P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
So humans evolved, and were not created in God’s image?
Interesting.
- Status
Interesting.
M
Milliardo
Guest
That is true. We must also remember that for God, a day could be a million years, and a million years a day, so 7 days for God is relative. We shouldn’t rule out that it could be a figurative 7 days, to show that God did create the universe.
Some throw out scientific data as bunk because of the notion that humans evolved from some bipedial humanoids. This unacceptance is rather illogical–evidence is already there, and still would not accept it. I realized that God created this bipedial humanoids as well. I reflected on the Fall as well, and that if one looks at how humans evolved, it exactly matches how Adam and Eve fell: these humanoids were innocent creatures at first, not knowing anything regarding sin or evil. However, as man became more aware of his surroundings, as well as his nature, he began to distinguish between good and evil, and thus slowly began to have moral codes and then laws to govern him. Of course, that’s the short of it, and it will take a very long discussion to flesh out why the Fall is factual in context; in reality it took a rather long time for it to play out, until such time that man has reasonable enough intellect and awareness to distinguish between good and evil, and with that morality.
T
Techno2000
Guest
V
VociMike
Guest
God can start with any material he wants to create humans. After all, in Genesis 2:7 he starts with dust from the ground, but nobody ever offers that as proof that we weren’t created by God.So humans evolved, and were not created in God’s image?
S
Spirithound
Guest
One does not preclude the other. One theory is that God guided evolution and then when the species Homo sapiens was born, He infused it with a soul.So humans evolved, and were not created in God’s image?
E
edwest2
Guest
Yes, dinosaur bones, not fossils, have been found. There is no credible evolutionary explanation for a find like this.
Also, read this: www.apologeticspress.org/articles/304
God bless,
Ed
T
Techno2000
Guest
After 80 million years one would think this tissue would turn to dust by now,right ?
N
Nepenthe
Guest
I’m thinking white wine and capers go with shoe. Perhaps a marinade?
Sheeze.
Sheeze.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Let me go further on my point, since nobody seems to have noticed it: if one would look at the Fall, one would see that Adam and Eve realized they were naked after they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Now, what does this mean? It means they became aware of themselves, and of sin as well. We reflect now on man’s evolution, and how man became aware of morality. If one looks at history, one would notice that he only began to make moral codes and laws when he had enough intellectual capacity to do so. When was this? Why, when man was as homo sapien, not homo erectus or other earlier form. One might argue that perhaps man recognized morality earlier than that, before he began to write. Perhaps so, but that doesn’t negate this fact, nor the fact that man began to slowly become aware of himself and his surroundings. He began to become aware of it when he ate from the fruit–when he began to have intellect and knowledge.
As for evolution and creation itself, I can say that they go together. One compliments the other, not in conflict of each other. What made me realize that? Actually by reading Paul. Paul wrote something about, "when I was a child, I talked like a child…but when I grew up, I began to take away childish things’, or something to that effect. Now, would a 6,000 BC man understand the concept of Darwinian evolution? I highly doubt it. At that point, as it is, man was but a babe, or at least a child. As he began to use his intellect more, and discover more, more things were revealed to him. In essence then, God began to reveal to man how he was made. The creation narrative in the Bible was a simplified way of showing man how God created him; Darwinian evolution is a more detailed telling of the same story. It’s only those who want to create friction between religion and science, between Christianity and science in particular, that would deny this.
As for evolution and creation itself, I can say that they go together. One compliments the other, not in conflict of each other. What made me realize that? Actually by reading Paul. Paul wrote something about, "when I was a child, I talked like a child…but when I grew up, I began to take away childish things’, or something to that effect. Now, would a 6,000 BC man understand the concept of Darwinian evolution? I highly doubt it. At that point, as it is, man was but a babe, or at least a child. As he began to use his intellect more, and discover more, more things were revealed to him. In essence then, God began to reveal to man how he was made. The creation narrative in the Bible was a simplified way of showing man how God created him; Darwinian evolution is a more detailed telling of the same story. It’s only those who want to create friction between religion and science, between Christianity and science in particular, that would deny this.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Sounds to me like a theory that includes a very weak God who couldn’t get His work done right the first time.
