Fifth Avenue Forum

I guess it's just coincidence that we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees?

We share like 84% of our DNA with a dog. What’s your point?

And 90% with cats. My point is that it is obvious we are all related, and to deny evolution is willful ignorance at best.

Source of the post The Catholic school that Factorial and I went to no longer has any brothers or nuns, who teach there. I honestly don’t know how the Church digs up enough men to have a priest per parish...maybe they don’t.

From mass this past weekend, it was mentioned that there is 1 priest for every 3 parishes. I don't recall if that was just the Greenbsurg Diocese or nationwide.

I guess it's just coincidence that we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees?

We share like 84% of our DNA with a dog. What’s your point?

And 90% with cats. My point is that it is obvious we are all related, and to deny evolution is willful ignorance at best.

God was good at Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, edit, F12.

We are also all half bananas considering we share 50% of our DNA with them.

DNA are just the building blocks, i.e. materials. How those blocks are arranged is what sets us apart. It's not hard for me to see that we are built from similar material as chimps. But how we are built and how we are wired is completely different.

Yes, "decide" was a poor choice of words. Of course species don't consciously decide to evolve. What I meant to portray was at one time, our human "ancestors", according to macro evolution, came from a single cell organism. This single cell organism obviously didn't need milk to survive. But over the course of many iterations along the line of human ancestry, the species developed the ability to produce milk. Before that, it had subsisted on whatever else kept it alive. There was a transition period where perhaps both were an option - the milk and the other means. If the other means of feeding the young was sufficient enough to keep the species going for the millions of years it took to develop mammary glands, why would the milk producers win out? Where are these special creatures that possessed both the ability to produce milk and to subsist on other means? That is what I mean by transition period.

How exactly would you find such a being considering mammary glands (well... any glands for that matter) do not fossilize? There are plenty of "transitional fossils" out there. The evolution of the horse for instance, or do you still consider that micro evolution?

Can't say I've looked into the evolution of a horse, so I can't really answer that c2i. You are correct that mammary glands don't fossilize, but wouldn't the bones in the area develop differently around these glands? That was just an example I threw out there, it's not the one and only thing that keeps me from accepting macro evolution.

God was good at Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, edit, F12.

Do you believe that creation was just at the beginning or is god still creating?

Catholic here weighing in.
Believe Jesus was the son of God - ✓
Believes evolution and big bang are reasonable assumptions based on evidence at this time - ✓

God was good at Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, edit, F12.

Do you believe that creation was just at the beginning or is god still creating?

I go back and forth on this. I don't believe God is an inactive participant who created then took a however many year siesta after all that hard work. But it's also similar to the concept of time we were discussing earlier. I can't pretend to know what God really experiences, but I believe he was, he spoke, he is and he will be are all on one timestamp. So in that sense, yes, he is still creating.

I go back and forth on this. I don't believe God is an inactive participant who created then took a however many year siesta after all that hard work. But it's also similar to the concept of time we were discussing earlier. I can't pretend to know what God really experiences, but I believe he was, he spoke, he is and he will be are all on one timestamp. So in that sense, yes, he is still creating.

Do you believe that God is perfect (i.e., complete, flawless)?

There's an ancient Jain argument that God (or anything) which is perfect cannot create anything or, indeed, act in any way. IMO it's a pretty sound argument.

FYI, I really appreciate discussing this stuff whenever it's not just constant trolling/"you're idiots" stuff. I love going back and forth with stuff like this, because it is very eye-opening for me and it expands my horizons. This is a good convo

Shut up, shad.

I go back and forth on this. I don't believe God is an inactive participant who created then took a however many year siesta after all that hard work. But it's also similar to the concept of time we were discussing earlier. I can't pretend to know what God really experiences, but I believe he was, he spoke, he is and he will be are all on one timestamp. So in that sense, yes, he is still creating.

Do you believe that God is perfect (i.e., complete, flawless)?

There's an ancient Jain argument that God (or anything) which is perfect cannot create anything or, indeed, act in any way. IMO it's a pretty sound argument.

To answer your question, yes.

Can you expand on this Jain argument? Does this have to do with a perfect God creating an "imperfect" world?

Do you believe that God is perfect (i.e., complete, flawless)?

There's an ancient Jain argument that God (or anything) which is perfect cannot create anything or, indeed, act in any way. IMO it's a pretty sound argument.

