[Tj3]

Tj3,
You said, "Fred also claims that macro-evolution has been proven"
Once again I ask you to quit twisting what I say.
I never said that macro-evolution has been proven.
I agreed that there is so much micro-evolution shown in nature that that may indicate macro exists.

Well Fred, you have said it a number of times, but if you are now backing off that statement that is fine. No need to get nasty or abusive, and there is nothing wrong with changing your mind. I am quite willing to accept this as your current position.

I am glad to see that you agree that evolution between species has not yet been proven. We agree on that point and I am glad to see that our positions are coming closer. I would still disagree that the clear indiaction of micro-evolution necessarily would be suggestive of macro-evolution without additional evidence to indicate such a process.

[arcura]

Tj3,
What you ask for has been discussed here and on other boards several times.
I have previously given my interpretation of what Genesis says about creation just as you have.
Lets not start that all over again or the thread will be shut down.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

I see no reason why a person of faith cannot defer to the biologists in the same way. I'm repeating myself, I know, but I just don't see the faith-science conflict here. Perhaps astronomy and physics can teach us that we had misinterpreted Ps.104.5; perhaps biology can teach us that we had misinterpreted the creation story. To me this looks like progress.

I do not see any conflict between science and my faith in God. I also do not see any need to "defer" to scientists to tell interpret scripture. I find that science and the Bible are quite compatible with science being the study of God's creation. I am constantly amazed at the findings that support what scripture says, and am constantly amazed at the majesty and complexity and beauty of what God has created. I see science and scripture weaving together in support of each other.

[Tj3]

Tj3,
What you ask for has been discussed here and on other boards several times.
I have previously given my interpretation of what Genesis says about creation just as you have.
Lets not start that all over again or the thread will be shut down.

Agreed. So please drop the personal comments and let's discuss respectfully. That is all that I ask.

[asking]

Boy, I sure hope not. I like to think that faith can live harmoniously alongside doubt, humility, intellectual rigor, and, at times, deference. I'm not an astronomer, but I believe them when they tell me that the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun. The Bible says otherwise (I cited several passages in an earlier post, but Ps.104.5 sticks out in my mind). I see no reason why a person of faith cannot defer to the biologists in the same way. I'm repeating myself, I know, but I just don't see the faith-science conflict here. Perhaps astronomy and physics can teach us that we had misinterpreted Ps.104.5; perhaps biology can teach us that we had misinterpreted the creation story. To me this looks like progress.

Apologies for being unclear. I was not saying that a literal interpretation of the Bible was the essence of faith. I meant a measure of surity and belief in the absence of certain knowledge.

And I agree that most of us take a lot on faith--not least the disposition of the planets. Tom and I appeal to difference kinds of authority in our beliefs. For me, it would be paranoid not to believe that Earth rotates and orbits the Sun. Too much of what happens in modern life depends on it, and too many people would have to be bought off to cover up a different reality. But the fact remains that I don't feel up to demonstrating that it's so.

Does Tom feel it would be paranoid not to believe the literal word of God?

[NeedKarma]

Agreed. So please drop the personal comments and let's discuss respectfully. That is all that I ask.

You have tried this track several times. In Fred's defence he has not been "nasty" nor "abusive" in any way. I'm not sure what prompts you to yell "abuse!" every so often but it should cease.

[Akoue]

I am constantly amazed at the findings that support what scripture says,

Even the findings that refute the Biblical assertion that the earth doesn't move?

[Akoue]

Apologies for being unclear.

Nope, you weren't being unclear. I was shamelessly using you in order to make a broader point. Sorry about that.

. For me, it would be paranoid not to believe that Earth rotates and orbits the Sun.

Not paranoid. Try psychotic.

[arcura]

Tj3,
Yes, definitely, let's discuss things respectfully as long as you quit twisting what I say or trying to put words in my mouth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[jakester]

Even the findings that refute the Biblical assertion that the earth doesn't move?

Akoue - can you reference the places in the bible where it contends that the earth doesn't move? I am sincerely interested in that because I do not remember reading that before.

Thanks.

[arcura]

jakester
He has already done so.
I hope he does again because I failed to make note of all of those places in Scrioture.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

Akoue - can you reference the places in the bible where it contends that the earth doesn't move? I am sincerely interested in that because I do not remember reading that before.

Thanks.

Sure thing. Ps.104.5. (See also, Ps.93.1, 96.10, I Chronicles 16.30.) I say a little bit about this at post #9 (my first on this thread, in case the numbering is different--as it appears it sometimes is).

[arcura]

Akoue.
Thanks much.
How about this for bible literalists...
2 Cron. 9: 23. And all the kings in the world consulted Solomon to hear the wisdom which God had implanted in his heart,
24. And everyone would bring a present with him: objects of silver and of gold, robes, armor, spices, horses and mules; and this went on year after year.
Do we suppose that the kings on the American Continents consulted Solomon?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[NewYork123]

I don't know who all saw my other post called "feeling horrible about my doubts" (I know that Fred and Jakester did). But, we just started a new semester today and I'm in a class called physiological psychology/biology and it go figures at the end of class today she says "be prepared to talk about evolution on wednesday!" Haha just when I thought I was done with the biology classes! Go figure!

[NewYork123]

But now I have some pretty interesting stuff to bring to the table thanks to everyone here! :)

[De Maria]

Hello De Maria -

Yes, I understand what evolutions means. Yes, God can do anything he wants and the fact that he made man from dirt is proof that he is able to bring about one thing from another thing. But De Maria, I don't believe that is the issue being addressed in the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is not trying to answer the question of whether God is able to make man from dirt; it is attempting to answer the question of where man came from. You have to see this distinction or else you'll never see at least in principle how different the evolutionary theory really is from the biblical creation account.

Evolution is saying that man did not come from the dirt as the bible claims he did (by an act of God) but by means of an evolutionary process where man did not originate as man but as an ape-like creature. In the biblical account, you see man created and then having the intellectual capacity to interact with God and name creatures that God had made and ultimately reason well enough to disobey God. Evolution would say that man didn't come to be the way man is today (a fully intelligent, resourceful, rational, and capable being) until billions of years later, after having gone through several evolutionary stages, developing from an ape-like creature to modern man. Well, again, you see no evidence of that in the creation account. The account didn't say that God made an ape-like creature that he began to work on and shape into another creature, over a span of time. It's a complete myth because you cannot make the case for this from the biblical text—you can only make a case for this based upon human imagination.

As Catholics we don't believe that every part of the Bible is literal. Some of it is allegory.
And as Catholics, we are permitted to believe either Creationism or Evolution. We don't believe that they are opposed to each other.

Nor do we believe that the Bible is a step by step description of life on earth. Obviously, no mention is made of modern inventions.

In fact, by the very fact it is a small book, it must contain only highlights. It must be a summary of important events. Even the major characters are only mentioned briefly, summarizing the most important parts of their lives.

So, the fact that the Bible does not mention every detail of how God created the world, is not in itself an argument against evolution.

[arcura]

De Maria.
Very good points.
Fred

[ordinaryguy]

I am not interpreting it.

Of course you are. You interpret it as a literal statement of fact, they interpret it as an allegory.

[arcura]

ordinaryguy,
Right you are.
Peace and kmkindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

Tj3,
Yes, definitely, let's discuss things respectfully as long as you quit twisting what I say or trying to put words in my mouth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

I thought that you said that you were not going to carry on like this. Kindly stop the false accusations and discuss the issue respectfully.