Evolution! Did we come from monkeys?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lahokamal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
in my (starting to get old) mind, as i was taught, if a theory is found to have no anomalies, it can then be promoted to law. if there are anomalies, then more study is required.for instance, australia, with it’s completely divergent lines. yet the aborigines as i see look like regular people. why aren’t there marsupial humans? .
 
Obviously because the branching that separated the marsupials form the placental mammals happened** long **before there were humans, hominids, or their predecessors.
The aborigines didn’t evolve in Australia, they migrated there relatively recently.

Humans are placental mammals…by definition there can’t be a marsupial human. No “anomaly” there.

Are you asking if convergent evolution would have produced an intelligent marsupial? Sure maybe, if given enough time and if humans hadn’t shown up.
 
40.png
edrazz:
The short answer is no - evolution is a “lie.” You can check out more at from a Catholic perspective at www.kolbecenter.org
Click to expand...
I was not aware that Kolbe was a bishop, let alone that he had the authority to dictate to the Pope.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
i know i’m late to the thread and if this has been mentioned already sorry in advance

to address the person talking about mutations and stuff
one of the main tools of evolution is neotany, man is often nicknamed a neotanus ape
its where as the animal grows it sexual organs devlop much quiker than the rest of the body allowing the organism to have children, in its child stage, an great example is an ostrich
its has bulging eye , downy feathers and a badly finshed skull. classic young features, basically its an overgrown chick but is able to reproduce and so aloowing it to go of and form another species
newts are another example, overgrown tadpoles able to reproduce before reaching the adult stage
man was an primate ancestor who did they same
why the hostility to evolution, why not wonder that God could create all life from a single organism
 
i think that God created everything from dust but we “evolved” from monkeys. each day in God’s “time” could be millions of years to us. He made a distinction between us and monkeys but more or less added on to them. this doesnt really effect us and our salvation so whether i am correct or not doesnt matter. what does matter is the fact that we have a soul and free will and they do not.
 
Re: Downs Syndrome

As a mother of 7, including a set of twins, I have read that Downs’, spina bifuda, and twins are possibly caused by the mother’s folic acid deficiency. Folic acid is essential for proper cell division. As it ages, the mother’s body becomes less able to uptake nutrients from the diet. Thus, supplemental folic acid is called for. The risk of Down’s is actually only slightly worse at older maternal ages. My twins were my first babies. The last babies were at 42 and 46, respectively. My diet and supplementation have improved since the twins.
 
I believe in the “Big Bang” theory. God spoke and “bang” the world’s came into existence.

If anyone thinks that the “theory of evolution” is anything more than a philosophical position, then you need to think again.

The theory of evolution has absolutely no scientific basis upon which it is built. It is a philosophy for those that do not like to retain the thought of God in their minds.

“The fool has said in his heart, “there is no God””.
 
timothy << The theory of evolution has absolutely no scientific basis upon which it is built. It is a philosophy for those that do not like to retain the thought of God in their minds. >>

Oops, here we go again. Now your comment is based on what reading of what biology, geology, and paleontology textbooks?

For starters, I would suggest this PDF "Evolution and the Fossil Record" by the American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society, a very good overview of the evidence for evolution.

Quite a lot of scientific basis for macroevolution found here, sorry to disappoint. Macroevolution = common descent.

My summary of Theobald and transitional fossils here

See especially paragraphs 62-70 of the International Theological Commission statement titled "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God"

And I’m typing in excerpts from the Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) Commentary on Genesis 1-3 here, maybe done later this morning.

Phil P
 
vern humphrey:
I was not aware that Kolbe was a bishop, let alone that he had the authority to dictate to the Pope.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Click to expand...
Mr. Humphrey, I wasn’t aware of any papal document or church council council that declared this issue closed and decided in favor of evolution. Let me know what documents that you are refering to.

