Evolution is contradictory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buss0042
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradskii said:
Indeed they are human. From 3 million years ago. Except that you don’t consider those who made the art human.
Click to expand...
?
“o_mlly said:
Now, be fair. Artwork is evidence of imagination and abstraction. Faculties that are human as I have consistently posted. Next question.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

In charity, I first thought you just started to rabidly “thumb” a reply without reading my post. But then I saw a 4 hour gap between our posts. ?
Bradskii said:
We can go back 100,000 years at a time and your (imposssible) job is to say: Yes, At This Specific Time man become what we accept as human.
Click to expand...
Read this: those who paint animal images on cave walls are human. Not so impossible, is it?
Bradskii said:
Well, weare discussing evolution, not theology. Theology has a specific answer. Science does not.
Click to expand...
Science and theology do not dispute evolution. However, the atheistic evolutionist philosopher attempts to leap from the soft (historiographic) and fragile scientific framework of evolution to claim what has not been evidenced.

The issue is: Did humans evolve solely from animals? The atheistic scientist says, “I don’t know.” The Christian philosopher says, “No, PSR prevents.” The atheist philosopher says, “Yes, watch this rabbit come out of the hat.”

The atheists ploy of calling hominids “early humans” evidenced by bones or even merely footprints in the sand simply begs the question.
Bradskii said:
Again, thanks for playing. It’s a waste of my time discussing something with somone who has too limited an understanding of the subject.
Click to expand...
And, thank you, Oh great one. Feel free to come back and vent again. Class dismissed (again).
 
o_mlly said:
Science and theology do not dispute evolution.
Click to expand...
I’d like to give you a brief summary of my take on this.

We can intuit/realize/have revealed the truth that we each exist. We do not bring ourselves into existence, but are created, with our existence maintained in every moment.

We exist as persons, a unity of body-spirit, such that the spirit is the wholeness of our individual being containing the psychospiritual structure that makes possible going to the corner store to make a purchase. That human spirit had a beginning at the temporal end of the creative act that brought forth the universe. We are one humanity, each of us an expression of Adam, the first man who became male and female. From that original pair, we all have come to be, each of us created as persons, fallen in Adam and brought back into communion with God in Jesus Christ.

We can know, only in the moment putting together remnants of what has existance solely in the past.
Matter is always undergoing change, and there is little left of those forms that would now clarify our origins.
Since we are dealing with causes and creation from eternity, temporal sequences are secondary.
Even if we establish a coherent time-line, it is only illusion if the primacy of the ontological is not considered.

Among other implications, evolution suggests that;
Beyond its having some vague ontological value, Genesis is just a story.
Humanity evolved as a group.
If there were one first human being, he would have mated with nonhumans.
The first human beings would have had nonhuman parents.
Random mutations of the genome (aka chaos) would have resulted in the complexity of especially our brains which makes possible the actualization of the spirit’s potential.
And, natural selection (aka necessity and ultimately death) is what cleaved those who lacked the physical potential from the gene pool of humanity, and thereby formed the clear miracle that is our mind-brain.

I could go on here but it is a lengthy, complex matter. Needless to say I have major issues with evolution, seeing it as pseudoscience and a very poor myth that presents a distorted picture of who we are and came to be.

The data that science provides can be understood in the light of scripture, revealing a very different picture than evolution - creation rooted in Existence itself.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
The data that science provides can be understood in the light of scripture
Click to expand...
And equally the data that scripture provides can be understood in the light of science.

Geocentrism and heliocentrism being obvious examples in point. If God made the world then the world, as studied by science, is just as much from God as His word, as studied by theologians. There is a two-way process between the two, not just a one-way process.

$0.02

rossum
 
rossum said:
And equally the data that scripture provides can be understood in the light of science.

Geocentrism and heliocentrism being obvious examples in point. If God made the world then the world, as studied by science, is just as much from God as His word, as studied by theologians. There is a two-way process between the two, not just a one-way process.

