Tis_Bearself
Patron
God is perfectly capable of creating Adam and Eve by any means he wishes and giving them any sort of DNA he wishes. Do you think God is bound by the rules of DNA?
- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
You edited your post after I posted, to add this section.
God is “deceptive”? Since when is God required to give us evidence that fits in perfectly with our current scientific knowledge of how DNA is transmitted? God does what he wants in his Divine plan.
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
Yeah I find that argument a bit flat when used too. It’s the same as the age of the universe, God can certainly create a universe with the appearance of age, or it could be that old. I don’t think humans could really tell the difference as to us the two things are indistinguishable. Same with DNA, did we inherit it or did God make us in a way that we simply share the DNA. Again it would be indistinguishable.
Someone might question why God would do that, which would be an interesting topic. At least with shared DNA we’re able to test medications, foods, etc on animals and at least have an idea how they might function in humans, so perhaps that could be said to be another gift to us. Making the universe ‘look’ old but not be doesn’t immediately strike any positives.
Someone might question why God would do that, which would be an interesting topic. At least with shared DNA we’re able to test medications, foods, etc on animals and at least have an idea how they might function in humans, so perhaps that could be said to be another gift to us. Making the universe ‘look’ old but not be doesn’t immediately strike any positives.
S
sealabeag
Guest
In what way does DNA show that we’re related to other primates? It doesn’t, really. It does if you have an evolutionary world view and seek to confirm that with the "we share X% DNA argument, but in reality sharing a certain percentage of DNA with other creatures tells us nothing. We share 18% of our DNA with plants. So?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
If God is omnipotent, He can do anything He wants, of course. But supposing that he gave Adam and Eve DNA that only made it seem they were descended from an earlier primate is like the theory that God created the earth in six days less than ten thousand years ago and only made it look like it’s billions of years old by planting fossils of sea creatures on mountain tops, etc.Thorolfr:
You edited your post after I posted, to add this section.
God is “deceptive”? Since when is God required to give us evidence that fits in perfectly with our current scientific knowledge of how DNA is transmitted? God does what he wants in his Divine plan.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Yeah, I don’t really worry about why God would do one thing and not another. I’m not married to any of these possibilities. I just see there being multiple possible arguments, all of which I set out in my posts. I personally don’t care which one might be correct or even whether there’s some other possibility I didn’t even contemplate. The point is that all these things are possible, so it’s not a case of “how can we reconcile ABC scientific discovery with the Scripture” as there’s always a way of doing that.
We also have to be open to the possibility that if God leaves us on earth long enough, our scientific understanding will likely evolve even further and we may understand some of this stuff in a different way or have a much greater understanding. People 1000 years ago had absolutely no understanding of DNA or radiocarbon dating or whatever. If we live another 1000 years I’m sure our knowledge today will look puny compared to whatever people know and understand then.
We also have to be open to the possibility that if God leaves us on earth long enough, our scientific understanding will likely evolve even further and we may understand some of this stuff in a different way or have a much greater understanding. People 1000 years ago had absolutely no understanding of DNA or radiocarbon dating or whatever. If we live another 1000 years I’m sure our knowledge today will look puny compared to whatever people know and understand then.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
You said science is about things they can prove, which would imply reason.
I
Inquiry
Guest
This is a fun thought experiment and not meant to be the advancement of a serious theory. Back before the idea of common descent, one of the theories for why animals had similar features and tended to group together in similar families was that there were certain appropriate forms. It was a sort of modified platonic form theory (and for some reason I can’t remember the name of it so I can’t look it up right now). Animals that looked like each other did not do so because they were related but because that was the form they were gravitating towards.Tis_Bearself:
The problem with this is that our DNA shows how we’re related to other primates with whom we share a common ancestor in the distant past.
What you proposed would only work if it was supposed that God had created Adam and Eve and gave them DNA that only made it look like they were genetically related to other primates. But that seems kind of deceptive.
Now I’m not expecting you to accept that as a serious theory. I certainly don’t. However…
If it were true, wouldn’t genetic code be a part of the form species gravitated towards? Wouldn’t similar species have similar genetic codes not because they evolved from a common species, but because they were converging to a common form?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
All these theories are entirely possible. I myself don’t favor the Young Earth theory, but I’m not going to say it’s impossible for God to have done that.
God is outside time. He’s also outside human logic. He can choose to abide by logical rules, or he can choose to do something else, or it might be a case of our knowledge/ logic/ reasoning has not evolved enough yet to logically grasp what God might have done.
The problem with saying “this scientific theory shows God didn’t/ couldn’t do ABC” is that you’re putting a limit on God, and expecting God to behave only in accordance with human knowledge at the time you’re making this statement. It doesn’t work.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
Nobody is saying God couldn’t do X. What is being said is that all the evidence we have points to God doing X in a particular way. The problem being is that in some cases we have evidence for God doing something that contradicts (in some people’s view) a fundamental reading of biblical passages.