By the way, the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation is named after Saint Maximilian Kolbe - the 20th century - WW II priest - who gave up his life to save others in a Nazi concentration camp. He understood the importance of creation to church doctrine - and experienced first hand the deadly fruit of a false worldview based on evolution. The Nazis applied their evolutionary beliefs to the world around them. Remember that the “Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin is subtitled :“The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” Hilter’s Arian race and culture of death are all based on an evolutionary world view.
 
40.png
edrazz:
Mr. Humphrey, I wasn’t aware of any papal document or church council council that declared this issue closed and decided in favor of evolution. Let me know what documents that you are refering to.
Click to expand...
See cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm

In his Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, John Paul II said:
“In his Encyclical Humani generis [1950], my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. *AAS *42 [1950], pp. 575-576).”
40.png
edrazz:
By the way, the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation is named after Saint Maximilian Kolbe - the 20th century - WW II priest - who gave up his life to save others in a Nazi concentration camp. He understood the importance of creation to church doctrine - and experienced first hand the deadly fruit of a false worldview based on evolution. The Nazis applied their evolutionary beliefs to the world around them.
Click to expand...
So what? How does YOUR interpretation of what HE thought become Catholic doctrine?
40.png
edrazz:
Remember that the “Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin is subtitled :“The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” Hilter’s Arian race and culture of death are all based on an evolutionary world view.
Click to expand...
So what? How does YOUR wrong concept that somehow Darwin and Hitler were in league become Catholic doctrine?
 
Here’s more for you:
  1. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
Click to expand...
This is from "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God. The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

The author is Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).
 
40.png
edrazz:
Remember that the “Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin is subtitled :“The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” Hilter’s Arian race and culture of death are all based on an evolutionary world view.
Click to expand...
If so then Hitler did not understand Darwin. The word “race” as used by Darwin in the TOoS is better understood as “species or subspecies”. The scientific vocabulary has changed a lot since 1859.

Hitler used odd snippets from a lot of different philosophies, including both Darwinism and Christianity, to develop his own philosphy. I know he misunderstood Darwinism, I suspect he misunderstood Christianity as well.

rossum
 
vern humphrey:
“In his Encyclical Humani generis [1950], my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. *AAS *42 [1950], pp. 575-576).”
Click to expand...
The several indisputable points include:
  1. The doctrine of original sin.
  2. Adam and Eve were real individuals - not characters in a mythical story.
  3. Prior to Adam’s sin, man was in perfect harmony with the world around him.
  4. The fall (ie. Genesis) was a real historic event that occurred at the beginning of history.
  5. As a result of Adam’s sin - death made its entrance into human history.
  6. God can be known with certainty from the created order of the world. (ie. were not here as a result of time and chance).
Pope Pius XII’s encyclical - Humani Generis - is not a defense of evolution - but rather a warning from the pope about the false ideas eminating from the doctrine of evolution. The encyclical, is subtitled, “Some False Opinions Which Threaten To Undermine Catholic Doctrine.” This deals with the serious errors associated with marrying evolution and church doctrine. Some of these errors among Catholics include:
  1. Minimization of the content of dogma.
  2. The use of symbolic intrepretation of scripture that disconnects traditional concepts and terminology from dogma and theology.
  3. Denial that God is that author of scripture.
  4. Scripture is only infallible on faith and morals.
  5. Contempt for traditional literal intrepretation of scripture.
  6. The denial that the world had a beginning.
  7. Perversion of the doctrine of original sin.
  8. The idea that any philosophy can be reconciled with Catholic doctrine.
  9. Denial of natural theology - that God can be know from the created world around us.
  10. The formation of the human body from existent and living matter must not be treated as fact. (ie. Evolution is a fact)
  11. The denial of a single historic Adam in favor of polygenism - ie. multiple Adams.
  12. The idea that the soul evolved.
If you’ve heard these errors at your local Catholic church - I wouldn’t be surprised. These errors all come from a belief in Evolution.
vern humphrey:
So what? How does YOUR interpretation of what HE thought become Catholic doctrine?
Click to expand...
I’ve made no claim about St. Maximilian Kolbe determining Catholic doctrine - you’re the one that brought him up. I just explained why he the patron saint of the Kolbe Center.
vern humphrey:
So what? How does YOUR wrong concept that somehow Darwin and Hitler were in league become Catholic doctrine?
Click to expand...
So what? - you’re really missing the boat - if you don’t understand the importance of origins on worldview. If you have a false world view then the conclusions you derive from that view will likely be false as well. This is why Pope Pius IX wrote the encylical - to stop the spread of these false ideas. He understood the idea that these false ideas would undermine Catholic doctrine. Unfortunately - his warnings were not heeded - and we now have these false ideas widely disseminated.
 
