Evolution & the catholic church

  • Thread starter Thread starter algran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why is anyone surprised that living creatures share the same building blocks and are genetically related? This by itself does not prove descent.
We know that it indicates descent, since we use the same method to determine paternity and family relationships, as well as more distant relationships among groups of people.

And it can be shown to work by crosschecking with known relationships. So yes, we do know that genetic relationships show descent.

We can also so that various “mistakes” in genes also show common descent. We find the same damaged genes, damaged inthe same way, in closely related organisms, but not in more distantly-related ones.

There are other, completely independent lines of evidence that confirm these findings. If you like, we can talk about them.

So the Pope is quite correct; it is virtually certain that all life has a common ancestor.
 
If God created the carnivores (the meat eaters), he created them as carnivores. The “lions roar for their prey” (Psalm 22:13;
104:21; etc) and have always done so.
Even more so, spiders. They are completely unable to live except by predation.
Otherwise you’ll have the opinion that T-Rex was originally created as a plant eater and Adam/Eve had a pet Brontosaurus in their backyard like the Flintstones.
I doubt those teeth were for munching on brussels sprouts. Brontosaurids were herbivores although I doubt they were gentle.
 
The Barbarian:
We know that it indicates descent, since we use the same method to determine paternity and family relationships, as well as more distant relationships among groups of people.

And it can be shown to work by crosschecking with known relationships. So yes, we do know that genetic relationships show descent.

We can also so that various “mistakes” in genes also show common descent. We find the same damaged genes, damaged inthe same way, in closely related organisms, but not in more distantly-related ones.

There are other, completely independent lines of evidence that confirm these findings. If you like, we can talk about them.

So the Pope is quite correct; it is virtually certain that all life has a common ancestor.
Cardina; Newman had no problem with Darwin’s biological theory since it dealt with secondary causes. the traditional province of natural philosophy. The pope was simply stating that he had no problem with it unless someone tried to extend it to first principles.
 
The Popes have said that there is no conflict between the scriptures and the theory of evolution but what about the theory of intelligent design. At first I think it was just what the Popes were saying about the theory of evolution. However, as I read more, it becomes very “new agey”. It seems to almost be pantheism. I was once asked would you lose your faith if science proved there was no God. My reply was my faith would be in greater danger if science proved there was a God. Science is measurements and experiments. God cannot be measured because God is supernatural. Only the natural can be measured. God created nature and works in nature but God is not nature. Creation is the expression of God’s Love. Evolution (and the Big Bang for that matter) are how we humans see Creation. I have no problem with Genesis and Evolution (or the Bigh Bang for that matter) I do have a problem with Intelligent Design because it is an attempt to prove the existance of God by scientific means. This will always lead to pantheism.
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
If God created the carnivores (the meat eaters), he created them as carnivores. The “lions roar for their prey” (Psalm 22:13; 104:21; etc) and have always done so. Otherwise you’ll have the opinion that T-Rex was originally created as a plant eater and Adam/Eve had a pet Brontosaurus in their backyard like the Flintstones.

Phil P
I realize that you are joking, but did you know that some radical fundamentalists actually believe this? Here is a link to a site that claims that Noah brought dinosaurs onto the ark.

answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

Yes, this seems very odd but there are some that actually believe this.
 
Thanks Buffalo for the website by Hugh Owen. Do you have any background on Mr. Owen. I did a quick read of the article and saved it for future study. It was most interesting. I do think there are a lot of pitfalls in the theory of “informed design” or what the article calls theistic evolutionism. Of course this not only involves Darwin, but also Mendel, Einstein, and the current “unification theory” So much to ponder
 
Barbara Ann:
Thanks Buffalo for the website by Hugh Owen. Do you have any background on Mr. Owen. I did a quick read of the article and saved it for future study. It was most interesting. I do think there are a lot of pitfalls in the theory of “informed design” or what the article calls theistic evolutionism. Of course this not only involves Darwin, but also Mendel, Einstein, and the current “unification theory” So much to ponder
I agree and it can be quite confusing. On one hand you have 1800 years of Tradition and several thousand of Revelation vs 200 years of enlightenment.

