Exactly…
You need to factor in this: “The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” ((2Thess 2:9-12).
Anyone who knows that God creates through Logos and that he creates things with order will not think that he creates through a random, unguided process or in a manner that looks like it. That’s an idea that only gained currency a few decades ago when some theologians who believed in evolution theory began promoting it. Catholics for 20 centuries saw the natural world just as people do today, but they didn’t speak that way.
It can’t be estimated. Estimations are calculated by comparing one thing against another. But there is nothing to compare the earth or the universe against to be able to calculate the span of time between their beginning and now.
Oh, wow. All about scientists!
You are being lied to by your sources again. We have a good series of fossils showing the development of the mammalian ear in Therapsid reptiles, also known as “Mammal-like reptiles”. See Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles.
And yet evolutionary change does indeed look random and unguided, save for the effect of natural selection. That does not mean it is random.
Evidence rather strongly suggests that historical details such as the time-point of creation (5778 years ago??) and the taking of 6 “earth days” are not factual, and they are not among those things the Church teaches that are to be accepted as historical fact.
That is your imagination speaking. Or an attempt to pigeon hole God.
Please, please apply for a Noble Prize. All those scientists are so dumb. How could they not know this. You are on the verge of undoing decades of “demonic science”.
Mutations are blind and unguided. Natural selection is not blind and not unguided. A mutation that helps hunt unicorns is useless in the absence of unicorns, so natural selection will tend to eliminate such mutations. A mutation that helps catch insects can be useful, so we have the Sundew evolving to catch insects. Later the Venus Flytrap evolved a modified method, relying on speed rather than sticky. You do know that the two plants are closely related?
So a random mutation told these Plants that they were going to have to “evolve” to eat insects in order to survive…I’m not buying it. How did the plants know that there would be insects available for them to eat…evolution told them ? And how long did it take evolution to get the trap to work?
No. You are personalising things far too much. Mutations happen randomly. A mutation to catch whales is useless if there are no whales in the vicinity. A mutation to catch insects is useful if there are insects in the vicinity. It is very useful in areas with soil low in nitrogen because insects contain usable nitrogen.
How would a random mutation even know the concept of making a trap like the one used on the Venus Flytrap ?
You have a wall with hundreds of thousands of targets. One target is “be better at catching unicorns”. Another target is “be better at catching insects.” Another target is “be better at avoiding lions.” Another target is “be better at avoiding Godzilla.” For each “be better at…” target there is also a “be worse at…” target. Many targets appear on the wall more then once. I am sure you get the idea.
