Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Coder said:
Hi, it was thought that the age of the earth is 6,000 years. The Church tells us that Genesis uses figurative language, it is not to be taken as a completely literal account.
Click to expand...
So you think a man with superior genetics couldn’t live that long?
 
buffalo said:
WHy not?
Click to expand...
Because there is no evidence to suggest so. Not to mention that artifacts that we do have of that time period (6000yrs ago) suggest human life-spans were significantly shorter than they are today.
 
Isambard said:
Because there is no evidence to suggest so. Not to mention that artifacts that we do have of that time period (6000yrs ago) suggest human life-spans were significantly shorter than they are today.
Click to expand...
Hypothetically then - could a man with superior genes live 1000 years?
 
My opinion:

It doesn’t matter. God did what he did for a reason and he is going to do what he does for a reason. We need to live in the here and now not the past or the future and live all for God. No one else just God. Prayer, mass, and food. It’s all we need. 👍
 
buffalo said:
Pure, uncorrupted, non mutated, etc…
Click to expand...
You realize there is no “ideal” gene set right? Genetics doesn’t work that way. Mutation is only measureable by studying an organisms ancestor. If you want to get real technical, the “pure, uncorrupted, non mutated” thing you’re looking for would have to be non-living self-replicating chemicals.😃
 
Isambard said:
You realize there is no “ideal” gene set right? Genetics doesn’t work that way. Mutation is only measureable by studying an organisms ancestor. If you want to get real technical, the “pure, uncorrupted, non mutated” thing you’re looking for would have to be non-living self-replicating chemicals.😃
Click to expand...
Oh really now - God created Adam with bodily immortality and preternatural gifts. So whatever gave him bodily immortality (genes, big cholesterol globs, or whatever) was lost after the fall. However, the first generations had bodies that retained much of what Adam had.
 
buffalo said:
Oh really now - God created Adam with bodily immortality and preternatural gifts. So whatever gave him bodily immortality (genes, big cholesterol globs, or whatever) was lost after the fall. However, the first generations had bodies that retained much of what Adam had.
Click to expand...
Objective evidence please.😃
 
I must say I can see huge problems with darwin thinking.First we must believe in Adam and Eve, the Fall etc that is not up for debate Pope B16 is clear on that. Now if darwin mere ideas were correct that means death was from the very start, but that does not correspond with Adam and Eve.

The answer no evolution.
 
historyb said:
I must say I can see huge problems with darwin thinking.First we must believe in Adam and Eve, the Fall etc that is not up for debate Pope B16 is clear on that. Now if darwin mere ideas were correct that means death was from the very start, but that does not correspond with Adam and Eve.

The answer no evolution. I am a proud Creationist
Click to expand...
So because a Pope says so, you must ignore reality?:confused:
 
Isambard said:
So because a Pope says so, you must ignore reality?:confused:
Click to expand...
That is a bogus statement. It is not because a particular Pope has said anything. It is part of the deposit of faith. It is the whole package of belief. It is the constant teaching of the Catholic Church since the beginning. It has been revealed.

So because science limited by its own definition says so you must ignore Revealed truth?🙂
 
buffalo said:
That is a bogus statement. It is not because a particular Pope has said anything. It is part of the deposit of faith. It is the whole package of belief. It is the constant teaching of the Catholic Church since the beginning. It has been revealed.
Click to expand...
Not anymore. Literal interpretation is no longer held by the Church.
buffalo said:
So because science limited by its own definition says so you must ignore Revealed truth?🙂
Click to expand...
I try to be fair. I either accept all “Revealed truths” on faith alone, or I accept none;)
 
Isambard said:
Not anymore. Literal interpretation is no longer held by the Church.

I try to be fair. I either accept all “Revealed truths” on faith alone, or I accept none;)
Click to expand...
Literal interpretation never was held by the Church. Get up to date.

This is what we Catholics have in our arsenal - Philosophy, Metaphysics, Science (the Church gave us the scientific method), Revelation, protection of the Holy Spirit, Tradition, etc…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top