Here is more on Hugh Owen - KolbeCenterfor the Study of Creation
 
Deb << I realize that you are joking, but did you know that some radical fundamentalists actually believe this? Here is a link to a site that claims that Noah brought dinosaurs onto the ark. >>

AnswersInGenesis (and Buffalo’s Kolbe Center) has photographic proof that Adam/Eve lived with a pet Brontosaurus. We know about Cain and Abel, but you may not have heard about their brother and sister: Pebbles and Bam-Bam.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/dinokid.jpg

We also know for a fact all T-Rex were originally created as Brussel Sprout eaters before the Fall.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/TRex2.jpg

Yes, there is plenty of good scientific evidence for creation science.

PhilVaz :eek:
 
:rotfl:

ahahhahahaaahhaahahaaha

Dinosaurs in the ark, what would they eat?!

:rotfl:
 
Check Genesis. There are two stories of creation. They cannot both be historically and scientifically accurate, as they contradict on a few minor points. Ask your Protestant friend which one is true, and what the problem is with the other one.
 
Shadow << Dinosaurs in the ark, what would they eat?! >>

They would eat Noah and his family, including Pebbles and Bam-Bam and the story would have to be re-written. If AnswersInGenesis or the Kolbe Center has an answer to this article (or any of the books by Davis Young) I haven’t seen it. In case you didn’t notice, I go with a local flood.

Phil P
 
ahahhahahaaahhaahahaaha

Dinosaurs in the ark, what would they eat?!

:rotfl:
[/quote]

Didn’t you know that all the animals were in a hibernated state of sleep and didn’t wake up until the ark was beached? :rotfl:

I attended a lecture at my old church-Independent Baptist-where a man claimed that all the animals were asleep and that they were only babies on the ark. They went to ridiculous mental contortions to prove the literal truth of Genesis.
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Shadow << Dinosaurs in the ark, what would they eat?! >>

They would eat Noah and his family, including Pebbles and Bam-Bam and the story would have to be re-written. If AnswersInGenesis or the Kolbe Center has an answer to this article (or any of the books by Davis Young) I haven’t seen it. In case you didn’t notice, I go with a local flood.

Phil P
Problems with a Global Flood?

any are familiar with Talk.Origins, counted among the top pro-evolution sites on the Internet. Most of the people running it are ostensibly atheistic. Many had a Christian upbringing and are using evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their apostasy. But they realise that rank atheism is repugnant to many, so they publish articles claiming that you can believe in God and evolution. It’s quite a sight to see people, known personally to us as rabidly hostile to Christianity, yet who are eager to assure inquirers that many Christians accept evolution. It reminds me of Lenin’s strategy of cultivating useful idiots in the West, who were too gullible to realise that they were undermining their own foundations. See also The Skeptics and their Churchian Allies In one sense, it’s good to see articles like that by Mark Isaak, where the author displays his contempt for Scripture [and I don’t simply mean questioning biblical literalism, but direct mocking attacks against the Christian belief that the Bible is the inerrant written Word of God that “cannot be broken” as Christ Himself believed (John 10:35)], yet feigns concern that “a global flood makes the whole Bible less credible.” How do police investigators normally treat statements by witnesses who are blatantly dishonest?
Code:
The serious and objective student of this topic would definitely find it worthwhile purchasing John Woodmorappe’s book **Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study**, ....
more…
 
There is no threat to God through evolution, unless God is excluded from the creation.
THe creation story was an account that was not even recorded historically until hundreds of years later. This was an oral tradition passed down. The story itself is not likely to account for every detail, and more likely to hold more metaphorical substance than actually literal substance.
As for the creation of man, God created Adam out of the dust of the earth, He did not create Adam out of nothing, he created him from something already created. Possibly even infusing his rationality into an already living creature. This is just my theory, but it doesn’t destroy anything, and it certainly doesn’t deny God in any way, it is his creation still. THe only thing destroyed is a preconcieved notion of how creation was.
Even the idea that creation came about in 7 days? It does not follow with the order of creation, Light was not created until the 2nd or 3rd day. How can someone say that it was a 24 hr day, when it was not even in existence yet. God does not exist in time, He is eternal, our concept of time, does not apply to Eternal Existence, where his presence is holding everything in existence, eternally.
It is pride to think that holds minds back.
 
