Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the same way that a square-triangle can’t exist. Are you saying that It’s ontologically impossible for it to happen by chance…
 
Glark said:
ontologically impossible
Click to expand...
sigh… Lets just say that i mean there is no possibility of it happening. If a thing is in principle possible, then no matter how unlikely it is, it might actually happen given the right conditions.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
40.png
Glark:
ontologically impossible
Click to expand...
sigh… Lets just say that i mean there is no possibility of it happening. If a thing is in principle possible, then no matter how unlikely it is, it might actually happen given the right conditions.
Click to expand...
Is it possible you’re just trying to sound smart ?
 
IWantGod said:
sigh… Lets just say that i mean there is no possibility of it happening. If a thing is in principle possible, then no matter how unlikely it is, it might actually happen given the right conditions.
Click to expand...
Thank you for using clear, non-ambiguous language. Any living organism is a stupendously functionally-complex machine. Machines are not known to build themselves, so the idea of a very, very complex machine building itself is absolutely absurd and therefore unscientific.

(I have heard of metaphysics and ontology (they’e in my dictionary and philosophers sometimes speak in these terms), but they seem to be a vague concepts to this layman.)
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Lol. I forget that some people might not be acquainted with these words. Having been exposed to them myself i tend to use them a lot.
Click to expand...
Are you a dentist? I think an ontologist is someome who works with teeth.

I like your name, btw, “IWantGod”. That’s nice. I want God too. I also need God. Without the Lord, I don’t even want to live.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Are you a dentist? I think an ontologist is someome who works with teeth.
Click to expand...
Lol

ontology
noun
1.
the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.
2.
(loosely) metaphysics.
Glark said:
I like your name, btw, “IWantGod”. That’s nice. I want God too. I also need God. Without the Lord, I don’t even want to live.
Click to expand...
Neither do i want to exist without God. If the impossible happened and God was proven to not exist, then i would prefer to have never been born.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Any living organism is a stupendously functionally-complex machine. Machines are not known to build themselves, so the idea of a very, very complex machine building itself is absolutely absurd and therefore unscientific.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by building itself. If certain chemical reactions lead to complex structures, this is just things acting according to their nature… The fact that it happens by a process of secondary causes is what makes it “natural”, and natural events is the domain of science. There is certainly a philosophical argument to be said here. We can say that such events regardless of them being natural only make sense if the first cause is an intelligent-cause. All this would mean is that God chooses to create through the process of secondary causes and is the one that gives physical reality its nature or natural powers.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
All this would mean is that God chooses to create through the process of secondary causes and is the one that gives physical reality its nature or natural powers.
Click to expand...
If I understand Glark’s reading of Genesis, God did a bit of a shandy. Brought the universe to a curious state using the natural processes (perhaps starting with a Big Bang?), where there was an earth with light but no Sun, and then used the ‘snap the fingers’ model over 6 days to complete the job. You’ve gotta ask 2, no, make that 3, questions:
  • why take this curious approach?
  • and why then tell us about it, since we can glean nothing from it.
  • why make the universe in such a way that the evidence we investigate tells a different story?
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
40.png
Bradskii:
So what process do you use to differentiate something that is a miracle (something that doesn’t result from natural process, like, I dunno…magic) and something
Click to expand...
…it is obvious to me…
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I didn’t want to accuse you from arguing from ignorance again without your say so.
 
HarryStotle said:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Again, “all the forensics” do not point to a Godless or unguided universe, so your analogy simply fails.
Click to expand...
But what would the universe look like if God didn’t exist. All the evidence points it to looking exactly like it does right now.
Click to expand...
I think you are begging the question. Either God did create the universe and, therefore, it looks like what it does today. Or, he didn’t and therefore it looks like what it does today. You can’t assume God is NOT involved simply because the universe looks the way it does. That would be a case of viciously circular reasoning…
Click to expand...
And it is obvious that the reverse is then equally true. Although I thought it might have taken a couple more posts to get to that point.
 
fisherman_carl said:
You are right that God could have setup the initial parameters differently. But I don’t see it follows from that to your conclusion that an omnipotent God means the fine tuning argument does not work. Because the fine tuning argument starts off not assuming there is a God but looking at the probability of the constants being the way they are and concludes it is likely they are that way because of a intelligent designer. So it still leads to an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...
The fine tuning argument says explicitly that umpteen parameters are required to be exactly set in a very specific and detailed way. Any variation will result in a universe in which we could not live. God doesn’t come into the argument at that point. It is generally asked that one accepts the initial proposition first.

