Early Man and Adam and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter Meg1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Evolutionary theory as taught in Biology textbooks is all there is. No God.
 
No your confusing evolution with evolutionism, no textbook says evolution disproves God because it dooesnt, its just a scienctific theory
 
You think mistake science with sciencism too, science cant make a philoshical claim
 
science cant make a claim about life, evolution isnt inhertly naturalistic, thats just a world view he puts in it
 
edwest211 said:
Nice try but man is more than that. In evolutionary theory, chemicals combined and did the creating of life, not God.
Click to expand...
The natural order in which these processes occur is created and conserved by God from all eternity, proceeding as he intends.
 
Last edited:
Saxum said:
40.png
Fatima-Crusader:
No your confusing evolution with evolutionism, no textbook says evolution disproves God because it dooesnt, its just a scienctific theory
Click to expand...
Can you explain the difference to us please?
Click to expand...
The models we have of evolution are just the scientific, physical models. It makes no qualitative claims. Some people make qualitative, materialist claims based off of it, claiming it’s self sufficient, but any Catholic should know that the natural order being measured only exists and is conserved because of God to begin with, even if God himself isn’t measurable within it.
 
Last edited:
Saxum said:
I understand your point about nature. What I don’t understand is why it would be better if God created an inferior humanoid designed to evolve and become perfect. It seems more likely that an omnipotent God would create a perfect man. Furthermore, Genesis tells us that God’s creation was perfect and good and that things devolved after the Fall.
Click to expand...
Yes, Adam was the archetype.
 
Wesrock said:
Chemicals? Sounds like man being formed from the earth… over a really long time period.
Click to expand...

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution​

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me , because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this , and get that . I mean, ab initio , I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.
I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.
Click to expand...
 
Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.
I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”
Click to expand...
  1. (52:00 to 56:44)
 
buffalo said:
Yes, Adam was the archetype.
Click to expand...
I definitely believe Adam was the archetype. And I believe that we are not as perfect as he was. After the Fall, humanity began devolving. Death, illness, disease etc weakened us and shortened our lifespan.

As far as I’m concerned, people have a choice to make. They either believe in the truth of Sacred Scripture or they don’t. I believe in Adam and Eve. I believe in Cain and Abel. I don’t think anybody can be Catholic without believing in the historicity of Genesis. If there was no Adam and no fall, there was no need for a Saviour. Without the Genesis account, Christianity falls apart.
 
Last edited:
It would be nice if others understood that.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Wesrock:
God knows everything.
Click to expand...
So that is a yes.

Did Adam look as God had planned?
Click to expand...
I don’t understand your line of questioning. Do you think I conceive of God as some demiurge who set the universe in motion and then stepped back? I do not. Everything is as God wills it, at every moment, at every place. That includes Adam.
 
Yes, I believe that there were other primates that were more human like, and perhaps they lived before Adam & Eve, if not at the same time.

I surely believe that the 6 days of creation took place over 6 “God days,” which equals millions of human years.
 
Wesrock said:
I don’t understand your line of questioning. Do you think I conceive of God as some demiurge who set the universe in motion and then stepped back? I do not. Everything is as God wills it, at every moment, at every place. That includes Adam.
Click to expand...
That would be support for Intelligent Design.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Wesrock:
I don’t understand your line of questioning. Do you think I conceive of God as some demiurge who set the universe in motion and then stepped back? I do not. Everything is as God wills it, at every moment, at every place. That includes Adam.
Click to expand...
That would be support for Intelligent Design.
Click to expand...
Intelligent Design, as a proposal, depicts God as a demiurge tinkering with the mechanical parts as he pleases such that they come out the way he wants. I believe all creation is intelligently designed, but I don’t subscribe to Intelligent Design theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top