G
Glark
Guest
How do these examples of “evolution” relate to humans evolving from a bug?
- Status
G
Glark
Guest
Would a God be capable of creating creatures close to humans, but different? Apes and monkeys, for example?
Atheism 101 - Evolution must be true and therefore must be a fact, since there is no God who created life.
The theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular life-forms is as close to a fact as the speed of sound? What nonsense. An atheist’s capacity for self-delusion knows no bounds.
“The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false” - 2Thess 2:9-11.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Glark…bug is such a strong word…how about organisms, that’s much better, and it sounds so sophisticated.rossum:
How do these examples of “evolution” relate to humans evolving from a bug?
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Right. And it also tells you the same for a non-literal reading!! How can that be? Because the specifics over which you labor are immaterial to the message of Scripture and the salvation of souls!
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Yeah, I guess the literal sometimes needs adjustment.
R
rossum
Guest
They are counter examples to @Techno2000’s claim that “nothing is evolving right now.”
As to humans evolving from very primitive early life, they relate in the same way that the ability to take one step relates to the ability to walk 100 miles.
rossum
M
MountCarmel
Guest
Homo Sapiens did not emerge from Neanderthalis, although it does appear that Caucasians do have a very small amount of Neanderthal DNA, both species having lived along side each other for some thousands of years.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
I never said that! It was Rossum you quoted that from
N
niceatheist
Guest
That was job for a while. He was a mathematician by education. But nice try, trying to conflate being a lawyer with being a biologist.niceatheist:
Albert Einstein was a patents clerk. What would he know about physics?
Luskin is not a biologist. Full stop.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Of course such a being could. But that’s where the other problem comes up. Evolution makes certain predictions about what we’ll find, that the closer two species are related, the more common features there have. If you don’t find those traces of common descent, then descent with modification is effectively falsified.niceatheist:
Would a God be capable of creating creatures close to humans, but different? Apes and monkeys, for example?
Now tell me, what observation can you imagine which would falsify “God did it”?
And what exactly does evolution have to do with atheism? Evolution has absolutely nothing to say on the existence of God.
That’s a bizarre comparison, but yes, that all life on Earth descended from populations of primitive molecular replicators is true.
This has nothing to do with evolution.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Darwin in this respect provides us with solely an opinion, a perspective on the world.
The claim that the vagaries of life on earth are a matter of “survival of the fittest” is of less explanatory value than the idea that it is the “fittingest” that survive and procreate. And further, at some point the reality of the interconnectedness of everything leads to the conclusion that as much as individual creatures exist, they are at the same time part of a larger whole. That larger whole may be understood as being life itself, in which case it sacrifices each of its expressions to itself, thereby producing a flourishing of plants, animals and simpler creatures, filling the earth.
While just as much a part of creation, we are as different from animals as they are from the dirt of which all life is composed. It seems like this fact, obvious to anyone who is close to nature, even if it is only dealing with an ornery cat or trying to keep an orchid healthy, is lost in the intellectualized detachment that accompanies atheism.
The line of thought that took a leap with Darwin’s Origins of the species and then a turn into the absurd fantasy world of materialism hardly provides intellectual fulfillment when it is coherent only because obvious realities are ignored and denied. The new facts which he introduced unfortunately were and continue to be couched within a theoretical system that is ultimately atheistic. This is all being created by God temporally through time and ontologically, here and now, all creation within the compassionate ocean of His eternal Now. Everything, each being, from the “light” that forms the subatomic and upward to the simple complexity of mankind, behaves according to its nature, our’s being free-will, and all subject to God. Blind to the truth that there is a loving Father, we no longer seek to be His children; and as we see in today’s world, if not always, we are otherwise just dust.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Although science has shown that the structure and history of the cosmos are consistent with creation, it may not be so fortunate in doing the same with regards to our beginnings. The remnants of the early universe remain as the background microwave radiation. There is little left over from our earliest days. Even if we examine scientifically what it can about what physically remains within the human genome, in order to draw any conclusions, we must make assumptions as to how and what changes took place over the course of time. These threads are all repetitive, so I apologize for making the same point again. If our first ancestors lived and were capable of procreation for many hundred years, if the taboo against incest were not then yet established, if God brought about flourishings of genetic change, as He would have in the formation of various species, the pieces fit a little better. Now, that may seem to be a lot of ifs, but then so are those which are the converse and we so easily seem to accept, without any degree of skepticism. It has been my impression that in this respect, atheists do not have an open mind, which is necessary for good science. Perhaps misuse is too strong a word, but it was parroting and turning around what you had stated earlier about the Bible and “new-agers”.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Most of what you said makes sense. I just wanted to clarify that in speaking about God’s hand being in everything, the matter has to do with transcendence, which in a way is associated with kittens and rainbows, but more so has to do with the transformation of all and every suffering, into joy.
The concept of “kittens”, implies vulnerability and trust, a sense of newness, innocence and purity, happiness to be found in the simple things of life, A rainbow is associated with a sense of wonder at the magical structure of the world, a recognition of that which underlies and reveals the mystery of day-to-day appearances, which were to our infant eyes a marvel, but with time and from the taking, may have become old and boring.
The man on the cross is the living symbol of God’s love, calling us to be like Him in the giving of ourselves to each other. So, kittens and rainbows and something much greater, to which morality points.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
T
Techno2000
Guest
You forgot to throw hell into the mix too.Aloysium:
Not just kittens. To quote Monty Python:
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
When did organisms become male and female ?
R
rossum
Guest
Not all organisms have, some are still asexual and some are hermaphrodite. Sexual reproduction is usually thought to have evolved about 1.2 billion years ago.
rossum
R
Rau
Guest
Thus, humans have always been male and female, they were created as such always.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
So now, if I may be able to step in, to ask the important question:
Can a faithful Catholic be able to agree with Darwin’s theory of evolution and agree that God created it?
Can a faithful Catholic be able to agree with Darwin’s theory of evolution and agree that God created it?
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
So, they must have spontaneously evolved male and female genitalia exactly at the same time.Techno2000:
Not all organisms have, some are still asexual and some are hermaphrodite. Sexual reproduction is usually thought to have evolved about 1.2 billion years ago.
rossum
- Status