Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Glark]

No. I’m not arguing that. I believe that the mind and soul are products of a supernatural act of God.

I just think that evolution is how we got to that point.

Why did God wait billions of years for Adam to “evolve”, but then create Eve in an instant?

 

[Glark]

Erm… These are bacteria: E. coli. It only takes one bacterium to reproduce. It divides into two and there are two bacteria.

So bacteria don’t fall in love and get married?

 

[Glark]

How can it be more than 5778 years old?

The theory of evolution needs billions of years to work, so the “dating” obliges.

 

[Glark]

Why has the crocodile hardly changed at all?

Because evolution is nonsense.

 

[Glark]

By the look of that … maybe Noah’s flood.

 

[Glark]

There are actually Catholics in very high places who believe billions of years of evolution can be read into the Bible. Amazing. Disturbing.

 

[Rau]

There are actually Catholics in very high places who believe billions of years of evolution can be read into the Bible. Amazing. Disturbing.

No, they don’t believe that. They believe natural history is not the subject matter of the Bible.

 

[Glark]

Salutations,

I was taught by many nuns, when topic came up, that after the church had been burning heretics of which some scientists were accused. That the church than stated,” THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT THERE IS A GOD AND SCIENCE TEACHES HOW GOD CREATED.

Science can teach us how God created? Sounds like Scientism nonsense to me. This is as ridiculous as saying,“Science can teach us how God performs miracles.”

 

[Glark]

No, they don’t believe that. They believe natural history is not the subject matter of the Bible.

Actually, in a way you’re correct - theistic evolutionists couldn’t give two hoots about what the Bible says. They might say they respect Scripture, but deep down, they really don’t.

 

[Glark]

Since God is omnipotent He can use either direct or indirect causes as He wishes, and the Bible tells us that He used both methods

Where in the Bible does it say God used both methods?

Not only are you disagreeing with the Pope

If the Pope’s opinion is that God is not omnipotent, then as a Catholic, I am entitled to disagree with him. (Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that a Catholic must agree with a Pope’s every point of view.)

you are also disagreeing with Genesis and with God. To me, that does not look like an easily defensible position for a Catholic.

How exactly am I disagreeing with “Genesis and with God”?

 

[rossum]

Where in the Bible does it say God used both methods?

In Genesis 1. “Let there be light…” is God creating light directly using a direct method. “Let the earth bring forth…” and “Let the waters bring forth…” are God creating indirectly, through the intermediates of the waters and the earth. He does not say, “Let there be fish,” which would be direct creation.

If the Pope’s opinion is that God is not omnipotent,

The Pope thinks that God is omnipotent. So God can use either direct or indirect methods. God did not create Adam directly, He used the dust of the ground as a starter. He used Adam’s rib as a starter to create Eve. In both cases, He could have used the direct method, saying, “Let there be Adam” and “Let there be Eve”. Being omnipotent He has a wide range of choices of methods. That He chose one specific method does not mean that He did not have other methods available.

How exactly am I disagreeing with “Genesis and with God”?

I have quoted Genesis, showing God’s use of both direct and indirect methods. God created the world, so by studying the world scientists are studying the work of God. By denying the evidence of the world God created, you are denying that the work of God is true and not misleading.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The Gall mite and the Crocodile are all part of the food chain, big animals eat the small animals . All this has to be in place at the same time to support life on earth.

You are wrong here. We had a discussion upthread about this. The first living cells were chemptrophs and lived on chemicals dissolved in the water they lived in. Some bacteria still do, those that live round hydrothermal vents for example.

The initial food chain was very simple. Only later did the more complex food chain we see today develop.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

One could look at the entire history of animal and plant breeding by humans as a huge experiment which has been proceeding for thousands of years. This experiment has provided no evidence that animals or plants can evolve…

The theory of evolution needs billions of years to work…

Another classic post…

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

No need for that, billions of generations have been haul out right front of our eyes already, and still no new animal is being transformed

One could look at the entire history of animal and plant breeding by humans as a huge experiment which has been proceeding for thousands of years. This experiment has provided no evidence that animals or plants can evolve into something other than their original kinds.

If evolution was true, you would think that out of all the thousands of different kinds of animals we have on earth now, at least ONE could be seen transforming into something new.

 

[Techno2000]

Some bacteria still do, those that live round hydrothermal vents for example.

This is something that has been created by God that is all connected together, and works as a whole.What you are trying to do is take one small part and extrapolate and speculate on what might have happened billions of years ago.

The initial food chain was very simple. Only later did the more complex food chain we see today develop.

Like you said the only available food was chemicals and sunlight, after that… nothing.Animals can’t create their own food there has to be a source, after chemicals and photosynthesis(sunlight) it was a dead end for Mr. Mutant Cell.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

The Gall mite and the Crocodile are all part of the food chain, big animals eat the small animals . All this has to be in place at the same time to support life on earth.

Is it your understanding these 2 animals were created 5778 years ago?
Is it your understanding that all animals are of necessity created together to enable the food chain we see today?

Yes, it has to all work together…

 

[Rau]

Yes, it has to all work together…

Thus, at least some of the animals at the bottom of the chain must have existed at the same time as or prior to those at the top. All did not need to materialize together. So why do you require all to be “created” together? Is it only because that is your interpretation of Genesis?

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Yes, it has to all work together…

Thus, at least some of the animals at the bottom of the chain must have existed at the same time as or prior to those at the top. All did not need to materialize together. So why do you require all to be “created” together? Is it only because that is your interpretation of Genesis?

I don’t understand what you are saying.The whole Ecosystem works as a Machine if the top or bottom is missing it won’t work. Everything is tied in together working as a whole.

 

[Rau]

I don’t understand what you are saying.The whole Ecosystem works as a Machine if the top or bottom is missing it won’t work. Everything is tied in together working as a whole.

Sure you understand. Ecosystems work as a whole. But nothing prevents the makeup of the whole from changing. Does the bison rely on man to hunt him?

 

[Techno2000]

Sure you understand. Ecosystems work as a whole. But nothing prevents the makeup of the whole from changing. Does the bison rely on man to hunt him?

In the beginning there was nothing. Then Mr.Mutant Cell sprung up out of nothing and feasted on chemicals.Soon Mr.Mutant Cell grew tired of chemicals and then feasted on sunlight (photosynthesis). Soon Mr.Mutant Cell grew tired of sunlight and feasted on …what ?