Evidence for Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeekingCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nullasalus said:
That is a terrible caricature.

I don’t reject Genesis. I don’t believe it’s all lies, or even incorrect. I believe a given interpretation is incorrect. Genesis itself is truth.

Does it strike you as odd that you’re a Catholic, yet you’re looking at this from what amounts to a sola scriptura stance? There’s room for multiple views on Genesis - while certain truths are essential, the Church does not require we interpret everything in the way you’re arguing.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m an oddball, I read and interpret the bible on my own, shame on me, hehe. Genesis is a rather straight forward book, not necessarily a difficult one to read, very little need for much interpretation at all. You can bend the word to mean something different if you want, but there really is only one interpretation that stands, that is Gods…

Think about it this way, if the All Mighty can create the universe, time, reality itself, with all of the stars and planets within it, wouldn’t the creation of the human race and all of the animals be a small task in comparison. There is not even a hint that evolution exists within it, it’s pretty cut and dry for me, not sure why it’s so difficult for you. If evolution exists, it would be a simple thing for it to explain it from the beginning, there would be nothing hidden to extrapolate from, yet it’s simply not there.
 
Brian_Millar said:
Think about it this way, if the All Mighty can create the universe, time, reality itself, with all of the stars and planets within it, wouldn’t the creation of the human race and all of the animals be a small task in comparison. There is not even a hint that evolution exists within it, it’s pretty cut and dry for me, not sure why it’s so difficult for you. If evolution exists, it would be a simple thing for it to explain it from the beginning, there would be nothing hidden to extrapolate from, yet it’s simply not there.
Click to expand...
For those who like to use the “God wouldn’t use deception” phrase, it only stands to reason that God wouldn’t say one thing and have everyone believing for most of Earth’s history that He created things one way as spelled out in the creation account, when He actually caused life to evolve over millions of years. Sure had everyone fooled I would guess. :rolleyes:
 
Tell me about it. What I like is when you read further, take life spans from the days of old, how they were dramatically longer then ours of today, what happend in evolution for them to be cut shorter? What advantage would it be through natural selection to cause a speceis lifespan to become shorter? Wouldn’t you think the ones with the longer lives would spread their genetic code much more prominantly, afterall a 600 year lifespan is going to give you alot of competitive advantages when seeking out a mate? Wait, perhaps the enviroment was different back then, well, if that’s so, then why does current science not account for that when doing their carbon dating?
 
Brian_Millar said:
Yes, I’m an oddball, I read and interpret the bible on my own, shame on me, hehe. Genesis is a rather straight forward book, not necessarily a difficult one to read, very little need for much interpretation at all. You can bend the word to mean something different if you want, but there really is only one interpretation that stands, that is Gods…
Click to expand...
And I don’t presume that I personally have perfect knowledge of that. Considering there’s two genesis accounts of creation, and that it’s an unbelievably short entry, I don’t think it’s as clear-cut as you say.

I am not denigrating your belief, even though I don’t share it. I just ask that you don’t characterize the views of people - Catholics - like me as ‘saying Genesis is all lies’. That is not what we believe, at all. We (mostly - I don’t want to speak for anyone else) believe God created everything - the stars, the planet, the earth, the oceans, the universe, and man too. We, like Augustine, believe that the ‘days’ it took God to make things are nothing like the measures of time we personally use. We believe that evolution was how God created so much life. If you’re correct and I’m wrong, that’s fine - I believe God will forgive my ignorance. If I’m correct and you’re wrong, I believe God will forgive others for being mistaken. It’s not a clear-cut issue, and evolution as a concept has been used, improperly, as an atheist propaganda tool - I can understand why people would be hesitant on the topic.
 
Considering there’s two genesis accounts of creation - sorry, please elaborate on this one, I’m only reading one book of Genesis, you are saying there are two now?