V
Vaclav
Guest
No offense, but this isn’t much of an argument. If science were restrained to mere empircism, then we would not know very much would we?I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Were you?
The dating means we have are rather accurate. For radiocarbon dating it is really nothing more than basic physics. To be honest, it would be a far scarier world if this method did not work, as that would mean basic principles of physics would be unhinged. Luckily for us that is not the case.
Typically when proof is offered to the contrary concerning the dating methods, it is due to human error (calibration error) or complete misuse or misunderstanding of the method itself.
Humans did not walk the Earth with dinoasaurs. Or at least, we have no evidence to support such a claim and certainly the oldest H. s. sapiens did not, as you have a gap of dinosaurs going extinct around 65 million years ago and H. s. sapiens appearing roughly 250,000 years ago. (I guess one could debate that though, since some believe that dinoasaurs were the origin of birds and some dinosaurs still exist today in another form - i.e. crocodiles, snakes).
What I don’t understand is why this disturbs the faith of so many people. I mean, it was a Catholic Priest who discovered the “Big Bang” Theory.
To me, it is such an amazingly intricate system of chemistry, physics, bichemistry, biology, and even astronomy that I have no doubt that God created it all.
I’m afraid that the Creation Museum does a disservice to our faith, but that is only my humble opinion.
E
Em_in_FL
Guest
Are you suggesting that all the scientific evidence (BTW that GOD createdSounds to me like a theory that includes a very weak God who couldn’t get His work done right the first time.
) is untrue?Science does not close the door on God… God CREATED science… it’s HIS! He designed it! He wouldn’t throw confusing information out there just to throw people off!
The Church teaches us it’s okay to believe the Creation story was not literal… we’re allowed to believe that it is narrative and poetic in nature. Does that exclude the fact that God still created the heavens and the earth? NO… God can easily inspire Genesis in a poetic fashion! There are many passages in scripture that are to be read allegorically!
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
No, I’m suggesting that the theory of humans evolving from some pre-human creation suggests that God couldn’t get it right the first time.Are you suggesting that all the scientific evidence (BTW that GOD created
1 Cor 1:20 - *Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? *(D-R)
I understand that. I also understand that it’s equally OK to believe that God is able to create the world, and make it VERY GOOD, in 6 days. Am I wrong about that? Am I required to believe in the evolutionary theory if I want to be a Catholic?
V
VociMike
Guest
On the contrary, science tells of a God who is a superabundant creator and artist and teacher. Every aspect of creation is done in the most beautiful way possible, by a God who is extravagant in his creation. It also tells us of a God who reveals more of himself to each generation. Every new scientific discovery about our origins and makeup should make us more in awe of God (it certainly does me!).Sounds to me like a theory that includes a very weak God who couldn’t get His work done right the first time.
The natural world is God’s revelation to us every bit as much as is scripture. They are different, but they both reveal the face and mind of God as much as we can know them in this life. To place them in opposition with one another is like a person placing his eyes in opposition to his ears. That is not how the human body was designed to work, and it is not how God’s revelations were designed to work.
The Catholic faith teaches Fides et Ratio, faith and reason, not faith or reason. Read the link and find out for yourself.
God is revealing himself to you, and you are just squinting your eyes shut and refusing to look.
M
Milliardo
Guest
I don’t see it that way; I see it more as God let His creation, that is, man, to grow and become the intellectual superior creature that he is today. It is more a learning process for man, and not because God didn’t get it right.
As I’ve explained, for God 6 days might as well be a million years, and a million years a day. The creation narrative was a simplified way of showing how the universe was made. Could men from 6,000 BC or even earlier understand the Big Bang theory, for instance? If one looks at how the theory is, it almost mirrors the creation narrative in Genesis.
