Evolution?

[Maranatha]

Thanks for the reply.

JesusHasMyHeart:

Jesus makes reference to the institution of the first marriage in Gen. 2:24.
He says, in Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female…

It seems that he is referring to marriage as part of natural law. His statement doesn’t exclude the possibility of evolution.

Mark 13:19 Jesus speaking of the Great tribulation,
"For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the
beginning of creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

I’m not sure how this excludes the possibility that evolution was God’s means to enact creation.

John quotes speaking of Jesus in John1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
ALL things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.

As a Catholic I believe this whole heatedly. It does not contradict reason in any way.

In Luke 3:38 in the geneology of Jesus we see that it goes clear back to Adam (a real man) and the only one before Adam is God.

As a Catholic a affirm that we have all descended from one man and one woman. This has been confirmed genetically.

Psalm 90:2
Psalm 102:25
Psalm 104:5
Psalm 146:5-6
Psalm 148:5
Acts 4:24
Just a few references of Gods Creation work.
I think what we need to see is, that when you remove the foundation of anything, the rest of the building will collaps. And this is what the Atheistic evolution secular humanist is trying so hard to do. So if you remove Creation as the Word of God declares it to be, then you would be declaring Gods word to be untrue and leave much room for unbelief in the whole counsel and truth of God.
We should not compromise because the world or science has put us to the challenge or backed us into a corner. We need to stand firm on the Word of God, and trust the Lord to do the rest.

Evolution does not, as I see it, remove the foundation of God’s work. I do not hold the theory of evolution to be infallible. It is subject to revision as observation and evidence dictate through the use of reason. What I do hold as infallible is the notion that faith and reason will never be in conflict. Please read the encyclical from Pope John Paul the Great on Faith and Reason, Fides et ratio.

 

[Tallyhoe]

Orogeny:

I don’t believe in evolution. Belief implies faith. I don’t have faith in evolution, I have faith in God. I believe that the evidence overwhelingly points to evolution being factual.

Peace

Tim

see, there ya go. Believe in evolution, have faith in it? Evolution is science. I would rather believe in something where there are facts and the facts are real and proven with hard solid evidence

 

[Maranatha]

Tallyhoe:

see, there ya go. Believe in evolution, have faith in it? Evolution is science. I would rather believe in something where there are facts and the facts are real and proven with hard solid evidence

Facts can be true and facts can be false. If you have evidence you need to have faith in the evidence. If you rely on scientists you need to have faith in the scientists. Whenever you believe something, you can’t get away from having faith. This is right out of logic 101 class and has only a tangential relationship to religion.

Reason if from God. Faith is from God. God can not contradict Himself. Therefore faith and reason can not contradict each other.

 

[carol_marie]

Tallyhoe:

see, there ya go. Believe in evolution, have faith in it? Evolution is science. I would rather believe in something where there are facts and the facts are real and proven with hard solid evidence

Do you have a hard time believing in God?

Do you believe that God inspired the Bible and it’s true?

 

[Tallyhoe]

Maranatha:

Facts can be true and facts can be false.

PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME. How in the world can a fact be false. If a fact is false then it is not a fact. E me

 

[JesusHasMyHeart]

Tallyhoe:

see, there ya go. Believe in evolution, have faith in it? Evolution is science. I would rather believe in something where there are facts and the facts are real and proven with hard solid evidence

Evolution is a theory and an atheistic one at that. The theory of evolution has done more damage for the cause of faith than any known thing. As time tells, the evolutionist will be the one eating humble pie in a very big way. Their is so much more evidence as far as Archaeology, biology, geology, history and all the other ologies are concerned, and these studies are confirming the biblical account to the t.

Just to let you know, there are no transitional forms of human life, we have apes and humans but no misssing links.

