Genesis v Evolution

[edwest2]

And the examples you use are too different in kind. I used to be in health care and worked around nuclear medicine. The effects are observable and verifiable.
The same with gravity.

Evolution is not observable or verifiable.

All truth or fragment of truth points to God. God guided Intelligent Design (not the political version of ID) makes more sense.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It is possible for both evolution to have happened and for God to have guided it while it was happening in profound imperceptible ways.

Remember the time Jesus healed the blind person by spitting on some clay and then placing the clay on their eyes?

Now of course Jesus could have just pronounced the word and the person come have regained their sight but Jesus Chose to use clay. Why did He do that? Who knows?

All I’m saying is If Jesus can heal by both miraculous ways and ways that also involve elements that are alreay present in creation then God certainly could create both by miraculous ways and ways that involved elements that were already present in creation.

Don’t get me wrong. Certainly God is smart enough to create the universe out of nothing with just a spark and have done it so perfectly that everything afterwrds that happened could have given us evolutionarily the world we have today.

On the other hand He could have done it mostly that way but have guided it in imperceptible ways.

And why would He do that? Probably for the same reason that Jesus used clay in bringing sight to a blind person.

Maybe it was to show that God is not limited in How He does things!

How many of you out there think the universe would blow up and cease to exist if God used both evolutionary ways and interventional ways?

It wouldn’t bother me if God created by using both ways.

Would it bother you?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It is possible for both evolution to have happened and for God to have guided it while it was happening in profound imperceptible ways.

Remember the time Jesus healed the blind person by spitting on some clay and then placing the clay on their eyes?

Now of course Jesus could have just pronounced the word and the person come have regained their sight but Jesus Chose to use clay. Why did He do that? Who knows?

All I’m saying is If Jesus can heal by both miraculous ways and ways that also involve elements that are alreay present in creation then God certainly could create both by miraculous ways and ways that involved elements that were already present in creation.

Don’t get me wrong. Certainly God is smart enough to create the universe out of nothing with just a spark and have done it so perfectly that everything afterwrds that happened could have given us evolutionarily the world we have today.

On the other hand He could have done it mostly that way but have guided it in imperceptible ways.

And why would He do that? Probably for the same reason that Jesus used clay in bringing sight to a blind person.

Maybe it was to show that God is not limited in How He does things!

How many of you out there think the universe would blow up and cease to exist if God used both evolutionary ways and interventional ways?

It wouldn’t bother me if God created by using both ways.

Would it bother you?

It wouldn’t bother me if God used both ways. I just think we need to be careful to not say it has to be just one way or else the other way. I personally think it’s both, and that both potential methods have a lot to say about how God operates.

 

[Orogeny]

Comments?

Yes. By definition, theistic evolutionists believe in miracles. Why would you continue to question that? Are you suggesting that there in no such thing as theistic evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Me? What did I do?

You have started several threads about this subject.

Does the Church teach that modern methods of birth control are wrong, that embryonic stem cell research is wrong, that abortion is wrong, that homosexual acts are disordered? I didn’t say it. They did.

Of course the Church teaches that. What is your point?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Imagine that! Catholics were wrong for almost two thousand years. It took Charles Darwin to show us what God was trying to say.

Well, it’s good that you can admit that much!

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I don’t need anyone to tell me that there is a direct conflict between evolution and the Bible. If we are descended from apes (which I think is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard), why would any of the rest of the Bible be valid?

Why wouldn’t it be?

Many Catholics reject the notion of a universal flood. If part of it is a myth, maybe the entire thing is.

Why would you make that leap of faith?

Even if I didn’t consider the Bible reliable, I don’t think I could ever accept the notion that I am descended from an ape. Maybe some of the evolutionists, but not me.

Why not? Are you opposed to science?

Peace

Tim

 

[TMC]

The Catholic Church has been around for almost two thousand years. The vast majority of Catholics have always believed that the Earth was a few thousand years old, and that the first man was created directly by God. Today, apparently most Catholics believe that the Earth is millions or billions of years old, and that they are descended from apes.

Imagine that! Catholics were wrong for almost two thousand years. It took Charles Darwin to show us what God was trying to say.

Three points.

1. As many others have pointed out people have believed a lot of things for a very long time that turned out to be untrue. Flat earth, earth as center of the universe, various superstitions about the source of diseases, etc. So the fact that so many were wrong for so long is unremarkable.
2. I am not sure that the vast majority of Catholics have always believed that the Earth was a few thousand years old. Most Catholics who have ever lived have lived in the last hundred or so years, and evolution has been well accepted for most of that time. And while the early church fathers were not familiar with the theory of evolution, I have read that at least some recognized that the Genesis account was not literal. (Can anyone shed light on this?)
3. Finally, the Church has made clear that despite the scientific understanding of people in the past, this scientific theory is not incompatible with the Church’s teachings, just as heliocentrism and microbiology are not. So why is it such a problem?

 

[edwest2]

The problem has always been that the Church has not recognized polygenism, which means there was a population of hominids, of which Adam and Eve were a part. Adam and Eve were not part of a population of hominids that one undefined day, developed the neural capacity to determine right from wrong. We are told by some that because hominid brains reached a certain point, we could, in some undefined way, “recognize” God. There’s nothing in the Bible about that.

Those who love science ahead of God believe that somehow, “science” is informing the Church, when, in fact, the Church holds that:

A) God creates from nothing.

B) Original sin was the result of an act freely committed by our first parents.

C) That is why Jesus Christ was born, lived, died and rose from the dead.