Once accepted, we generally get an ‘Aha! Do you what know the odds are that those parameters are ALL exactly as they need to be?’

Some gargantuan figure is then trotted out which makes it appear impossible. Therefore, there MUST have been a designer!

So we have these very specific parameters with which God needed to comply so that you could be sitting there reading this. That is the very argument itself. So I will repeat it:

If God had not set things up in a very specific way, you would not be here. In other words, for the argument to hold water, God had no choice in how to set things up.
 
Dear Glark, very informative sights. I can interject that the Church broke away from burning scientists at stakes for hereseies. The philosophy is: THE BIBLE SAYS THAT THERE IS A GOD! SCIENCE SAYS HOW GOD CREATED. Science is evolving w new research and discoveries
THE DNA genome has been found to have a difference in structure in man. Not present in animals. New, discovery w breaking down genes.
Science leaning to INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Moses is coming from a Patriarchal society being able to hear Holy Spirit and write down story of creation in an allegory. Apple is symbol of disobedience when eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Means they disobeyed God’s directive. They listened to a deceiver. We all do that today. Apple could be symbol of sex. Lord knows, we’re out of God’s teaching on this. Most ppl couldn’t read. Those who could had to teach others. Anyway, GOD IS AND CREATED!
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
 
Bradskii said:
If God had not set things up in a very specific way, you would not be here. In other words, for the argument to hold water, God had no choice in how to set things up.
Click to expand...
This is where you lose me by saying God had no choice in order for the fine tuning argument to work. If God setup the initial design criteria that led to the need to have the constants at the values they are then he did have a choice in the beginning. But once the parameters were set up then it had to be made accordingly with those parameters in mind. So while the constants need to be where they are there was a choice prior to that.

Consider a car designer who creates an initial design of the car, but once executed the design becomes a reality. Once in production does not the technician assembling it assert that the 4 wheels must be attached to the car in order for it to drive down the road? If the designer was making a hover craft it wouldn’t need those wheels. But once you make those initial design decisions then it means you purposely limit the possibilities in order to make it work.

Thus, the possibilities must be limited by design at some point. But limiting the possibilities is the work of a designer. Without a designer who is to say the possibilities would be limited or not? Because without an intelligence behind it there are no rules. So who is to say you could have a universe that made any sense at all?
 
Evolution is the only solution.
I call it biological distribution.
Genetic revolution, this is no delusion
Yong earth creationism only leads to confusion.

Peace 😎
 
Last edited:
Apparently you can’t answer without making insults. So there is no point in discussing anything with you. Apparently you are right and everyone else is wrong. You are the one who is claiming the universe was created in 6 days. And also you should believe the earth is flat and the firmament holding the rain above is solid. And that the earth is fixed at the centre of the universe while the sun goes across the earth because that is what the Bible literally says.

“In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun. It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth.” (Psalm 19)

“So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,” Joshua 10:13

“And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven” (Genesis 1)

“In Biblical cosmology, the firmament is the structure above the atmosphere, conceived as a vast solid dome. According to the Genesis creation narrative, God created the firmament to separate the “waters above” the earth from the “waters below” the earth.” (Firmament - Wikipedia)

How do you explain the light being created on day one while the sun and moon were created on day 4? . You don’t have to be a ‘Darwinists’ to see the Bible is full of symbolism.
 
Last edited:
fisherman_carl said:
“And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven” (Genesis 1)
Click to expand...
Oh snap! lol. The author thought there was a sea in the air.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top