Age of the Earth and Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The theory of evolution does not say that we descended from apes. It says that we and apes have a common (unknown) ancestor.

The idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old came from the research somebody carried out to try and date the time of creation by working backwards that the Bible. His methods were faulty and his conclusion is not held by the Church.
 
EndTimes said:
Macro-Evolution - as when meaning Life evolved from a Common Ancestor…
is not Accepted as Truth by the Catholic Church…
Click to expand...
That is called “common descent”. “Macroevolution” refers to the emergence of new species and larger clades from earlier ancestors.

God did not create animal life directly, He created it indirectly: “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…” Before life, the waters were non-living chemicals. Before life the earth was non-living chemicals. Phrased in more modern terms we have “Let the non-living chemicals bring forth…” That is abiogenesis.

Man’s body was formed the same way, from non-living chemicals.

As I said above, science cannot speak on the presence or not of a soul.

There is more than one way to interpret Genesis. The correct way must be in accordance with the evidence of the world that God made.
 
Last edited:
Minor quibble: I’ve heard two major descriptions of macro-evolution. One focuses on speciation, the other on the development of complex physical structures. Since speciation is a complicated topic and complex structures better illustrate what the people who bring up macro evolution are trying to say, it would be more productive to focus on the latter.
 
Inquiry said:
Since speciation is a complicated topic and complex structures better illustrate what the people who bring up macro evolution are trying to say, it would be more productive to focus on the latter.
Click to expand...
I think the reason we’re unlikely to make progress there is that it’s basically an argument from incredulity. Someone declares “that’s simply too complex!” but there’s really no evidence you can use to demonstrate that. As noted above some believe it’s so unlikely that they’re looking for better explanations, which is fine. But just because someone thinks it’s too unlikely doesn’t mean it is, and until better evidence comes about we are where we are. To me the issue with the argument is people try to take the finished product as a whole, e.g. the eye, and say it’s too complex. But even something as complex as the eye can come about in smaller steps, each step still being more beneficial than the step before but not needed nearly as much of a ‘jump’. And we see animals in nature with a lot of what we’d consider ‘in-between’ steps, so it’s not without precedent.
 
I wasn’t bringing up the unlikelihood, but the problem with observability. The point of the macro-evolution argument is that such changes are assumed to come from a source but can’t be observed doing so. That’s a major problem, though as an ‘absence of evidence’ argument it cannot be a death blow.

Interesting you mention the eye, as one of the better counter evolution arguments involves the eye and how, at the chemical level, there aren’t reasonable smaller steps that could bring it about. It’s an interesting argument, though I have also heard plausible (if speculative) rebuttals.

Poking at accepted scientific theories is a hobby of mine. I still think evolution is the strongest theory we’ve currently got, but I suspect we are due for a reformulation and I’m interested to see how that plays out.
 
Dan123 said:
Nomadic tribes without agriculture just don’t support ever increasing populations.
Click to expand...
True but 2 million years is a very long time. There would have to have been many frequent near-extinction events in human history and the fossil record does not support that.
 
rossum said:
That is called “common descent”.
“Macroevolution” refers to the emergence of new species and larger clades from earlier ancestors.
Click to expand...
Call it what you will… We know what it means… ME presumes and infers a singular common ancestor

The question of the origin of Man via any form …
… which is based solely upon a materialistic-only argument
  • is unacceptble to the Church…
 
Last edited:
Still curious on your actual math. And the 2 million years. Homo sapiens sapiens show up 200,000 years ago or thereabouts. Depending on what you consider human there were certainly ancestors of modern humans 2 million years ago.

But i still think your numbers ignore that there are feedback loops involved. Lots of people is a liability when it comes to disease and meeting food needs. What growth rates are you assuming?
 
Inquiry said:
Interesting you mention the eye, as one of the better counter evolution arguments involves the eye and how, at the chemical level, there aren’t reasonable smaller steps that could bring it about.
Click to expand...
I used it because that’s commonly claimed. There’s plenty of interim steps not just in theory but found in nature.
 
Rau said:
Do you accept earth is about 6000 years old earth?
Click to expand...
Let it be noted that very few believe the Earth is 6000 years old

And Catholics are not bound to believe that – or not…

ERGO - It’s rather a moot subject.

)_
 
Dan123 said:
Still curious on your actual math.
Click to expand...
I did not do a math calculation. Of course anyone can make the math work depending on what is assumed. My point is 2 million years as the age of humanity does not seem logical from what we know from the fossil record and growth rates of the history we know. That is all. We don’t agree, fine. End of discussion.
 
I disagree, someone stating a belief in “theistic” evolution is simply a way of expressing that they believe that God was the cause and creator of that process. And it is a necessary differentiation because “evolution” is very often tied to materialism, naturalism and atheism. So I see no problem there. It’s not a meaningless statement for those reasons. The theory of gravity doesn’t touch on questions of creation and creator like evolution does, hence the need for that clarification.
Secondly, it’s a bit silly to say my desire for non-Catholics/atheists not to respond is disingenuous, what’s disingenuous about it? Sometimes someone wants to hear from a specific set of people, in this case, Catholics. That is my right, and if you’re offended by that, well there’s not much I can say.
If you wanted to say “I have a question about electricity. But please, no atheists answer", I might consider it silly, but that’s your prerogative and I would honour it. 🙂
 
Last edited:
buffalo, I’d be interested to hear you give a synopsis of your beliefs regarding these topics (although it is a huge topic) - Adam and Eve, creation, evolution, age of the earth, death’s existence in the world prior to 6,000 years, etc. I’m trying to wrap my head around it all and a bit bewildered. Do you have good sources you could refer me to?
 
sealabeag said:
buffalo, I’d be interested to hear you give a synopsis of your beliefs regarding these topics (although it is a huge topic) - Adam and Eve, creation, evolution, age of the earth, death’s existence in the world prior to 6,000 years, etc. I’m trying to wrap my head around it all and a bit bewildered. Do you have good sources you could refer me to?
Click to expand...
Look here:

On the resource page there is the faith section and the reason section (scroll down)

http://www.idvolution.org/
 
I do believe in evolution as a Catholic. Isn’t Adam and Eve a story that isn’t necessarily literal but rather has an underlying message it is portraying?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top