No, we’re not required, but it would be silly to dismiss the evidences presented off hand as well.Am I required to believe in the evolutionary theory if I want to be a Catholic?
C
CarlosG
Guest
Its been my observation that these discussions really never go anywhere because people never take the time to look at the REAL counter-evidence. They seem to be content to bloviate about what this does to their Biblical reading instead of looking at the actual discoveries themselves.
The first thing to do is ask yourself if you actually even care about the issue, if you care then you need to do some homework. I’m not talking about some sort of passive accumulation of ‘facts’. I’m talking about actually putting the time in to doing the research for your position and then actively seeking out counter arguments, and then going back and forth a few rounds. I’m not saying you have to become an expert in the field to hold an opinion but at least be able to talk about the evidence and know its weaknesses and strengths.
The ‘Dinosaur Blood’ is the perfect starting topic because its still fresh (rimshot! ) in the popular news and science sites. Take their facts and check them with a different source. Google it, email people more knowledgeable and ask them for sources, take a look at everything you can and then check back with the site and see what they have to say.
My point is that we cannot ignore evidence from unbiased sources (even biased sources often contain some truth). God may be giving us a way to get rid of bad exegetical readings and positions. You think the earth is young and we walked with dinosaurs? Great, show me your evidence, my threshold for being swayed is not unreasonable at all, but as far as I can help it, it will be based on the best possible evidence.
Here, ill even post the first few links you should take a look at for the Dino Blood deal:
talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
reasons.org/resources/apologetics/dinosaur_blood.shtml
The first thing to do is ask yourself if you actually even care about the issue, if you care then you need to do some homework. I’m not talking about some sort of passive accumulation of ‘facts’. I’m talking about actually putting the time in to doing the research for your position and then actively seeking out counter arguments, and then going back and forth a few rounds. I’m not saying you have to become an expert in the field to hold an opinion but at least be able to talk about the evidence and know its weaknesses and strengths.
The ‘Dinosaur Blood’ is the perfect starting topic because its still fresh (rimshot!
) in the popular news and science sites. Take their facts and check them with a different source. Google it, email people more knowledgeable and ask them for sources, take a look at everything you can and then check back with the site and see what they have to say.My point is that we cannot ignore evidence from unbiased sources (even biased sources often contain some truth). God may be giving us a way to get rid of bad exegetical readings and positions. You think the earth is young and we walked with dinosaurs? Great, show me your evidence, my threshold for being swayed is not unreasonable at all, but as far as I can help it, it will be based on the best possible evidence.
Here, ill even post the first few links you should take a look at for the Dino Blood deal:
talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
reasons.org/resources/apologetics/dinosaur_blood.shtml
W
Wolseley
Guest
I didn’t present it as an argument.
As I said, I don’t care much one way or the other. I do believe that God created all life, but as for how He chose to do it, that’s His business.But still, it seems that much of the “origins” debate appears to hinge on the idea that life somehow “just happened” due to a random chemical mix in a “primordial sea”. Now, even if this were possible, nobody can prove this for sure, because we don’t have any samples of said “primordial sea” in a quart Ball jar somewhere to run tests on. That’s all I’m saying.
But it still doesn’t explain the discrepancies, gaps, dislocation of geologic strata, and other unexplained phenomena that just doesn’t fit The Standard Template ™. The back rooms of museums and research labs are full of this kind of stuff, and there it remains, because nobody can explain it, and it just doesn’t fit into the nice neat little evolutionary charts that the paleontologists have devised over the last 100 years or so.
Maybe. Maybe not. It’s like the “primordial soup”; nobody around today was there at the time, so it’s impossible to say for sure.
Or at least, evidence that fits The Standard Template ™. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as “human error” and off to the back storage room it goes.
I would say it only bothers those who insist on strict literal interpretation of Scripture. If you grant God some leeway in however He wanted to accomplish all this, the problems for the most part disappear.