God could just as easily clearly stated, man was evolved from a lower life form just as he stated that man was created. He didn’t have to explain the how in either case, he just had to state the what, and the what clearly points towards creation, not evolution. What part of All Mighty do you find hard to understand, this means he can do all things, not just follow some system, or guide things along, he is not limited in any way, so what would be the point in him having to sit around, waiting for things to happen in their own good time. What purpose would it serve him to allow things to evolve rather then just create?
 
Considering there’s two genesis accounts of creation - sorry, please elaborate on this one, I’m only reading one book of Genesis, you are saying there are two now?
Click to expand...
There are two different stories there, each with a different perspective on creation, and they focus on different things.
God could just as easily clearly stated, man was evolved from a lower life form just as he stated that man was created. He didn’t have to explain the how in either case, he just had to state the what, and the what clearly points towards creation, not evolution.
Click to expand...
They are just two ways of looking at the same thing.
What part of All Mighty do you find hard to understand, this means he can do all things, not just follow some system,
Click to expand...
Which means that you have to come to terms with the fact that He isn’t obligated to do it the way you’d like Him to.

Why He chose to do things this way, I don’t know. I merely think it’s wise to let Him be God. You should, too.
 
You need to elaborate upon the two stories with some kind of biblical reference so it’s clarified here, and point out the differences between them if you are going to make this claim.

I am letting God be God, I’m reading his word and reading how he wanted it formed on the pages without changing the meanings to them, the issue here is why and what are you changing here, specifically, what is it that’s biblicly based that specifically supports your argument in regards to evolution, what phrase, snippet, area, exactly, please point this out, otherwise you are just making claims with no basis from scripture.
 
The_Barbarian said:
There are two different stories there, each with a different perspective on creation, and they focus on different things. They are just two ways of looking at the same thing…Why He chose to do things this way, I don’t know. I merely think it’s wise to let Him be God. You should, too.
Click to expand...
Barbarian, it should also be noted that the “J” and “P” editorial strands run through much of the rest of the Pentateuch as well; there are two flood stories, although they are not as easily distinguishable as Genesis 1 & 2.

Petrus
 
Brian_Millar said:
Considering there’s two genesis accounts of creation - sorry, please elaborate on this one, I’m only reading one book of Genesis, you are saying there are two now?
Click to expand...
Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is the first account, normally assigned to the P source. Genesis 2:4-25 is the second account, normally assigned to the J source. The two accounts are different. Genesis 1 has animals before man/woman. Genesis 2 has man first then animals then woman.
God could just as easily clearly stated, man was evolved from a lower life form just as he stated that man was created. He didn’t have to explain the how in either case, he just had to state the what, and the what clearly points towards creation, not evolution.
Click to expand...
God did not create man ex nihilo, He use pre-existing material: the `aphar (slime/dust/dirt/clay) of Genesis 2:7. Since clay is a non-living chemical then God is saying that man developed from non-living chemicals is He not? That is easily interpretable as a description of evolution in terms understandable to a non-scientific people. Such an interpretation is allowed by the Catholic Church - God created by using evolution. He designed the universe so that we would self-assemble from our constituent parts.

rossum
 
rossum said:
God did not create man ex nihilo, He use pre-existing material: the `aphar (slime/dust/dirt/clay) of Genesis 2:7. Since clay is a non-living chemical then God is saying that man developed from non-living chemicals is He not? That is easily interpretable as a description of evolution in terms understandable to a non-scientific people.
Click to expand...
Are you saying animals then are being referred to as non-living chemicals, slime and dirt. That is a little bit of a contortion even if taken in a poetic sense. I would think the ‘non-scientific’ were a bit smarter than that.
Such an interpretation is allowed by the Catholic Church - God created by using evolution.
Click to expand...
It is allowable to believe, but that doesn’t mean that is what happened.
He designed the universe so that we would self-assemble from our constituent parts.
Click to expand...
This is only a conclusion to which there is insufficient evidence to arrive at such.
 
