Evolution! Did we come from monkeys?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lahokamal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rusty_Spady said:
The problem is that it directly challenges the bible; it starts to make it look like an old book of fables.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Perhaps God used the story as a parable to explain how He created the universe. The New Testament is FULL of parables to explain difficult concepts. Assuming just for a moment that theistic evolution is true, there is no way that when Genesis was written down that humans would have had the capacity to relate the details. Would the Bible really have said, “In the beginning, God created the universe by way of a massive explosion occuring from a point of singularity. The resulting explosion generated trillions of degrees of heat, and within nano-seconds, developed into quarks and other subatomic particles, which later coalesced into atoms. And it was GOOD!”

I actually made the point the other day that evolution actually SUPPORTS the Catholic Church as the one true church, since it helps dismiss the myth of Sola Scriptura. Why do fundamentalists go into seizures at the mere mention of evolution? For the exact reason you mention. If you hold the Bible to be the literal truth without room for the Magesterium and Sacred Tradition, your faith collapses. Catholicism has room to interpret this, Sola Scriptura does not.
 
Another thing that must be considered anytime a criticism is leveled against the fossil record is that paleontology is a very recent science. It is only 100 years old, and so is really only in its infancy compared to other sciences. One reason that there are gaps in the fossil record is that we haven’t been looking that long! Most of the discoveries that link dinosaurs to birds have only been made within the last five to ten years. One of the most famous dinosaurs, Velociraptor, was only discovered weeks before Jurrasic Park began filming. Given the luck associated with fossil hunting, the huge variety of potential species, and the time needed to study them once found, it could potentially take hundreds of years before enough of a fossil record is put together to even begin to answer all the questions scientists have. Even then, due to the random nature of fossilization, we of course should expect gaps.

I also wanted to address a common misconception about evolution. Some people say things like, "Well, if amphibians evolved from fish, and are therefore superior, why are fish still around? Why are any more primitive forms around for that matter? The answer is easy. Natural selection generally occurs in response to a local condition. The most famous example is the micro-evolutionary example of butterflies in England during the mid-1800s. A certain species of butterfly lived throughout England. They were generally white, a color which camoflaged them against the bark of birch trees so they would not be eaten by birds. From time to time, however, a black butterfly would be born (a mutation, not unsimilar to the variations in eye color or hair color that humans experience). The black butterflies would sadly try to hide against the birch trees, and immediately get picked out by the birds and eaten. The mutation would still occasionally occur, but the black butterflies generally did not survive long. Eventually, the Industrial Revolution came along. Massive coal burning factories pumped unfiltered coal dust and smoke into the surrounding countryside, and the formerly pristine birch forests turned black with soot. Suddenly, the white butterflies lost their camoflage advantage. The few black butterflies began to survive, and the white ones began to die off rapidly. With almost no white butterflies left, the black ones bred with each other and began spreading the black color gene. Thus, a local environmental condition “naturally selected” them for survival. A new subspecies was created. Note that this in no way made the white butterflies go extinct! They continued to survive in other areas of England without pollution. Likewise, a new species might develop in the natural world in one area, but remain perfectly adapted in another.
 
Why is it we have no problem with the Book of Genesis and that we came from dust yet we are concerned if we evolved from monkeys? So maybe we came from dust and went through a few steps first. It’s all God’s work. The universe and all creatures are His creation. Maybe our evolution from monkeys (if true) should keep us humble so that it is clear that it is His grace that makes us human.

🙂
 
Pax vobiscum!

I certainly didn’t read the three preceeding pages, so I don’t know if this point has been made already. But, the evolution theory is NOT that humans came from monkeys or apes. The evolution theory is that we have a common ancestor with them.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Rand << so I don’t know if this point has been made already. But, the evolution theory is NOT that humans came from monkeys or apes >>

Thanks for resurrecting a long EXTINCT 😃 creation-evolution thread. Asked and answered 4.5 billion times. But I now get to remind people I recorded the entire Wells and Behe “creationist tent revival” :rolleyes: at U.S.F. I was there in person and met the ID celebrities! :eek: I was one of the first ones in to meet them in person and mention the "Type III Secretory System" and bother them with Ken Miller’s arguments. Hooray!

Wells Talk Only
Behe Talk Only
WHOLE THING

Phil P
 
Pax vobiscum!

Sorry, Phil. :o The thread was up at the top of the page, I swear! :o

In Christ,
Rand
 
I don’t believe one way or the other in regards to what happened on Earth. I do however believe in the Big Bang theory and the creation of the universe, stars, and start of organic life. There are pictures of it all happening going off into deep space. I don’t see any way ro refute the speed of light.
 
wjp984 said:
I don’t believe one way or the other in regards to what happened on Earth. I do however believe in the Big Bang theory and the creation of the universe, stars, and start of organic life. There are pictures of it all happening going off into deep space. I don’t see any way ro refute the speed of light.
Click to expand...
really? pictures of organic life beginning?
 
lahokamal said:
i ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor?you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Add the lack of transitional forms, invalid evolution mechanisms to this.evolutiondeceit.com
Click to expand...
New Scientist has just published a controversial pair of articles by John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas. Summarizing mightily, it seems that:

There are no fossils that are unequivocally ancestral to chimpanzees and gorillas but not to man;
Therefore, the only good measure of the time when these three species split from one another is the comparison of genetic material;
Genetic dating and serological techniques are unanimous in dating the chimp-gorilla-man split at about 5 million years ago.