$0.02

rossum
Click to expand...
I wonder when God looks at His creation, what He put in the center?
 
buffalo said:
Of course NS can do anything, right? Admit it is harder to be a committed evo as we learn more.
Click to expand...
So, you have zero evidence, just your own personal opinion. I’m afraid that in science, if you have no evidence than you lose.

I suggest you go and do some research to find the supporting evidence you so badly need to support your (currently) unsupported personal opinion.

rossum
 
Aloysium said:
Among other implications, evolution suggests that;
Beyond its having some vague ontological value, Genesis is just a story.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your summary. The wish list of implications that atheistic evolutionists contrive in hopes of supporting their non-belief is beyond any scientific data. Further, to defend their position the atheist must deny any faculty in man different in kind to animals claiming the difference is not real (free will) or only different in degree (man’s transistor is no different than the crow’s bent twig).

Of course, the atheists routinely criticize Genesis as if it were a science book. An interesting new thread for our atheist friends may be to list the valuable theological lessons that the first book of the bible does provide.
 
o_mlly said:
Of course, the atheists routinely criticize Genesis as if it were a science book.
Click to expand...
Some Christians do treat it as a science book: “The earth is 6,000 years old.” and “There was a world-wide flood about 4,500 years ago that killed most animal and human life.”

That interpretation of Genesis is rightly criticised by both Christian and atheist scientists.

rossum
 
What raw data. There is no soft tissue age dating raw data in her work
 
Aloysium said:
We must thank God for having established His Church with a Magisterium to guide us.
Click to expand...
And for creating the pontifical scientific academy, and for the priest who gave us the Big Bang theory and for the Vatican funding research into it.

However, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, people sinning by scamming data and trying to pass it off as genuine
 
Last edited:
You had to go there didn’t you. Pull out big words like fallible, rather then discussing why those things are here.

Tut tut
 
So in rejecting the Big Bang in some form you are rejecting the instant of creation.

Good one you. Think about it
 
Many Catholics are more willing and eager to defend the Big Bang, just a theory with still very may holes to plug, than they are at defending the Word of God.

You would have a hint of a valid point if Catholics were required to believe in the Big Bang or evolution, but we don’t.
 
angel12 said:
Scientific discoveries constantly give me even more appreciation for the wonders of this universe God gave us.
Click to expand...
Of course they would! As a revelation of God’s creation, they reflect His beauty, awesome rationality, infinite nature and glory.

The issue as it regards the topic of this thread has to do with evolution. Although taught as such, I will put it to you that it is not science, but rather philosophy. That’s why we are discussing it here. Evolution is a modern mythos of our origins, putting the science together in such a way that it holds material processes (random mutation) and necessity (natural selection) as primary. There are better ways to understand how the world is and came to be.
 
Aloysium said:
Evolution is a modern mythos of our origins, putting the science together in such a way that it holds material processes (random mutation) and necessity (natural selection) as primary. There are better ways to understand how the world is and came to be.
Click to expand...
You have a strange version of evolution. Look at the title of Darwin’s book: “On the Origin of Species”. Evolution explains the origin of species. It does not explain the origin of the universe or the origin of life – that is abiogenesis.

Nor is evolution a source of morality. Is it immoral to use a parachute because that is against the theory of Gravity? Similarly evolution is not a source of morality.

If you want to understand “how the world came to be” then you are better off studying cosmology than evolution.

rossum
 
Roseeurekacross said:
So tell me, is there an instant of creation or not.?
Click to expand...
Depending on what one means by instant, it is all instantaneous, the bringing into existence of all time and all space, and everything they embrace, from eternity. This is a moment of creation in the sense that forms of being which have their origin in the past, such as we ourselves, are brought into being right now as is everything in its moment.

As to the temporal sequence of creation, the emergence of the hierarchy of existent forms having a material component, light, atoms, creatures with vegetative souls, animals and human beings, these all were made on successive “days”, utilizing as components, what had previously been created.

There are issues with how the big bang is presented; Scientism’s version is absurd.

What’s your point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top