I agree with you.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
But the truth of our origins are in the realm of history, not science.
OK, then, reasonably: If evolution is true then why do I still have to wear sunscreen? Shouldn’t humans have evolved to develop some type of natural resistance to the sun’s rays after all these billions of years? I’m not being deliberately obtuse about science, I just think it sometimes tries to limit God and put Him in a box. All the science experiments in the world cannot prove anything that belongs in the realm of history. Evolutionary theories are just that: theories. Man’s best guess at what might have happened, since none of us were there at the beginning. I’m really don’t care if the world is 7,000 or 70 billion years old. It doesn’t shake my faith at all. What DOES shake my faith is hearing people who supposedly believe in an Almighty God say it’s possible that God created some pre-human-like creature and sat back and waited for it to develop fully. That doesn’t sound like much of a God to me, that’s all.
V
VociMike
Guest
Why not in both realms? If science reveals, through our God-given intellect, certain truths about the world, why not include those truths in the entirety of truth which is revealed to us?
I’m not going to get caught up in a discussion about evolution. For one thing, it seems to be the most agendized of all the natural sciences, so it is hard for me as a non-expert to separate out the objective truth from the “party line”.OK, then, reasonably: If evolution is true then why do I still have to wear sunscreen? Shouldn’t humans have evolved to develop some type of natural resistance to the sun’s rays after all these billions of years? I’m not being deliberately obtuse about science, I just think it sometimes tries to limit God and put Him in a box. All the science experiments in the world cannot prove anything that belongs in the realm of history. Evolutionary theories are just that: theories. Man’s best guess at what might have happened, since none of us were there at the beginning. I’m really don’t care if the world is 7,000 or 70 billion years old. It doesn’t shake my faith at all. What DOES shake my faith is hearing people who supposedly believe in an Almighty God say it’s possible that God created some pre-human-like creature and sat back and waited for it to develop fully. That doesn’t sound like much of a God to me, that’s all.
But what I can’t understand is why some people are so determined to reject (a) the beauty and awe of God’s creation, which he (b) reveals to us through our God-given intellect. Like I said, the Catholic faith teaches faith and reason. God is not faking us out. We really can know things about the world around us, a world he created.
Oh, and about the sunscreen, people who live in areas of bright sun have more melanin in their skin, and don’t need sunscreen. The problem is when light-skinned people who have lost their melanin through millenia living in areas with less strong sunshine, then migrate to areas with more sunshine. Blame the sunscreen problem on the human ability to move vast distances and settle in climates very different from their ancestors.
And this thing about God waiting - why shouldn’t he wait? He waited at least thousands of years before becoming Incarnate. Time is nothing to God. For that matter, why did he wait 6 days to create the world rather than do it all in a single blink?
E
edwest2
Guest
The Catholic Church states that truth cannot contradict truth. It is not afraid of or opposed to science. However, I have been to many Christian and Atheist sites and the current, consistent, daily message from unbelievers is: “Evolution happened, get over it.” God is not needed according to the evidence. And the fallback position is: “Why can’t you believe that your wonderful God used evolution to ‘create’ man?” This coming from the same people who deny the Bible is the word of God. Who want ‘reason’ to get rid of myth and superstition (that would include all believers of all religions). Because, according to them, religion is a really, really bad thing. It will cause you to fly planes into buildings.
So when evidence is found that there are dinosaur bones that contain elastic parts, fluid and a component of blood, that creates a problem for those who want to promote the idea that religion is really, really bad and the evidence for evolution indicates that humans came to be through purely natural (no God required) forces.
God bless,
Ed
So when evidence is found that there are dinosaur bones that contain elastic parts, fluid and a component of blood, that creates a problem for those who want to promote the idea that religion is really, really bad and the evidence for evolution indicates that humans came to be through purely natural (no God required) forces.
God bless,
Ed
- Status