Posted on 02/07/2005 7:30:07 AM PST by mike182d
Since Philosophy and Logic are two seperate classes, your claim makes about as much sense as I would expect.
St. Thomas Aquinas proved God's existence long ago.. go read some of his writings, and when you can debunk his arguments in their entirety, I'll reconcider there is no God.
After nearly 1000 years (I believe his works were originally published in the 1200s), no one has managed to do it, so maybe, just maybe you are the one bright enough to debunk him.
Chapter and verse please.
The Church explicitly rejects materialistic evolution but permits belief in theistic evolution. Catholics are also permitted to believe in Creationism. Catholics are only required to believe that the human race has descended from an original couple --Adam and Eve.
HUMANI GENERISENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING
TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE...Venerable Brethren,
Greetings and Apostolic Benediction...5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
The Catholic Church long ago accepted science. They haven’t charged a scientist with heresy in a very long time.
Where is "the Bible alone" theory in the Bible?
Did Jesus command his disciples to write the New Testament?
Who came up with the idea?
Who determined which writings would comprise the New Testament?
Who preserved the Bible prior to the invention of the printing press?
Every summer, I threaten more seriously to leave the South, Trebb. I HATE HATE HATE the humidiy. What part of the state are you in? Freepmail if you don't want to say on the open board.
MM
"So, the belief that something cannot come from nothing,"
Which is not part of the "theory of evolution."
"the teleological argument for God's existence,"
Which says nothing about evolution.
"gaps that have only widened in the fossil record, et cetera all come from the book of Genesis?"
The result of people looking to poke holes in evolutionary theory (since they have no science to contribute themselves) based on their belief in biblical creation.
Creationism can be tested using the fossil record and geological studies just the same as evolution in scientifically supporting their claims of a "young Earth". Also, some genetic material has been tested by Creationists to dispel the idea that man evolved from other primates. Some of this research is very compelling. I would not consider myself either an evolutionist or creationist. I don't know how God did what he did. But there is interesting scientific evidence to support both sides of the issue.
Elves?
When we are dealing with evolution we are not talking about the entire universe. We are talking about the development of life on Earth.
I would agree that the idea that intelligent design was responsible for the creation of life and the universe is a belief system. However, the methodology used in this creation (either evolution or direct creation of each species) is subject to arguement.
I actually think that the staunch Creationists and Evolutionists both have such chips on their shoulders due to the fights in the past on these issues that both circle the wagons and refuse to consider the validity of each's arguments. For this reason, I think the creationists always define their side in terms of belief in God in the face of science (which they consider MORALLY and SPIRITUALLY wrong), and the Evolutionists always frame the supporters of strict Creation as a bunch of religious idiots.
The fact is, both theories have a lot of support for their explanations of the development of life on Earth. If both sides would commit themselves to an honest study of the issue, I believe we could finally get to the bottom of some of the issues dividing the two camps.
Down in the Biloxi area (Ocean Springs)
John, he certainly did. Your denial just shows it is indeed you that is not dealing with reality.
Go and do some research, and come back and undermine his arguments and when you do, I'm sure you'll have a nice audience... but as I said before, since it hasn't been done in nearly a thousand years, I'm not going to hold out hope for you.. but hey... who knows, maybe you just really are as smart as you believe you are and can indeed prove him wrong.
And as to any student of Theology... I think you better talk to some students of Theology before you make that claim, because it definately does not jive with any take of any theological student that I know.
We'll all be waiting anxiously.
> mocking comes from those who need to grow up.
Sometimes. And sometimes, mocking - as in the case of Republicans mocking Deaniacs or rational people mocking Creationists - comes from a sense of humor married to a recognition of the ridiculous.
No. I think the Bible is the creation of that myth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.