R
- Status
M
Monica4316
Guest
I dont agree with evolution… for a theological reason…
death came into the world through one man, Adam. This suggests that nothing died before the Fall.
yet the process of evolution requires death…
the whole idea just falls apart for me right there.
I don’t think we evolved from anything.
the Church accepts theistic evolution as one of the possibiliites, but it’s not a doctrine or a teaching, and Catholics are free to accept or reject it as they want… I reject it.
I also want to point out that the Pope spoke against atheistic evolution in which everything happens by random chance:
“we are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God”.
death came into the world through one man, Adam. This suggests that nothing died before the Fall.
yet the process of evolution requires death…
the whole idea just falls apart for me right there.
I don’t think we evolved from anything.
the Church accepts theistic evolution as one of the possibiliites, but it’s not a doctrine or a teaching, and Catholics are free to accept or reject it as they want… I reject it.
I also want to point out that the Pope spoke against atheistic evolution in which everything happens by random chance:
“we are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God”.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I don’t agree with gravity…for a practical reason. As I get older, it gets harder and harder to fight. However, neither evolution nor gravity is going to make an accomodation for us.
That can’t be reconciled with the fact that God said that Adam would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam ate, and lived on for many years thereafter. So we know that the death God spoke of was not a physical one. Besides, death was always there, since animals ate plants, which had to die so they could live.
This is why Pope Benedict has said that common descent is virtually certain; there is no theological conflict between evolution and Catholicism.
Nevertheless, that is what happened.
Which is your right. I find that understanding the way He did things enriches my faith, much as understanding the biochemistry of leaves turning enriches the experience of a fall afternoon. But you don’t need it to enjoy the view, even if you miss some of the enjoyment.
Darwin’s great discovery was that it was not by random chance. And of course, there can be no atheistic evolution in science, because science cannot deny the existence of God.
Which is perfectly consistent with evolution, by which He made us.
B
Brian_Millar
Guest
“This is why Pope Benedict has said that common descent is virtually certain; there is no theological conflict between evolution and Catholicism.”
Here is an area I don’t think we have discussed yet. Ok, we’ll start with the evolutionists side. According to that system, it’s never a case of one or two creatures evolving into a higher form, it’s a group, or entire species that evolves at once, thus no common anscestry which derrives from only two individuals. If you take into account the necessity for genetic diversity, ie. through observing populations of species that have reached the point of near extinction, their gene pool is weakened greatly due to lack of diversity.
We then have to go back and take what the Pope agree’s upon, where he is specifically stating the common anscestry with Adam and Eve. This statement in my opinion is in stronger support of creation then evolution, unless evolution has just changed it’s theory as to origins or something.
Along the introduction of death, Adam did die, just not that moment, it doesn’t give a time frame along that matter. I think the literal still applies here, I also think the soul is eternal regardless of pre and post fall, so it doesn’t die, well perhaps there may be some compensense after one is cast into hell to the point where the individual soul reaches a state of non existance, but that’s only speculation not supported in the bible or the church.
Bruno, I came to that same conclusion around 18 years ago, don’t be to hard on yourself, we’ve been raised to believe in it from the media and the public school system as being undisputed fact, of course it’s a struggle many of us faced. I still think it’s unfair to be forced to learn something that is still considered theory, especially in this case where the other side is not even remotely being presented. If I had children and they were in public school, I’d have them opt out of that class all together, I think if more parents did that, it might force them to at least attempt to show some sense of balance in that regard and allow us creationists to have a voice, as it stands now, we have none outside of places like these forums.
Here is an area I don’t think we have discussed yet. Ok, we’ll start with the evolutionists side. According to that system, it’s never a case of one or two creatures evolving into a higher form, it’s a group, or entire species that evolves at once, thus no common anscestry which derrives from only two individuals. If you take into account the necessity for genetic diversity, ie. through observing populations of species that have reached the point of near extinction, their gene pool is weakened greatly due to lack of diversity.