40.png
edrazz:
So what? - you’re really missing the boat - if you don’t understand the importance of origins on worldview. If you have a false world view then the conclusions you derive from that view will likely be false as well. This is why Pope Pius IX wrote the encylical - to stop the spread of these false ideas. He understood the idea that these false ideas would undermine Catholic doctrine. Unfortunately - his warnings were not heeded - and we now have these false ideas widely disseminated.
Click to expand...
False ideas like Catholics are required to reject evolution?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
40.png
ScottH:
Okay- this is a cut and past from an email I just wrote to someone asking about old-earth evidence versus Biblical Genesis evidence.

See what you guys think:
Click to expand...
Ok, I studied in geology, so I’ll give it a try.
40.png
ScottH:
I hold the standard, Biblical model of a 6000 to 6500 year old earth.

The old earth model (millions of years) is based on the currently accepted “rock-strata layers indicate time.” However, the actual scientific evidence within those layers do not support that claim.

Go to your nearest open earth stripmine, or anywhere where you can see that rock strata lineation. Notice how uniform they are- and perfectly straight to the eye.

What do we not see between layers after the first layer (the top layer)? Yep- no erosion. Erosion would indicate that the layer in question was exposed at one time (indicating the truth of the proposed scientific model)

…yet, we don’t see that.
Click to expand...
Not all stratas are uniform and straight, even less horizontal. Everyone that lives near a shore or even a mountain can see folds and faults in the stratification. And there is plenty erosion in the stratification that we call discordances. We can see old river beds, deltas, alluvial cones, and so on, all caused by erosion. Some sedimentary rocks, that we called terrigenous or silicoclastic, like sandstones and conglomerates, are made from the products of erosion. Don’t take what you see in a single area for a generality.
40.png
ScottH:
Also- look at that strata. What else do you notice? You see sedimentary lineation that also is consistent with specific gravity striation that occurs in a watery solution.

(Or- in shorthand- the “Viniagrette Bottle Effect”- where specific gravity places elements in a solution and settles them according to weight/density)

The layers we see were formed in a saturated, flood environment, and were laid down over a very short period of time in the after effects of a global, catastrophic flood.

(Which I would contend was the “Noah Flood”.)
Click to expand...
That happen sometimes in some rock beds and indicates a temporary disturbance that put the sediments in suspension (as in a landslide, but under water). In that case you are right, gravity makes the heavier material to settle before. But it is not true in all stratification. You can see coarse-grained beds above finer material. All your geological “evidences” neglect the magmatic rocks and metamorphical rocks.
40.png
ScottH:
Go to your local museum- and what is T-rex always found in? Buried in sandstone. Fossil formation- where the extreme pressure actually squeezes the minerals out of bone and forces in sedimentary material through immense pressure- is hard to duplicate. Scientists say it takes about 15- to 20 feet of depth of large scale sedimentary WET matter on top of given bone to cause this effect.
Click to expand...
The minerals in the bones are in fact slowly replaced by other minerals like calcite or silica (quartz). These minerals are brought there slowly in aquous solution through the porosity of the rock. There is no need of a flood to explain that. Fossilization, espacially of a terrestrial vertebrate, is quite rare.
40.png
ScottH:
Now look at what happened in Southeast Asia last Christmas? Despite the severity of the even- no fossils were seen to have formed (the flood receded quickly, and wasn’t even deep enough- or carrying enough sediment to cause buried matter to '“fossilize”)
Click to expand...
It takes more than a few days to cause fossilisation…
 
I continue…
40.png
ScottH:
Look at the giant- 10,000 mile plus long fissures in the earth where the tectonic plates meet in both the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific.