Darwin wrote his Origin of Species in the mid 1800s, immediately suggesting that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Unfortunately, this completely fails to explain why there are still apes and monkeys.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Darwin wrote his Origin of Species in the mid 1800s, immediately suggesting that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Unfortunately, this completely fails to explain why there are still apes and monkeys.God bless,Ed

Ed, your note reminds of of something I find equally mystifying: my family came from European ancestry, so why on earth are there still Europeans?

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Abu, if there is a single mistake in the New York phone book, maybe the whole things is mistaken.

 

[drpmjhess]

On the other hand, if one is claming that God “set out the initial parameters” for life to unfold as we see it today, but that God “did not directly guide” the evolutionary processes that created life, then this is really not much different from deism either. See what I mean?

Ex Nihilo, I’m trying to understand how you view the process of life developing on earth. Does God intervene in creating every genetic variation? Or does God intervene only occasionally, such as by sending asteroids to change the environmental circumstances that apply selective pressures?

 

[drpmjhess]

I disagree with you. I wish to focus strickly on this particular comment of yours SpiritMeadow, “There is no incompatibility with God in evolution, it was the means apparently God used to evolve his creation.” SpiritMeadow, I’ve read that you are a panentheist and claim to be a Catholic. God isn’t in evolution.

Wildleafblower, you remind me of Joe McCarthy, the communist hunter. Except that instead of communists you see panentheists under every bed. They’re really after you, aren’t they? They know where you live, and they have long, sharp claws, and they roar their terrible roars and gnash their terrible teeth; that they do, where the panentheists live…

 

[drpmjhess]

What is the mechanism for evolution? How can random mutations make a superior product? We never see this in real life. How can anyone fall for this?

Quite false – we see it all the time. Bacteria are evolving antibiotic resistance. Rattlesnakes in the West are evolving stronger venom as their prey develops resistance to it.

You are also wrong to assume that evolution = progress. You are confusing a philosophical assumption about “evolution” when the term is used to describe human society, with “evolution” as it describes the differential survival of members of a given species, or of species in symbiosis.

Petrus

 

[wildleafblower]

Wildleafblower, you remind me of Joe McCarthy, the communist hunter. Except that instead of communists you see panentheists under every bed. They’re really after you, aren’t they? They know where you live, and they have long, sharp claws, and they roar their terrible roars and gnash their terrible teeth; that they do, where the panentheists live…
wildleafblower;2953186:

I disagree with you. I wish to focus strickly on this particular comment of yours SpiritMeadow, “There is no incompatibility with God in evolution, it was the means apparently God used to evolve his creation.” SpiritMeadow, I’ve read that you are a panentheist and claim to be a Catholic. God isn’t in evolution.

This is Theory of Evolution: evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

Intro to Evolution, Genetics and Molecular Biology

Petrus, FYI I wasn’t talking to you. However since you have decided to respond to me, you are rude, obnoxious, and obviously lack the ability to comprehend what I have written, neglecting to admit that as a Roman Catholic Theologian you claim to represent members of the Roman Catholic Church which you continually fail to do. And when you fail, you insult the intelligence of those who disagree with you that are Roman Catholic. Your disgraceful conduct is noted. You remind me of a playground bully, especially one who continuously enjoys taunting a woman (me) in a public forum. This is the first time in my entire life, in real life or in any group on the Interent, I’ve seen a man do this and what makes it horrible is it is you, a Roman Catholic Theologian! My opinion is that you get an an adrenalin high off of doing it which in truth feeds into a false sense masculinity of an over inflated ego. I ask you kindly Petrus, please leave me alone.

Again thanks Tim !

Thanks Tim for your post #1074 regarding Petrus (drpmjhess).

Alec, I hope you add this msg. 1134 to your new article!

 

[Orogeny]

Except that neither one dies. Both zygotes develop together and thrive throughout the life of the one “person,” as evidenced by the fact that tetragametic chimeras are histocompatible with both zygotic genomes. I don’t imagine you are arguing that one soul can die or disappear when the body into which it was infused is still alive.

Petrus

So you have a way to scientifically show that each has a soul? It may be that one dies from the standpoint that the soul leaves. It may also be that, since God knows what will be developing, one doesn’t get a soul. I don’t know the answer to this, but I don’t really worry about it either. My not knowing doesn’t really give me a reason to reject Church teaching.

You argue that the soul evolves, but unless you can show me that it is a physical substance, I challenge you to show me, using science not philosophy, the evolutionary history of the soul.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Again thanks Tim !

You are welcome.

Peace

Tim

 

[abu_kamoon]

Ed, your note reminds of of something I find equally mystifying: my family came from European ancestry, so why on earth are there still Europeans?

Petrus

Because your ancestors traveling to the U.S. did not evolve your family into a new species.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Abu, if there is a single mistake in the New York phone book, maybe the whole things is mistaken.

But the New York phone book is not reputed to be the Word of God.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Wildleafblower, you remind me of Joe McCarthy, the communist hunter. Except that instead of communists you see panentheists under every bed. They’re really after you, aren’t they? They know where you live, and they have long, sharp claws, and they roar their terrible roars and gnash their terrible teeth; that they do, where the panentheists live…

Here we go again! In case you haven’t heard, Joe McCarthy has been vindicated by the release of information when the Soviet Union collapsed. I can’t remember what these papers are called, but it begins with a V.

Incidentally, Joe McCarthy was reluctant to release the names of the suspected Communists until the federal government investigated them (which it never did). These papers also confirmed the guilt of Alger Hiss. Hiss has always been one of the “victims” of the “Communist witch hunt”. By the way, Joe McCarty had nothing to do with exposing Hiss. That was done by former Communist, Whittaker Chambers.

It looks like your history is as reliable as your science.