The conclusion that chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans diverged from a com mon ancestor only 5 million years ago is opposed to the widely accepted 20 million years. This conflict in dating is controversial enough, but Gribbin and Cherfas, after considerable fossil analysis, take one more giant step: they suggest that chimps, gorillas, and man descended from an ancestor that was more man-like than ape-like. Chimpanzees and gorillas in this view are descended from man rather than vice versa.
science-frontiers.com/sf018/sf018p05.htm

:hmmm:
Of course if apes evolved from men, then how come there are still men?
 
:whacky:

Michel Brunet* discovered a hominid skull in Chad a few years back. This discovery make about 16 hominid species known in Africa between 8 to 3 million years ago. Not one bone fragment has been discovered from the ancestors of any of the 12 species of African ape from this period. With no apes in this period (3 to 8 million yeas ago) the question remains ‘what could that mean? Perhaps apes evolved from Men; or a creature that was more man-like, than ape-like.
 
Montalban said:
really? pictures of organic life beginning?
Click to expand...
obviously not but in a way kind of. Science knows we are composed of atoms and molecues, in paticular carbon. Science can see these molecues and atoms being created and spread thoughout the universe through the process of the Big Bang and the life/death of the stars. I wonder how it got to us? I am certainly no expert on the topic as all I can do is state what I have learned in the class I am taking. However, if you are willing to accpet the almost impossible to deny truth, then perhaps a physics professor or someone with knowledge of quantam mechanics as well as the universe could explain it better.
 
wjp984 said:
obviously not but in a way kind of. Science knows we are composed of atoms and molecues, in paticular carbon. Science can see these molecues and atoms being created and spread thoughout the universe through the process of the Big Bang and the life/death of the stars. I wonder how it got to us? I am certainly no expert on the topic as all I can do is state what I have learned in the class I am taking. However, if you are willing to accpet the almost impossible to deny truth, then perhaps a physics professor or someone with knowledge of quantam mechanics as well as the universe could explain it better.
Click to expand...
So they’ve observed Carbon?

Carbon is not life.
 
Did Woman Evolve From The Beasts?

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.
 
Montalban said:
So they’ve observed Carbon?

Carbon is not life.
Click to expand...
so what is your argument? Did God try to trick all of us? Is he messing with our minds making it look like we can see deep into space and see many light years away? I am not trying to argue for life and creation on Earth since that is too difficult. I am just saying how for me, it is a lot easier to understand or see the plausability of evolution from the astronomical sense than just using the data about Earth.
 
As I said before, science is inadequate to explain supernatural events such as creation. The writer of Genesis, the men who compiled the Bible, and translators throughout the ages have faithfully preserved that account of creation as we now read it; why would we doubt it? We do not doubt the accounts of other miraculous events. “But science says…” it couldn’t have happened, that it happened another way. Science also says dead men do not walk, but we practice a faith that revolves around such an event. So is science wrong?

No, but it is inadequate to explain the supernatural and creation was a supernatural event.

Also, a secular human theory regarding our creation and that of a creationist are equally valid, as they both explain the scientific evidence. They are not science, rather they are conclusions drawn from science by men who come from different fountainheads.
 
There also seems to be a misunderstanding of creationism here. This idea is that the account of Genesis (creation, the fall, the flood, Babel, etc.), the concept of in media res, the theory of natural selection, etc. are supported by our science, being an account that makes sense in the light of our faith. Not so unreasonable.
 
Why are you confused? Because I said the theory of natural selection has a place in proper creationism? It plays an integral role in understanding Genesis.
 
but creationism states that the earth and universe are only a few thousand years old. That is what makes zero sense to me.
 
wjp984 said:
but creationism states that the earth and universe are only a few thousand years old. That is what makes zero sense to me.
Click to expand...
wjp984;

This world is essentially a homogeneous phase of inert energy, which is space as the finest form of energy. The creation comes from space or finest energy. The space has come from God. This is explained by Veda (Atmana Akasah). The space or the finest energy is called as Mahat, which is infinite. From the space all the world gradually comes out by the will of God. Even the space came out from God by His will only. If you do not recognize God, the energy being inert cannot plan the creation. The link between God and this space (Mahat) is unimaginable and is stated as Avyaktam. Veda mentions this unimaginability (Avyaktam) as the intermediate item between God and Mahat (Mahatah Paramavyaktam…).

You should not fix this Avyaktam to a particular item only. It is simply a word which means unimaginable and can be used in any context to mean any item by anybody. Suppose a student is unable to understand the higher concept. For him such concept is unimaginable. Therefore the word unimaginable (Avyaktam) has a general sense and can be used in any context. This word is also used to the subtle and invisible state of the world in the energy as a micro impression also after the final dissolution of the world. Similarly the word Brahman can be used to any greatest item depending on the context. It can indicate anybody starting from God to the head of a village. Veda says that God is beyond this link (Avyaktat Purushah Parah). Space is imaginable but God is unimaginable.

Therefore the link between unimaginable God and imaginable Mahat also becomes unimaginable. Only the link between two imaginable items is imaginable and can be understood. The unimaginability is experienced and the unimaginable God identified with the perceivable human incarnation is experienced. Therefore the concept of unimaginability is proved by the basic validity of authority through experience and perception. Veda says that you can see God (Pratyagatmanamaikshat). If Lord Krishna or Jesus is not seen and if they do not establish the concept of unimaginability through their actions, the existence of unimaginable God can be ruled out. Since there is only one Krishna or only one Jesus, you cannot say that every living being or human being is that unimaginable God. Such dilution is only the effect of egoistic demonism.

The first form of creation is energy. All the other items are the modifications of that energy only. All the modifications may perish but energy remains eternal due to the will of God. It is like the reel of the film containing the whole picture after the dissolution of the world. No fool will destroy the reel at the end of the show. Therefore the reel is eternal. But its eternality is based on the will of God. If God wishes, even the energy disappears. The reel is not destroyed but can be destroyed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top