mapleoak said:
Are you saying animals then are being referred to as non-living chemicals, slime and dirt. That is a little bit of a contortion even if taken in a poetic sense. I would think the ‘non-scientific’ were a bit smarter than that.
Click to expand...
No, I am saying that He used the same method to make animals, as in Genesis 2:19, where God forms animals out of the ground - again God forms living organisms from non-living chemicals. In both cases we have the form:
non-living chemicals → living organisms
In the case of man we also have the “breath of life”, usually interpreted as a human soul, which animals lack. Hence it is allowable to see animals as a stage between non-living chemicals and man, defined as an animal body with a human soul:
non-living chemicals → living organisms
living organism + soul → human
Evolution only speaks of the origin of our physical bodies from previous animals. Evolution says nothing of the soul; souls do not appear in DNA and do not fossilise.
This is only a conclusion to which there is insufficient evidence to arrive at such.
Click to expand...
There is a mountain of evidence. Just because you do not want to accept it does not mean that it is not there.
  • What is your explanation for our broken copy of the GULO gene that we all have? If it worked it would let us make vitamin C like most other animals. What is your explanation for the fact that we have exactly the same fault in that gene as all the other Hominidae? Why would an intelligent designer copy exactly the same fault into different animals?
  • What is your explanation for the fact that human Chromosome Two looks exactly like two chimpanzee chromosomes joined end to end, including an extra pair of telomeres and a second centromere?
rossum
 
rossum said:
  • What is your explanation for our broken copy of the GULO gene that we all have? If it worked it would let us make vitamin C like most other animals. What is your explanation for the fact that we have exactly the same fault in that gene as all the other Hominidae? Why would an intelligent designer copy exactly the same fault into different animals?
Click to expand...
Rossum, do you doubt the Intelligent Design underlying the fact that the blood vessels are on the outside of the heart, so that they are more accessible to cardiac surgeons?

Do you doubt the Intelligent Design behind the fact that in some species of Praying Mantis the male cannot ejaculate his genetic load until the female has chewed his head off completely? Surely that irreducible complexity testifies to the loving wisdom of the Intelligent Designer.

Petrus
 
drpmjhess said:
Rossum, do you doubt the Intelligent Design underlying the fact that the blood vessels are on the outside of the heart, so that they are more accessible to cardiac surgeons?

Do you doubt the Intelligent Design behind the fact that in some species of Praying Mantis the male cannot ejaculate his genetic load until the female has chewed his head off completely? Surely that irreducible complexity testifies to the loving wisdom of the Intelligent Designer.

Petrus
Click to expand...
Epigenetics.
 
drpmjhess said:
Sexual cannibalism is irreducibly complex, and can therefore only be explained by reference to the loving purposes of a wise designer.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

That is absolutely wonderful!

I think I’m going to print that up and hang it on my fridge.

I salute you! :tiphat:
Okay, scratch that, the line about biting the male’s head off is the one going on the fridge. I nearly fell off my chair when I read that one.
 
drpmjhess said:
That doesn’t explain it. Sexual cannibalism is irreducibly complex, and can therefore only be explained by reference to the loving purposes of a wise designer.
Click to expand...
Even in more ‘normal’ unions, there is the issue of ‘male’ and ‘female’ reproductive compatibility among them. Any deviations between male and female evolutionary development, which are very intricate mechanisms, would be disasterous to species propagation.
 
Sideline said:
Okay, scratch that, the line about biting the male’s head off is the one going on the fridge. I nearly fell off my chair when I read that one.
Click to expand...
It’s true though!

Hmm, wonder what kind of evolutionary process can account for that.
 
The_Barbarian said:
It is from “De Genesi ad litteram.”

To get it in context, you might try “Ancient Christian Writers”, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41 by J.H. Taylor

Or if you can read Latin, you might check a university for a copy of the original.
Click to expand...
Thanks!
 
(mouse learns to wear protective headgear)

A realistic example of a positive mutation in rodents is this:

New form of resistance to rat poison confers selective advantage, even in the absence of the poison:
jstor.org/pss/2389886

Good example of exaption as a pathway in evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top