We then have to go back and take what the Pope agree’s upon, where he is specifically stating the common anscestry with Adam and Eve. This statement in my opinion is in stronger support of creation then evolution, unless evolution has just changed it’s theory as to origins or something.
Along the introduction of death, Adam did die, just not that moment, it doesn’t give a time frame along that matter. I think the literal still applies here, I also think the soul is eternal regardless of pre and post fall, so it doesn’t die, well perhaps there may be some compensense after one is cast into hell to the point where the individual soul reaches a state of non existance, but that’s only speculation not supported in the bible or the church.
Bruno, I came to that same conclusion around 18 years ago, don’t be to hard on yourself, we’ve been raised to believe in it from the media and the public school system as being undisputed fact, of course it’s a struggle many of us faced. I still think it’s unfair to be forced to learn something that is still considered theory, especially in this case where the other side is not even remotely being presented. If I had children and they were in public school, I’d have them opt out of that class all together, I think if more parents did that, it might force them to at least attempt to show some sense of balance in that regard and allow us creationists to have a voice, as it stands now, we have none outside of places like these forums.
B
Bruno_Schulz
Guest
in the past I was tempted to believe, that there was, as with all the rest of nature, an evolution to the human being too in that way, that God a one certain point (just like me when I sculpture) said; “now the work I made looks good, now he is the Adam and I will give him my odem – the soul”
Thank you Brian Miller, but it was myself, who came to the conclusion finally and with Gods help, and without any pressure from the fact that I “have to” hear the church (nothing in my believe as a Christian is because I have to believe t, but I’m convinced it’s so). It took some time and prayers, until I discovered the nonsense of evolution of Adam for a simple reason put down here (and in several forums) before:
The almighty God intended to create Adam (which is the word or name for human beings) long before the world hade been created. When the time had come, God did so, and Gods creation of both, Angels or mankind, does certainly not have the evolutionary way of the work of a sculpture, but the very idea of God creates perfect in the first place.
Who on earth would ever enter into the idea, Angels would have evoluted …
To assume, God wouldn’t quite know what he was doing in the end – as I being a sculptor never really know what’s the “outcome” in the end, would mean we humanise God, make Him humanlike with all our failures.
Mankind was Gods second work to create Creatures in His appearance after the Angels. And when we will be in heaven, we too will be like the Angels – match Marcus 12,25.
Beware of thinking Gods creation of Mankind is nothing but evolution plus Gods spending of our soul. Logical Christian thinking, tells you the truth. Christian thinking and compassion is higher than all reason as St. Paul pointed out.
Thank you Brian Miller, but it was myself, who came to the conclusion finally and with Gods help, and without any pressure from the fact that I “have to” hear the church (nothing in my believe as a Christian is because I have to believe t, but I’m convinced it’s so). It took some time and prayers, until I discovered the nonsense of evolution of Adam for a simple reason put down here (and in several forums) before:
The almighty God intended to create Adam (which is the word or name for human beings) long before the world hade been created. When the time had come, God did so, and Gods creation of both, Angels or mankind, does certainly not have the evolutionary way of the work of a sculpture, but the very idea of God creates perfect in the first place.
Who on earth would ever enter into the idea, Angels would have evoluted …
To assume, God wouldn’t quite know what he was doing in the end – as I being a sculptor never really know what’s the “outcome” in the end, would mean we humanise God, make Him humanlike with all our failures.
Mankind was Gods second work to create Creatures in His appearance after the Angels. And when we will be in heaven, we too will be like the Angels – match Marcus 12,25.
Beware of thinking Gods creation of Mankind is nothing but evolution plus Gods spending of our soul. Logical Christian thinking, tells you the truth. Christian thinking and compassion is higher than all reason as St. Paul pointed out.
R
reggieM
Guest
That is an excellent point which I have not seen before.