 

[Orogeny]

Tallyhoe:

I would rather believe in something where there are facts and the facts are real and proven with hard solid evidence

I note in your profile you state that you are Catholic. Do you believe in God? Is it because there is hard solid scientific evidence for His existence or is it based on faith which doesn’t require evidence?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

JesusHasMyHeart:

Evolution is a theory and an atheistic one at that.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. A theory in science is not a guess. It is an expanation that best fits the existing data. In the case of evolution, there is a ton of data.

The theory of evolution is neither thiestic nor athiestic. Science is the study of nature. Since God is supernatural (outside nature), He is not limited to nature and therefore is not the subject of science. Evolution in no way excludes God.

Their is so much more evidence as far as Archaeology, biology, geology, history and all the other ologies are concerned, and these studies are confirming the biblical account to the t.

I am a geologist and I will tell you that the earth is ~4.6 billion years old and the evidence of life indicates that life has evolved over time.

As far as other “ologies” go, where do you think the theory of evolution comes from?

Just to let you know, there are no transitional forms of human life, we have apes and humans but no misssing links.

Just to let you know, that is wrong. talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

As far as missing links go, once we find them, they aren’t missing, are they?

Peace

Tim

 

[carol_marie]

Orogeny:

The theory of evolution is neither thiestic nor athiestic. Science is the study of nature. Since God is supernatural (outside nature), He is not limited to nature and therefore is not the subject of science. Evolution in no way excludes God.I am a geologist and I will tell you that the earth is ~4.6 billion years old and the evidence of life indicates that life has evolved over time.

Peace

Tim

I once listened to a speaker talk about creation vs. evolution & he said that evolution couldn’t be true because of (big word) which means that order never comes from disorder. He said over time, things never naturally become more organized. (wish I could remember that word?) Anyhow, I wondered what your opinion was about that?

Also, what do you think of the critics who say that carbon dating in unreliable because a baloney sandwhich made a minute ago could test to be 2 million years old?

 

[chb03c]

Let’s get a something straight here. The Church is against Darwin’s evolution (Survival of the fittest). The current theory of evolution states that we did indeed come from one male and one female. This is not contrary to Genesis. Therefore it is ok to ‘accept’ the scientific theory of evolution, however, not to ‘accept’ the philosophical version of it.

 

[carol_marie]

chb03c:

Let’s get a something straight here. The Church is against Darwin’s evolution (Survival of the fittest). The current theory of evolution states that we did indeed come from one male and one female. This is not contrary to Genesis. Therefore it is ok to ‘accept’ the scientific theory of evolution, however, not to ‘accept’ the philosophical version of it.

Could you explain how we could accept that we evolved from lower life forms and at the same time came from one male & one female. I don’t understand how we could accpet the scientific theory without the philosophical version?

 

[Orogeny]

carol marie:

I once listened to a speaker talk about creation vs. evolution & he said that evolution couldn’t be true because of (big word) which means that order never comes from disorder. He said over time, things never naturally become more organized. (wish I could remember that word?) Anyhow, I wondered what your opinion was about that?

He was refering to the second law of thermodynamics and the term was entropy. He was wrong. That is an argument that is used by those opposed to evolution who also don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics. Opponents of evolution that have any basic understanding of that law refuse to use that argument because it is easily shot down.

Also, what do you think of the critics who say that carbon dating in unreliable because a baloney sandwhich made a minute ago could test to be 2 million years old?

I say that they are full of what they are testing!

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

carol marie:

Could you explain how we could accept that we evolved from lower life forms and at the same time came from one male & one female. I don’t understand how we could accpet the scientific theory without the philosophical version?

We, as humans, have two parts: our physical, mortal bodies and our immortal souls. The idea that our physical bodies derive from earlier, different life forms is not opposed by the Church. Our souls, however, are not evolved. They are created.

From INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION *COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: *Human Persons Created in the Image of God

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.Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

JesusHasMyHeart:

Evolution is a theory and an atheistic one at that.

Yes evolution is a theory. Gravity is also a theory and that also does not mention God. Do you have a problem with the theory of gravity? Why pick on evolution rather than gravity? All theories in science are “atheistic” because science limits itself to natural phenomema and does not cover supernatural phenomena.

