D
DEESYPAL
Guest
Is evolution just a theory? It makes sense to think that we were created from apes, because scientists have found evidence of prehistoric humans. I dont know. So is Adam and Eve is myth?
- Status
D
Darrel
Guest
Human beings are the only creatures on Earth with the knowledge of good and evil. This started with Adam and Eve. Nothing exists that was not created; it’s just that simple on a scientific level. It is common sense that God exists. The universe did not just decide to create its own existence one day just because it felt like it. The spirit of God is the source of faith, those without faith will try to answer questions in a mannor that excludes the existence of God.
-D
A
AnAtheist
Guest
How do you know that, unless you communicate with other species?
Besides, if another species would have a concept of good and evil, would that be proof FOR or AGAINST God?
Correct, the universe didn’t DECIDE to exist. It just exists.
Quite right.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Cardinal Ratzinger and his International Theological Commission:
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. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
Paragraph 63 from COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God
The Catechism is very clear Adam/Eve were literal and historical (paragraphs 355ff, 385ff), how you put this all together is up to you.
Theistic Evolution vs. Six-Day Creation, still working on Part 2, the rest is done
Phil P
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. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
Paragraph 63 from COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God
The Catechism is very clear Adam/Eve were literal and historical (paragraphs 355ff, 385ff), how you put this all together is up to you.
Theistic Evolution vs. Six-Day Creation, still working on Part 2, the rest is done
Phil P
Z
zephel
Guest
I definitely believe in evolution. I believe 100% creationism, and the Intelligent Design theory too.
One evidence is anthropic finetuning of the laws of physics. Look at the expansion rate of the universe. It is one part in trillion trillion trillion…etc. If it was just a bit slower or a bit faster, the universe would be incapable of supporting.
There is no evidence for evolution. What Darwinists try to use as evidence is the homology in bone structures of animals. However, homology does not mean modification descent. It may well mean that those animals were created by a similar designer. Like it would make sense for the same architect to design 2 houses at totally separate places using the same style, materials etc.
There must be a mechanism to show that this homology proves evolution. What is proposed is common developmental pathways, meaning that if 2 animals show homologous features, trace them back to the embryo/fetus developmental stage, you would see similar cells and processes as to how the animals were formed. But that is not the case. This brings me to the next point of “similar embryos”.
Haeckel’s embryo drawings are very famous and often used to prove similarity. He drew the early stages of the embryos of 7 animals, which apparently show striking similarities. But, there are 3 problems with Haeckel’s drawings. I’ll start with the minor one.
Haeckel cherry-pickled his examples. He chose animals that were more common. For example, he used a tortoise for reptiles and for amphibians, instead of using a frog, which is very much different, he chose a salamander. Of the 7 main animal classes, he only represented 4.
The next one is another big problem which disproves common developmental pathways. He didn’t draw the early stages. He drew the midpoint of embryo development and claimed that they were the early stages.
The last problem is the biggest problem and the most shocking: Haeckel faked the drawings of the embryos. In fact, he was so confident of his theory, he used the same woodcut to draw each of the 7 embryos without looking at the pictures of the real embryos. That, of course, would cause a striking similarity. He deliberately modified the drawings greatly so that there would be resemblances to each other, so he could prove evolution.
This shows that “common features” do not prove evolution. There is no solid proof for evolution and much of Darwinism has been discredited. It’s only… a theory.
One evidence is anthropic finetuning of the laws of physics. Look at the expansion rate of the universe. It is one part in trillion trillion trillion…etc. If it was just a bit slower or a bit faster, the universe would be incapable of supporting.
There is no evidence for evolution. What Darwinists try to use as evidence is the homology in bone structures of animals. However, homology does not mean modification descent. It may well mean that those animals were created by a similar designer. Like it would make sense for the same architect to design 2 houses at totally separate places using the same style, materials etc.