True. It’s a very reductionist view of God. Science attempts to reduce and divide things into base-components. In so doing, it loses sight of the whole and the harmony of creation.
That is truly excellent. We can see it in Luke 20:36 “Neither can they die any more: for they are equal to the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”
Darwinism claims that human beings are the accidental result of evolutionary processes – formed without supernatural powers.
B
beeliner
Guest
Fine.
I take issue only with the term ‘Darwinist’. That is like referring to anyone who believes in gravity as a ‘Newtonian’, as opposed, of course, to all of the non-Newtonians out there, or to people who believe that the earth orbits the sun as ‘Copernicans’, since the Bible states clearly that the sun orbits the (flat) earth. It might be interesting to poll the ‘creationists’ here regarding their views on the nature and motion of heavenly bodies.
While Darwin certainly deserves a prominent place in the history of the biological sciences, he had many predecessors, and advancements in biology, specifically in the study of the evolution of species, since his time have been enormous.
Deny evolution, you destroy the entire science of modern biology. I keep asking the ‘creationists’ what they propose to replace it with, and no one has an answer.
B
beeliner
Guest
- Apology accepted.
- If you wish to do so, it might be better to start a new thread, but let’s get one thing clear from the outset. I am not a proselytizer, but I am always glad to share my faith with anyone who asks.
R
ricmat
Guest
Your comment above was to someone else, but I’ll add my 2 cents. You haven’t been here long, and I’m not quibbling with you particularly.
You see MUCH MUCH more of that attitude from certain folks on the evolutionist side than you do from ID folks or creationists for that matter. Personally, I believe about 99% of “evolution”, and my quibbles are merely in the scope of exactly how the mutations came about (I don’t think they were random). But for the evolutionists, 99% is not enough. Ricmat must be beaten into submission to accept the last 1%, otherwise he is a young earth creationist, and an idiot besides. And he believes that science is evil.
Just as an experiment, look at the posts from both sides. The IDers will say “It seems like” or “Sometimes it appears as though…” Whereas the (theistic) evolutionists say things like “That’s how God did it. Period. Let God be God. Accept evolution because the Pope has said it is virtually certain, more certain even than other scientific theories.”
I agree that we must ALL be open to the possibility that we are wrong. And the scientific hubris from some people here is…well, it’s amazing and disappointing.
R
reggieM
Guest
Two things – first, I like that you’re thinking about what biology would be like without Darwinian evolution. Some answers can emerge.
But more importantly, I don’t think that the entire science of biology would be destroyed if Darwinian theory was proven to be false or inadequate.
E
edwest2
Guest
To my fellow Catholics -
Notice the terrible consequences of disbelieving evolution. Notice the drama. There is no such drama over plumbing or quantum mechanics or quantum entanglement. Why? Because it touches on our relationship to God. A relationship that the devil, through deception, wants to destroy.
Nothing written here, both now and in the future, will prevent biologists from going to work every day. Nothing written here will prevent research into protein folding.
But a small group wants to get you agitated - worried - that the science of biology will be destroyed if you don’t believe. This is called propaganda. It is a means to convince you to believe something.
If the “facts” about evolution are indeed facts, why worry about a few here that find the theory of evolution inadequate? What is there to gain? Doubt – that’s what. Be convinced, my fellow Catholics, all of Creation is aware of God. A God we can discover through our own natural reason. Be assured that biology will not wither and die because of comments made here.
God bless,
Ed
Notice the terrible consequences of disbelieving evolution. Notice the drama. There is no such drama over plumbing or quantum mechanics or quantum entanglement. Why? Because it touches on our relationship to God. A relationship that the devil, through deception, wants to destroy.
Nothing written here, both now and in the future, will prevent biologists from going to work every day. Nothing written here will prevent research into protein folding.
But a small group wants to get you agitated - worried - that the science of biology will be destroyed if you don’t believe. This is called propaganda. It is a means to convince you to believe something.
