Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Techno2000 said:
So, they must have spontaneously evolved male and female genitalia exactly at the same time.
Click to expand...
No. Back then they were single celled eukaryotes, and single celled organisms do not have external genitalia. Rather than one individual splitting into two genetically identical individuals by asexual reproduction, they evolved a way for two individuals to mix their genes, resulting in offspring with a mix of genes from both parents. Basically an extension of the already existing horizontal gene transfer, but slightly more organised. External genitalia evolved about 500 million years ago in the late Precambrian and Cambrian, about 700 million years after sexual reproduction evolved.

All these question you ask can be answered by a little research on the Internet.

rossum
 
1300+ replies and none of the evolutionists have come up with a theology that connects evolution to Scripture and Tradition… Which I think just about answers the original question: Catholics cannot reasonably marry the two.

Once we start inventing soulless humans with feelings, memories, rational thoughts, belief systems etc… I think we’ve hit a very dark, very cruel point where we need take a breather and ask ourselves just how important a secular theory really is to us.

But, since this is the Age of Secularism I guess it will be no use pushing against the dismal tide that’s rolling in.

Soulless humans… What a disgusting concept.
 
Which creature had the 10% genetalia? Or the half-genetalia? Not quite functioning yet but still a “hole and a pole”?
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
Isn’t God the ultimate Occam’s Razor… or is that too simple for atheists ?
Click to expand...
Either the Jewish YHWH or the Moslem Allah beat the Christian God in the Occam stakes. A unitary God is simpler than the Trinitarian God. If all Christians became Unitarian you might have a shot… 😀

rossum
Click to expand...
Would a unitary God have perfect self-awareness or no awareness at all?

What would self-awareness be like if Existence Itself were omniscient?

I just doubt very much that a unitary God with no self-awareness is even logically consistent.
 
rossum said:
…they evolved a way…

All these question you ask can be answered by a little research on the Internet.

rossum
Click to expand...
“Answered,” I suppose, if your curiosity is satisfied by a very low resolution picture of what happened where the details are highly pixilated and the simple caption “evolved” fills every gaping hole in the explanation.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
So, they must have spontaneously evolved male and female genitalia exactly at the same time.
Click to expand...
No. Back then they were single celled eukaryotes, and single celled organisms do not have external genitalia. Rather than one individual splitting into two genetically identical individuals by asexual reproduction, they evolved a way for two individuals to mix their genes, resulting in offspring with a mix of genes from both parents. Basically an extension of the already existing horizontal gene transfer, but slightly more organised. External genitalia evolved about 500 million years ago in the late Precambrian and Cambrian, about 700 million years after sexual reproduction evolved.

All these question you ask can be answered by a little research on the Internet.

rossum
Click to expand...
You’re trying to confuse the issues, I’m taking about two creatures that had to mate with a Penis and a Vagina and all the stuff that go with it.
 
Last edited:
ChunkMonk said:
Catholics cannot reasonably marry the two.
Click to expand...
The difficulty only persists when one feels the need to interpret scripture (Genesis) literally. For example, to require that all life that ever existed on earth was created in the same window of a few days, 5778 years ago. When you require belief in something the Church herself does not require you to believe.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
…very low resolution picture of what happened where the details are highly pixilated and the simple caption “evolved” fills every gaping hole in the explanation.
Click to expand...
How clear is it reasonable to expect the excruciating detail of a billion years of the changing natural environment to be?
 
ChunkMonk said:
Which creature had the 10% genetalia? Or the half-genetalia? Not quite functioning yet but still a “hole and a pole”?
Click to expand...
Exactly, how long could evolution wait for the first penis and first vagina to completely form. It had to be all or nothing, or so-called evolution could not continue.
 
Last edited:
I suppose if you want to make excruciatingly specific claims, it would be necessary to provide “excruciating detail,” no?
 
Doesn’t fit the description. For that I would ask, where is the non-functioning but still mostly extant cloaca?
 
Not so much, mostly with the nature of Original Sin, the nature of man pre and post fall, the nature of Christ in relation to man, the nature of the soul, the nature of God’s covenant with man, and the utility of reason as a tool to discover truths about the world.

All of which are primary considerations. All of which are largely handwaved with “I’m sure it works” by theistic evolutionists.
 
ChunkMonk said:
Not so much, mostly with the nature of Original Sin, the nature of man pre and post fall, the nature of Christ in relation to man, the nature of the soul, the nature of God’s covenant with man, and the utility of reason as a tool to discover truths about the world.
Click to expand...
What have any of these things got to do with evolution? Don’t confuse the reality of evolutionary processes with the desire of some to eliminate God. To think that those processes tend to eliminate God is to severely short change him. Unfortunately, some, in a quest to have an apparently simple picture, take creation to be a “God snapped his fingers (over 144 hours) and there it all was 5778 years ago” kind of affair, despite overwhelming evidence it did not come to be in such a fashion. That has two consequences:
  • they feel they have a full picture with no need to enquiry further;
  • they are bound to reject on principle all evidence at odds with their picture.
 
ChunkMonk said:
All of which are largely handwaved with “I’m sure it works” by theistic evolutionists.
Click to expand...
Clearly a great deal more hand waving is required by those who (contrary to the Church) require a literal reading of Genesis.
 
How long did the Cell have wait for all it’s parts to evolve…it can not work with missing parts, they all have to be in place at the same time.
 
Last edited:
That would depend upon the degree of specificity that needs to be shown.
 
I’ve gone over it more times than I can count and never gotten a straight answer.

I guess instead of me explaining the problems with evolution, I could just ask the evolutionist to explain all the things I listed in relation to evolution. What was the Original Sin and what was the nature of the man who committed it? What is the soul and can we have “untrue men” who do not have them? How did the nature of man change when he sinned? Are the various covenants of God purely metaphorical/allegorical concepts of were they real, flesh and blood promises with real, flesh and blood people? If it was all allegorical then why did God change the method and not just send an allegorical Savior? What is reason and is it of any use in determining truth? Does God sin? Do the sciences require philosophical basis? There are thousands of questions to be answered by the evolutionist theologian, but like I said, the interest is just not there.

One can only assume it’s because anything more than an extremely superficial treatment will inevitably run into massive contradictions and will force the theistic evolutionist to abandon one of their two faiths.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
How long did the Cell have wait for all it’s parts to evolve…it can not work with missing parts.
Click to expand...
A long time – probably as long as we need to wait to gather all of the details explaining how all its parts evolved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top