So? Who cares? What has that got to do with anything?
You seem to misunderstand my position. I am not "anti-evolution." I am pro-total Biblical inerrancy. I reject evolution because it contradicts the Biblical account, not because "G-d couldn't have done it that way."
Since you are such a fan of "science," I hope you reject transubstantiation, resurrection of the dead, the virgin birth and other such unscientific fairy tales.
And I stand by what I comment. Catholics have run looked down their noses at creationists while loudly proclaiming their belief in transubstantiation because "that's what it says!" Whatever-his-name-is (the scientific atheist) called you on it when he pierced a consecrated host with a nail. While I reject his atheism I certainly admire his consistency--something you wouldn't know anything about.
Pinging your good buddy vladimir998 for when he gets back (he's no wideawake, but I don't think he's as big a fan of Charles Darwin as you are).
So what? Really?
Let's review.
Markbsnr said evolution is scientific fact and presented as evidence the plant experiment. You replied:
So you're saying that the fact that people got plants to evolve in a lab is scientific proof that everything in the universe evolved without any Divine "interference?"Believing in evolution does not mean everything in the universe evolved without any Divine "interference?"
Your question assumed a false dichotomy and I pointed it out. That's what.
Since you are such a fan of "science," I hope you reject transubstantiation, resurrection of the dead, the virgin birth and other such unscientific fairy tales.
Why? There's no inherent contradiction between science and any of those things, evolution included.
ZC,
You wrote:
“Pinging your good buddy vladimir998 for when he gets back (he’s no wideawake, but I don’t think he’s as big a fan of Charles Darwin as you are).”
ZC, I’m not a wideawake, but I’m not sure what you think that means. As I have gotten older, and studied more, I came to hold an increasingly more literal view of Genesis 1-11. That doesn’t mean that Petronski and I must be cast as enemies of one another. Not at all. I learned a long time ago, that this issue must - eventually - be definitively defined by the Church before the issue will be commonly understood by Catholics. I might politely argue with Petronski on the issue, but I never go looking for such an argument. Until the issue is definitively defined we’re simply at a full stop.
I have a friend, a convert to the Catholic faith, who takes Genesis 1-11 literally as I do. He is, however, making the mistake of saying that the Church defined the issue when I know it hasn’t. He is in a leadership position in a local parish (no, he’s not an ordained man) and may eventually turn people off with his insistance on this issue. It’s a pity all around.
That's an amazingly meaningless statement, since I am not a fan of Charles Darwin, not even a small one.