JesusHasMyHeart:

The theory of evolution has done more damage for the cause of faith than any known thing.

From what I can see the damage is being done by people who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis and thus put a lot of intelligent people off Christianity. See here for some examples. If you insist on making an absolute choice “Evolution or Christ” then some people are going to choose evolution. You would do better to allow the choice “Evolution and Christ” which is allowed by most sensible Christians, including the Catholic Church.

JesusHasMyHeart:

As time tells, the evolutionist will be the one eating humble pie in a very big way.

Bwahahaha! See The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism. This prediction has been made many times before, and it has not come true yet.It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration.

[J. William Dawson, The Meeting Place of History and Geology, (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1894), p. 206]

Don’t hold your breath.

JesusHasMyHeart:

Their is so much more evidence as far as Archaeology, biology, geology, history and all the other ologies are concerned, and these studies are confirming the biblical account to the t.

Ah evidence. Let’s talk about evidence.

According to Genesis there were humans [Gen 1:27] and cattle [Gen 1:24] on the earth during Creation Week; sheep [Gen 4:2] appeared soon after. There were also human habitations such as cities [Gen 4:17] within 130 years [Gen 5:3]. I would like to see evidence of any of these things from early rocks. Such evidence would be a powerful argument for Young Earth Creationism and against the theory of evolution.

Can you please provide references for any fossil of a human, cow or sheep from, say, the Cretaceous or earlier in the geological column. Alternatively evidence of human habitation, such as a city, from the Cretaceous or lower would be acceptable. It is also worth pointing out that evidence like this would be a strong indication that the theory of evolution was incorrect; it would not be easy for evolution to explain a Devonian sheep.

JesusHasMyHeart:

Just to let you know, there are no transitional forms of human life, we have apes and humans but no misssing links.

For a quick survey of those we do have see this link which I posted in #10 above. Of course, if you define “human” as “having a human soul” then it is not possible to tell if any fossil is human or not since souls do not fossilise. All that can be said is that the physical human body is descended from ape-like ancestors as shown by the fossil record. As I said, science does not deal with the supernatural so evolution says nothing about a soul.

rossum

 

[rossum]

carol marie:

I once listened to a speaker talk about creation vs. evolution & he said that evolution couldn’t be true because of (big word) which means that order never comes from disorder.

As Orogeny said, either entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The argument is wrong. If disorder never comes from disorder then no fridge would work. Since fridges do work the argument from the Second Law is not correct. There are circumstances in which entropy can decrease (order from disorder or a decrease in temperature inside a fridge). All that is neded is an energy source such as an electric socket or the sun. As long as the increase in disorder in the sun, or the power station, is bigger than the decrease in the fridge or the earth’s biosphere then the equations are satisfied.

For more see here.
carol marie:

Also, what do you think of the critics who say that carbon dating in unreliable because a baloney sandwhich made a minute ago could test to be 2 million years old?

I think that those critics do not know enough about carbon dating to be able to criticise it effectively. Carbon dating is good to about 50,000 years ago, maybe 75,000 with a clean sample and very sensitive equipment. Talking about two million years with carbon dating just shows that those critics do not know their facts.

For more on this have a look at Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective or How Old is the Earth.

rossum

 

[PhilVaz]

Oops, I forgot to post in this evolution thread.

Same old, same old, same old, same old, except Buffalo hasn’t cited from Fr. Harrison’s article yet. There I cited it.

Phil P

 

[BryPGuy89]

rossum:

Strictly, the link is between humans and apes, rather than monkeys. Monkey’s have tails, apes don’t, just like us.

Plenty of links have been found, see here.

You can believe what you wish, but you are incorrect when you say “science cannot find…” Science can and has found the evidence to link humans with apes.

rossum

That still doesn’t connect us to apes. It doesn’t prove genetical relevence or physical direct connections.