As a side not, the first person to take the bible and make an actual time line of it, 4 thousand years or so, was actually a Catholic priest, I believe back around 1200.
When Darwin came out with his theories, the Catholic Church was not threatened in anyway, it was the protestants that were. WHY?
The Catholics are not Sola Scriptura and the Protestants are, it was actually a relief because it proved that you cannot base all knowledge in scripture, you have your minds, your intelligence, your traditions.
Do not short change yourself.
 
Buffalo << Phil, Those are amazing! I never saw the connection before! >>

Well now you have the evidence of fruit directly evolving into animals. Makes for some tasty animals.

As for TrueOrigin’s answer to TalkOrigin’s Global Flood problems, I’ll just point out that Christian creationist geologists who lived before Darwin saw no need to try to reconcile a literal global flood with the known scientific data. I wonder why that is, and that was over 150+ years ago. So here is TrueOrigin coming along 150+ years later, and saying

"Nope, you Christian creationists got it all wrong, not only lions and bears but also mastodons, mammoths, giant sloths, pterodactyls, megalosaurs, iguanodons, hylaeosaurs, a host of other extinct mammals and other pairs of forty-foot-long monsters were all preserved on the ark. "

Another Hugh Miller (1802-1856), a highly respected and devout Presbyterian who was gifted with an elegance, grace, wit, and clarity of written expression matched by few, wrote:

“Plain men who set themselves to deduce from Scripture the figure of the planet” had little doubt that the earth was flat “until corrected by the geographer”; “plain men who set themselves to acquire from Scripture some notion of the planetary motions” thought that the sun moved around an earth at rest “until corrected by the astronomer”; “plain men who have sought to determine from Scripture the age of the earth” were confident that the earth was about six thousand years old “until corrected by the geologist.”

In sum, plain men quite properly learned the way of salvation from the Bible, but every time they “sought to deduce from it what it was not intended to teach – the truths of physical science – they have fallen into extravagant error.” (The Testimony of the Rocks [1858], p. 305-306)

Note the date of publication: 1858.

And here’s more:

Vastly expanded knowledge of the fossil record made the biogeographical argument far more persuasive than it had been only a century earlier. Animals in various parts of the world had been preceded by similar animals. The sloths of South America had been preceded by the extinct megatherium, known only from fossil remains. The kangaroos and wombats of Australia had been found as fossils only in that region. The birds of New Zealand were found as fossils only in New Zealand. The problem of the migration of species to and from the ark could not be evaded by recourse to an interchange of land and sea. Miller claimed with devastating logic spiced with biting humor that, on the supposition that a continuous tract of land stretched between South America and Asia,

“it is just possible that, during the hundred and twenty years in which the ark was in building, a pair of sloths might have crept by inches across this continuous tract, from where the skeletons of the great megatheria are buried, to where the great vessel stood. But after the Flood had subsided, and the change in sea and land had taken place, there would remain for them no longer a roadway; and so, though their journey outwards might, in all save the impulse which led to it, have been altogether a natural one, their voyage homewards could not be other than miraculous.”

bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

Phil P
 
Not to touch the religion issue, scientists cannot answer many questions:

Why there is something instead of nothing?

How did the planets form?

How did the stars form?

How did animated beings come about from inanimate beings?

What came first, the seed or the plant?

What came first, DNA are the parts that make up DNA?

What came first, the plants or the bees?

Side issue, how many astronomers today have knowledge of the nine planets? They believe fellow scientists on the actual measurements. How many years would it take for a scientist to KNOW that the nine planets go around the sun? Again, who has actually seen an electron? Point: scientists believe many things. I am not saying electrons do not exist. But the scientists must BELIEVE each other.

Many scientists BELIEVE in evolution. Many scientists do NOT BELIEVE in evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top