Because of the size of the plates involved, the large scale rupturing of the one in the atlantic would predicate a reaction in the pacific fissure. These are unimagineable fiissures- huge gashes in the face of the earth. Could you imagine when that happened? If a moderate earthquake hammered Indonesia with a tsunami, can you imaging these two big boys going off in tandem?

To witness such an event would be to re-define the very richter scale- if 8 or 9 would be considered a “big earthquake” - whatever caused these two monsters would have been estimated at many, many times that.
Click to expand...
In fact. the mid-atlantic ridge is not one huge gap in the ocean floor, but a string of several fissures. The earthquakes that happen near them are not so strong. The movements involved in an earthquake are not so huge either.
40.png
ScottH:
And we also know something else about these enormous fissures- something we owe to cold-war sub-hunts. Imaging of the ocean floor shows very little erosion of these fissures- and no sand on them.

When they went- they pushed everything away from them- including the sand (which would have been picked up at an unimagineable rate with the ensuing collossal tsunamis.)
Click to expand...
Of course, we do not find a lot of sediments there. This is where the terrestrial crust is created. The rock is quite young. Furtermore, they are to deep for calcareous sediments to settle there (the carbonate dissolves at these pressures) and they are quite far from the coast to accumulate sediments. Again, no need for a flood.

Besides, if there was such a cataclysmic flood, we should have only one huge strata, not the several ones we see now. And the fossils that we found should be all mixed up. But we find Trilobites only at the lower level (what we call Primary Era or Paleozoic), Dinosaures after (Secondory or Mesozoic), Mammals after that (Tertiary or Cenozoic era) and finally Men in the Quaternary. I’m oversimplifying of course, but it is true.
40.png
ScottH:
Did you know where we are seeing the most Christian conversion among scientists? Its in the field of genetics. It was quite a powerful witness to many of them to date the human genome at between 6000 to 6500 years, and the mitochondrial DNA showed all from “mother zero” .

The Bible names “mother zero”. We call her Eve. The mitochondrial DNA trace through genetics also showed that “mother zero” was as human as we are today.

(So a 100% human mother from which the whole race shows lineage… -estimated years ago- 6000 to 6500 WOW!)
Click to expand...
That proves that modern humans share somehow the same ancestor (at least female). But not that humans did not evolved from another species. 6 000 years is quite a short time afterall. What happen before ?

I believe that God created the Universe, but I believe that science shows us how He did it. And I find Him quite ingenious by the way He chose to concieve it.
 
40.png
2shelbys:
This is a very interesting article that exposes Darwinism as pretty much a farce that even Darwin recognized as being not only unsupported by science but more correctly disproven by science:
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t :mad:

Second sentence third paragraph “The controversy is not over evolution per se, but over the means by which it happened”

Of course scientist research an argue over the details…that is what they do

But even this ridiculous article admits that there is no disagreement over evolution as a fact or a theory.

All this shows is that same misrepresentations being repackaged again and again

Sometimes I fear for the species :crying:
 
Greetings, all ~

For those with more than a passing interest in the topic of this thread, I’d recommend a few very good books on the subject:

Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God & Evolution (HarperCollins, 1999).
Robert T. Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism (MIT Press, 1999).
Karl Giberson, Worlds Apart: The Unholy War Between Religion & Science (Beacon Hill Press, 1993).
Keith B. Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003).
Edward J. Larson, Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (Random House, 2004).

Each of these texts (except Pennock, who’s an agnostic, although a fully-credentialed philosopher of science) is written by a Christian (Kenneth Miller is a Catholic), and all are excellent. Larson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of science.

Happy reading!

Donald
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top