true, solid, indestructible" Scriptures. How does that fit into your argument?

 

[Eli G]

Weird how we have no originals of these "stable, eternal, true, solid, indestructible" Scriptures. How does that fit into your argument?

How impressive, right?

... that even without the originals, it is the most published and widespread book in all of human history.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How impressive, right?

... that even without the originals, it is the most published and widespread book in all of human history.

Well, no. Not very impressive.

And that fact kinda conflicts with your assertions.

"They are stable, eternal, true, solid, indestructible."

We don't have any originals. As though they were .. destructible.
We don't know who wrote them, for the most part.
And we definitely don't know that they're true.
We don't even know if they're true to the originals.
What we have are translations of translations of stories that were passed down orally for a number of decades before they were even written down.

 

[Eli G]

It's Ok. I am not trying to convince you of anything...
Have a good day.