There must be a mechanism to show that this homology proves evolution. What is proposed is common developmental pathways, meaning that if 2 animals show homologous features, trace them back to the embryo/fetus developmental stage, you would see similar cells and processes as to how the animals were formed. But that is not the case. This brings me to the next point of “similar embryos”.
Haeckel’s embryo drawings are very famous and often used to prove similarity. He drew the early stages of the embryos of 7 animals, which apparently show striking similarities. But, there are 3 problems with Haeckel’s drawings. I’ll start with the minor one.
Haeckel cherry-pickled his examples. He chose animals that were more common. For example, he used a tortoise for reptiles and for amphibians, instead of using a frog, which is very much different, he chose a salamander. Of the 7 main animal classes, he only represented 4.
The next one is another big problem which disproves common developmental pathways. He didn’t draw the early stages. He drew the midpoint of embryo development and claimed that they were the early stages.
The last problem is the biggest problem and the most shocking: Haeckel faked the drawings of the embryos. In fact, he was so confident of his theory, he used the same woodcut to draw each of the 7 embryos without looking at the pictures of the real embryos. That, of course, would cause a striking similarity. He deliberately modified the drawings greatly so that there would be resemblances to each other, so he could prove evolution.
This shows that “common features” do not prove evolution. There is no solid proof for evolution and much of Darwinism has been discredited. It’s only… a theory.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
zephel said:
Gravitation is only a theory.
Electromagnetism is only a theory.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is only a theory.
So what? Theory does not equal wrong. As truth does not equal “not a theory”.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Pantheists might disagree with that.
B
buffalo
Guest
Look at the bottom of this page and go to those threads.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
A great deal of people might disagree with that…
B
bloodwater
Guest
evolution is a bunch of ****. i’m to lazy to waste my time proving it here though. my hobby is to study the theories, e-mail me if you have questions.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
there are TOO MANY threads on this already. as a catholic you are allowed to except either an evolution (by intelligent design) or a creation (7 day or 7 periods) theory on the origin of man, earth and the universe. the only thing that is required to believe is that there was a literal “adam and eve” (a single set of human from which we all come, so this could mean the first two to “awaken” from apehood or it could mean that God created man from the dust and woman from his rib) and that they sinned, causing us to experience the repercussions of original sin.
incidentally, i believe in creationism. i’m not sure if i believe in a 7 day account or a “period” theory but i am comfortable with not knowing as neither one (nor would evolution by intelligent design) affects my relationship with God through His Son, Jesus.
incidentally, i believe in creationism. i’m not sure if i believe in a 7 day account or a “period” theory but i am comfortable with not knowing as neither one (nor would evolution by intelligent design) affects my relationship with God through His Son, Jesus.
D
Darrel
Guest
Correct, the universe didn’t DECIDE to exist. It just exists.
Quite right.
Well,
“The Universe just exists”. So does my monitor as I type this reply, it just exists because it was manufactured. Is there some reason the universe is not included in that logic? Like I said its common sense that a child can understand, yet true belief can not happen without Gods help. To seek universal answers from men is like seeking wisdom in an insane asylum. They may say a few words but they certainly won’t make very much useful sense. I find it amazing that anyone with knowledge can actually think this all just happened without some mind behind it. Check out some Hubble space telescope pictures. This all just happened by accident.
hubblesite.org/gallery/wallpaper/
-D
A
AnAtheist
Guest
But you accept “God just exists”, right? For no particular reason. Where is the difference?
The planning mind behind it? “Planning” is something bound to time. Of what we know today, time has begun with the universe, it is build in the very fabric of it. Time does not exist outside the universe, so there is no before. There is no point in time, when the universe could have been planned.
Ok, this is not such a new view, St. Augustine has written about it in the 5th century.
quot homines tot sententiae
Great site!
Cool pictures of huge accidents (supernovae remnants).
M
MaggieOH
Guest
I agree. Creation Science is only a theory.
Maggie
- Status