To answer your question, yes.

Can you expand on this Jain argument? Does this have to do with a perfect God creating an "imperfect" world?

No. It's simply that if anything is perfect -- complete -- flawless -- then that thing would have no desire -- no need -- to do anything. There would be nothing beyond its completeness.

Do you believe that God is perfect (i.e., complete, flawless)?

There's an ancient Jain argument that God (or anything) which is perfect cannot create anything or, indeed, act in any way. IMO it's a pretty sound argument.

To answer your question, yes.

Can you expand on this Jain argument? Does this have to do with a perfect God creating an "imperfect" world?

No. It's simply that if anything is perfect -- complete -- flawless -- then that thing would have no desire -- no need -- to do anything. There would be nothing beyond its completeness.

My belief is that God didn't need to create humanity. He wanted to create humanity to share in the relationship that he shares with the Son and Holy Spirit. We are the extension of that love/relationship. We f'ed it up, but he wanted to fix it.

No. It's simply that if anything is perfect -- complete -- flawless -- then that thing would have no desire -- no need -- to do anything. There would be nothing beyond its completeness.

My belief is that God didn't need to create humanity. He wanted to create humanity to share in the relationship that he shares with the Son and Holy Spirit. We are the extension of that love/relationship. We f'ed it up, but he wanted to fix it.

But why would anything that is perfect have a want?

That means that there is something lacking which it wants to rectify or improve. No perfect, complete, flawless thing would have anything lacking and therefore would have no wants.

Why would a perfect, flawless being create such an imperfect, flawed world? I know the "it's all part of God's plan" kind of rationale, but that just strikes me as odd.

Why would a perfect, flawless being create such an imperfect, flawed world? I know the "it's all part of God's plan" kind of rationale, but that just strikes me as odd.

That question has been around for millennia and there are dozens of reasonable answers to it (given certain assumptions).

Forgive me, but this is a softball question for the apologists.

I'd rather have a response to the Jain challenge.

I'm trying to find a link that answers the jain question which is not directly from Thomas Aquinas or Augustine and thereby 200 pages long (tlyngr). The jain thing is certainly not new.

The jain thing is certainly not new.

I said it was ancient. It's 2500 years old.

The jain thing is certainly not new.

I said it was ancient. It's 2500 years old.

I know, I was not implying it was not, just that it was answered a long time ago, directly by Augustine's De Trinitate(which is 15 books long). It was a common attack against the doctrine of the trinity by the early gnostics, and Arians.

Trying to find a synthesis that people might actually read.

How about you just give the argument?

Because it's not an answer that is sufficient for a combox. Some questions in philosophy don't lend themselves to twitteresque length responses.

"Because God's aseity shows us He can" is not a real, even if true, retort to the issue.

I don't know what a "combox" is.

I had to Google "aseity":

Aseity (from Latin a "from" and se "self", plus -ity) is the property by which a being exists in and of itself, from itself, or exists as so-and-such of and from itself

i actually find the notion of an imperfect god comforting. because no doi he's imperfect (africa, amiright). but more so, my 2nd favorite dumb optimistic theory of the universe is that god is debugging his own program. and then running it over and over to find more glitches until they're all snuffed out. maybe he tried the whole "create the universe" thing many many times before even figuring out how to create life. and then he created life but couldn't figure out the recipe for a human. then he figured that out, but couldn't figure out how to design humans so they don't completely wipe each other out the first chance they get. then he figured THAT out, but he still hasn't made it all work without everyone getting cancer eventually.

So each big bang would ultimately be a reboot, more refined than the last, until we finally get our heaven on earth. i mean...obviously we're stuck in that cancer version, so this is of no practical utility. but i like to think that clones of me and my family are also prospering in that utopia version.

No. It's simply that if anything is perfect -- complete -- flawless -- then that thing would have no desire -- no need -- to do anything. There would be nothing beyond its completeness.

My belief is that God didn't need to create humanity. He wanted to create humanity to share in the relationship that he shares with the Son and Holy Spirit. We are the extension of that love/relationship. We f'ed it up, but he wanted to fix it.

But why would anything that is perfect have a want?

That means that there is something lacking which it wants to rectify or improve. No perfect, complete, flawless thing would have anything lacking and therefore would have no wants.

You're assuming this want is coming from a lack of something, rather than a desire to give.