If the “facts” about evolution are indeed facts, why worry about a few here that find the theory of evolution inadequate? What is there to gain? Doubt – that’s what. Be convinced, my fellow Catholics, all of Creation is aware of God. A God we can discover through our own natural reason. Be assured that biology will not wither and die because of comments made here.
God bless,
Ed
B
beeliner
Guest
- Feel free.
- But ric, with all due respect, which you deserve for trying to keep the discussion on an intelligent level, there is no ‘evolutionist side’. There is the side of scientific fact, established beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming validation, and there is the side of the cranks who UNreasonably attack science simply because it is at odds with some system of folklore and superstition around which they order their lives. By referring to ‘Darwinians’ and ‘non-Darwinians’, you attempt to give both sides equal status, but youse can’t do dat.
- Nonsense! That is not an accurate appraisal at all, and I think you know that. If you believe 99%, you probably believe more than most biologists. Biological research continues and its findings will no doubt change what is known throughout the coming years and centuries. It is very unlikely that ANY new discoveries will point in the direction of ‘creationism’.
- I don’t see that. I see mostly the opposite, ‘creationists’ stridently insisting that they are right while refusing to give any supporting facts or documentation whatever, and the rest of us simply acknowledging and accepting the consensus of scientific orthodoxy. That’s what I do. I know very little - virtually nothing above high-school level - about biology, nor am I trying to ‘convert’ anyone. But the choice between scientific fact and religious fanaticism is not a difficult choice for most people to make. That’s why ‘creationism’ has been shot down as nonsense wherever it has attempted to establish a foothold, except, of course, in the so-called ‘Christian’ schools of the fundamentalist Protestants, who invoke religious freedom while teaching religion and claiming that it is science.
- Science is ALWAYS open to that possibility - I earlier cited the rotation of Mercury as an example. Religious fanaticism is never open to anything but self-perpetuation.
M
milde
Guest
Surely you did not just say that. The reason plumbing does not entail so much drama is because it is very easily explained and verified. But when you feel like someone wants to verify Christianity then you assume the devil us using deception to destroy?
If you and I discussed mathematics and you had some questions on Fourier transforms, how about if I responded with, “You’re asking these questions because the devil is using deception to destroy mathematics”. You’d just laugh at me.
M
milde
Guest
By they way, quantum mechanics involves MANY theories that are widely debated by scientists. It involves a significant amount of drama and questioning in search for truth. No doubt many of those theories of quantum mechanics are wrong. Some are only approximations to reality, and although useful, will likely be replaced with better understandings.
B
beeliner
Guest
Tell a biologist that - a real biologist, not a crackpot - and see what s/he says. I would suggest it would be something like this:
If the knowledge we have acquired to date about how species evolve were somehow shown to be seriously flawed, then they evolve some other way. That they evolve is not in question, and that is the central fact of ALL of modern biology, based on generations of research.
If you doubt or deny that, where is your evidence?
B
buffalo
Guest
The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge
I have posted this several times and have not received even one comment. Interesting!
I have posted this several times and have not received even one comment. Interesting!
B
beeliner
Guest
Precisely. QM is accepted because it WORKS, despite many of its premises seeming unbelievable, even silly at first glance.
‘Creationsim’ is much sillier and even less believable, and it doesn’t work at all.
E
edwest2
Guest
This has never been about “verifying Christianity.” It is about verifying evolution. Please don’t change the subject.
This has never been about anyone laughing at anyone, it is about man’s origin and his relationship to God.
Biology will continue to exist no matter what is written on this forum.
God bless,
Ed
B
beeliner
Guest
That’s probably because, unbelievable as it may seem, some people here don’t even know what a codon is.The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge
I have posted this several times and have not received even one comment. Interesting!
I happen to be one of those people.
M
milde
Guest
Oh, of course. Just tell me I’m off topic. That way you can ignore what I just said.
Are you starting to see why Christianity is hard for some to accept?
- Status