Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet I have like 1000 messages from this thread in my emails inbox šŸ˜‚ and it only took a few words to answer my question
 
Last edited:
Joe1 said:
Yet I have like 1000 messages from this thread in my emails inbox šŸ˜‚ and it only took a few words to answer my question
Click to expand...
Well letā€™s break the bank and see if we can hit the limit . :crazy_face:
 
Last edited:
How about we donā€™t. I happen to like that science and Catholicsm can end on a good note now. :hugs:
 
niceatheist said:
This seems an example of a rather tortured attempt at interpreting verse to somehow make it seem like itā€™s making a scientific statement.
Click to expand...
Thatā€™s right. The verse also says that what we see - the universe - was created from nothing. Science does not explain existence - just its development to the extent that it can uncover laws that seem well to describe that development.
 
Techno2000 said:
Yeahā€¦ back in the olden days Cells didn"t need all these new fangled parts like they do today.
Click to expand...
Yup. Ships, planes, automobiles, trains, computers, appliances, musical instruments, houses, hvac systems, factories and cities have all evolved magnificently since the ā€œolden days.ā€

Even planned obsolescence and limited warranties canā€™t stop the march of evolution.
 
Joe1 said:
40.png
niceatheist:
The scripture is clearly talking about the unseen in a supernatural sense; the hand of God. I canā€™t see how it can be interpreted as referring to subatomic particles.
Click to expand...
You are aware that in those days subatomic particles were not discovered yet. Therefore how would God be able to describe something scientifically that wouldnā€™t be discovered thousands of years later if it werenā€™t simple to understand. Letā€™s not treat the Bible as a science textbook
Click to expand...
Why would trying to explain subatomic physics even be necessary in the Bible, and why with such a hackneyed analogy? Besides, the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus came up with the first atomic theory about five hundred years before Hebrews was written, and Iā€™m sure any educated individual in Palestine would have been able to fathom the notion of tiny pieces of matter that everything we see are made up of. It isnā€™t a modern scientific theory, but certainly does a better job than the scripture you quoted at explaining the reality we know.
 
Techno2000 said:
Not angryā€¦ that was supposed to represent angry atheist, but I guess it didnā€™t work.But you did prove my point that atheist can explain away anything that has to with God.
Click to expand...
Iā€™m not trying to explain God away at all. Science simply isnā€™t the tool to use to discuss Godā€™s existence or whatever interventions anyone may posit He made.

You seem to have me confused with someone who thinks science disproves God. Let me disabuse you of that notion. My atheism isnā€™t founded on science, because I know perfectly well that science is agnostic on the matter, and cannot be used to prove or disprove Godā€™s existence. I fully admit thereā€™s no incompatibility between faith in God and accepting science. Itā€™s you who seems to want to make theories like evolution into grand atheistic proclamations.
 
niceatheist said:
Yes, as pretty much every biologist is. But if you want to actually understand where the research is, rather than just shutting your eyes and covering your ears, watch the videos. You donā€™t have to agree with it, but it could at least inform your criticism.
Click to expand...
Theories that canā€™t be tested are just worthless talk.
 
niceatheist said:
The fundamental problem appears to be that some people just cannot fathom that they are wrong in their Biblical interpretation
Click to expand...
The fundamental problem is that the miracle of creation canā€™t be explained with science. The impossible canā€™t be explained in terms of the possible. Trying to do so results in making unscientific claims - ie, junk science. Humans havenā€™t got a clue.
 
niceatheist said:
So you have absolutely no intention of actually understanding the theory at all, and prefer just to throw scriptures around?
Click to expand...
When Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert, Jesus answered each and every attempt by quoting Scripture.
And really, who on this thread is saying ā€œThere is no Godā€. The existence of God is not a question evolution hopes to deal with.
Click to expand...
Evolution says no God is necessary for life to develop from one cell into a human being. This the sequel to the athesit belief that that original one cell arose by chance from inanimate matter.

It all sounds like an atheist ā€œcreation storyā€ to me.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
At most science can disprove a few specifics: Christians are not immune to snake bites (Mark 16:17-18) and Zeus does not live on top of Mount Olympus in Greece.
Click to expand...
Well, Zeus moves about these days - every four years to be exact. He lives wherever the Olympic Games are being staged.
 
niceatheist said:
Science doesnā€™t strictly prove anything, it comes up with the best possible explanation based on the current data.
Click to expand...
Except for the theory that humans evolved from bugs, right? That is a as close to a fact as any scientific fact you can think of.
 
Techno2000 said:
If you donā€™t believe in the supernatural, the Devil has already got you.
Click to expand...
If I didnā€™t believe in a supernatural Creator, I would probably conclude that humans evolved from grubs too (or was it from bugs?). But I wouldnā€™t need to understand how such a thing could happen ā€¦ probably because without God life would seem meaningless, so why care about how life evolved? Add science to meaninglessness and you still have meaninglessness.
 
niceatheist said:
Why would trying to explain subatomic physics even be necessary in the Bible, and why with such a hackneyed analogy? Besides, the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus came up with the first atomic theory about five hundred years before Hebrews was written, and Iā€™m sure any educated individual in Palestine would have been able to fathom the notion of tiny pieces of matter that everything we see are made up of. It isnā€™t a modern scientific theory, but certainly does a better job than the scripture you quoted at explaining the reality we know.
Click to expand...
Oops. I forgot about Democritus. šŸ˜¬. Sorry
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top