That’s all this thread has consisted of so far. And as long as it runs that’s all it will consist of. Those saying that the evidence says God did something this way and those saying that that contradicts the bible so it must be wrong.
It’s a broken record that will keep repeating itself endlessly. For example, dear old Buffalo has now made an appearance and we have already been assailed with all the same dreary arguments we have heard countless times before. And countless times in the same threads. They’ve all been countered but they keep coming up all the same.
They might as well rename this thread Groundhog Day. Have fun you guys…
B
buffalo
Guest
No, they haven’t. Neo-darwinism is a failed theory.
F
Freddy
Guest
Don’t expect any more posts from me, Buff. I’ve better things to do with my time. I’m sure you’ll find plenty of new chums in this thread to amuse and bemuse with your cut ‘n’ paste expertise.Freddy:
No, they haven’t. Neo-darwinism is a failed theory.
S
sealabeag
Guest
That seems a little rude. Is Darwinism not allowed to be questioned?
S
sealabeag
Guest
I’m wondering if anyone has actually read my opening post, because, and again I’m not trying to be rude or anything, but I did specifically state that I didn’t desire (name removed by moderator)ut from atheists or non-Catholics in this particular thread. Of course it’s a free world and people can do what they want, but that was my desire.
S
sealabeag
Guest
Is there anyone here who believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? I’d be interested in hearing from them, and having the chance to question their belief. 
J
JM3
Guest
As a Latin Catholic, I see nothing wrong with the two articles I posted. I find it quite credible that both 15 billion years and 6 days are accurate, and since God hasn’t rested yet, we are still in day 6 of creation.
Yes. Apparently so.Is there anyone here who believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? I’d be interested in hearing from them, and having the chance to question their belief.
E
Evan
Guest
My understanding of the 'day’s in Genesis is that the Hebrew word actually means a general period of unspecified time. St Augustine took these 6 periods (days) as the first 3 periods are for the creation of regions (heavens, land, water, sky…) and the 2nd 3 God filled these regions with life. He did not assume the account had any scientific value, only that God is responsible for all creation and when something was created a place was prepared for it beforehand.
T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
Since God is eternal, any measure of our time compared to Him is divided by infinity, therefore approaching zero. So whether the universe is only 10000 years old or 13.6 billion, either one divided by infinitely is essentially instantaneous from God’s “viewpoint.”
I am fine with viewing time and creation from both scientific and theological viewpoints. For instance, heliocentrism is established by science since it can be shown that the Earth revolves around the sun. Yet theologically, Earth can be seen as theocentric, the center of God’s creation since it is home to man made in His image. In this sense, the Sun is a servant to the Earth, providing its heat, light, and gravitational pull. So just as the Church, the Bible, and Christ are fully human and fully divine, Earth in the same manner is fully natural yet theologically God’s centerpiece of Creation.
Likewise, the earth may naturally be 4.5 billion years old; but theologically, from man’s perspective of acknowledging the Earth as God’s creation, it is much younger. Therefore Earth as Earth, i.e. a planet consisting of elements and minerals formed in a specific way by God, is billions of years old. But Earth as man’s home until heaven is much younger, perhaps the 6000-10000 years a reading of Genesis can calculate. The theological perspective, marked by man’s awareness of himself amidst a home created by a higher being, is much younger than the planet’s scientifically calculated age.
I do not accept macroevolution either. And, I believe in the special creation of our first parents, i.e., that they were created directly, as adults.
I am fine with viewing time and creation from both scientific and theological viewpoints. For instance, heliocentrism is established by science since it can be shown that the Earth revolves around the sun. Yet theologically, Earth can be seen as theocentric, the center of God’s creation since it is home to man made in His image. In this sense, the Sun is a servant to the Earth, providing its heat, light, and gravitational pull. So just as the Church, the Bible, and Christ are fully human and fully divine, Earth in the same manner is fully natural yet theologically God’s centerpiece of Creation.
Likewise, the earth may naturally be 4.5 billion years old; but theologically, from man’s perspective of acknowledging the Earth as God’s creation, it is much younger. Therefore Earth as Earth, i.e. a planet consisting of elements and minerals formed in a specific way by God, is billions of years old. But Earth as man’s home until heaven is much younger, perhaps the 6000-10000 years a reading of Genesis can calculate. The theological perspective, marked by man’s awareness of himself amidst a home created by a higher being, is much younger than the planet’s scientifically calculated age.
I do not accept macroevolution either. And, I believe in the special creation of our first parents, i.e., that they were created directly, as adults.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Do you think science can prove the universe is 13.7 billion yrs old +/- 1% ?
Do you think science has gone to the end of the universe, to measure the age of the universe?
- Status