How evolution undermines Salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We’ve destroyed environments for apes as we have destroyed ourselves for resources. Modern man and apes are still here–no Lucy’s or Peking Man’s. They probably did not believe in birth control, but we do and we are still here (not to say birth control has not made nations and cultures vulnerable to destruction by more focused groups of peoples or peoples with a focused agenda–like the terrorists).
 
We’ve destroyed environments for apes as we have destroyed ourselves for resources. Modern man and apes are still here–no Lucy’s or Peking Man’s. They probably did not believe in birth control, but we do and we are still here (not to say birth control has not made nations and cultures vulnerable to destruction by more focused groups of peoples or peoples with a focused agenda–like the terrorists).
Foolishmortal,what is your point? That environmental destruction is bad? If so, I quite agree.

Petrus
 
“Lower” means nothing in biology. Chimps are highly advanced primates in their own right, as much as we are. They just advanced in a different direction. Not surprisingly, they can outdo us in a number of physical capacities and at least one mental capacity.
Did you see that thing on TV where chimps had much better memory than us? Their closest approximation was young kids. Totally freaked me out!
 
Did you see that thing on TV where chimps had much better memory than us? Their closest approximation was young kids. Totally freaked me out!
SpiritMeadow, could a chimp articulate a Mideast policy with greater clarity than the one we now have?
 
SpiritMeadow, could a chimp articulate a Mideast policy with greater clarity than the one we now have?
One of the disturbing things recently discovered about chimpanzee troops (not bonobos) is that they pretty much act like nations with regard to chimps of other troops.

I’m sure they would have approved of our Iraq policy, if they had been consulted. Their only criticism, I think, would be that we didn’t kill every member of the defeated group.

I guess we’re a little bit like bonobos, too.
 
I’m sure they would have approved of our Iraq policy, if they had been consulted. Their only criticism, I think, would be that we didn’t kill every member of the defeated group.I guess we’re a little bit like bonobos, too.
Is there a bonobo Al Qaeda or Taliban? Or is that faith-based behavior unique to humans?
 
Barbarian observes:
I’m sure they would have approved of our Iraq policy, if they had been consulted. Their only criticism, I think, would be that we didn’t kill every member of the defeated group.I guess we’re a little bit like bonobos, too.
Is there a bonobo Al Qaeda or Taliban?
Apparently not with bonobos. But every chimp troop is the Taliban with regard to outsiders. That is the normal way with most human societies to one degree or another. That evil is deeply ingrained in us. The good news is that there is also a bit of the bonobo in us (I mean that metaphorically; we did not evolve from either of those species)
Or is that faith-based behavior unique to humans?
Possibly not. Jane Goodall recorded instances, as in a blazing sunset, where the chimps were completely silenced and apparently in awe of it. So they may have faint glimmerings of the numinous. I doubt if they expect there to be gods or to use gods to justify their killings. That is pretty much a human thing, I think.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolishmortal
We’ve destroyed environments for apes as we have destroyed ourselves for resources. Modern man and apes are still here–no Lucy’s or Peking Man’s. They probably did not believe in birth control, but we do and we are still here (not to say birth control has not made nations and cultures vulnerable to destruction by more focused groups of peoples or peoples with a focused agenda–like the terrorists).
Foolishmortal,what is your point? That environmental destruction is bad? If so, I quite agree.

Petrus
My point is, we should all be dead as we seem quite self-destructive on massive levels, even. Primitive people didn't even have that technology. Primitive people today are probably only wiped out due to disease from foreigners, secular ideas from abroad and the UN's population control. Some insects can survive crazy environmental situations--why not some hearsay pre-human hominids? Can you prove there were earlier apes that all died out? If we still have apes, and man evolved from them, why, instead of some ape-men, did the apes not all die out if the environment called for their becoming some early man-like creature?
 
My point is, we should all be dead as we seem quite self-destructive on massive levels, even.
Mostly, not. You’ll notice that almost all societies are organized to maintain human life and activity. The self-destructive ones happen from time to time, but they self-destruct, leaving the ones that are wiser.
Can you prove there were earlier apes that all died out?
Sure. Gigantopithecus, Oropithecus, and Sivapithecus, for a few.
If we still have apes, and man evolved from them,
Humans didn’t evolve from apes, as they exist today. Humans and other apes have a common ancestor which was a much more generalized primate.
why, instead of some ape-men, did the apes not all die out if the environment called for their becoming some early man-like creature?
There were, as there are now, different environments. Some apes opted for the forests. Some ventured into the open. And not surprisingly, they evolved in different ways.
 
Why is an ape or gorilla giving a person a branch in a famous biology museum? If it’s not true, should it not be moved to an art gallery as a religious icon? Otherwise, that museum it’s in must be some religious temple. Can we really take it seriously if macroevolution was borne into a time of illuminati and freemasons trying to squelch religion and wipe out the “feeble-minded” and passed onto Stalinists and Hitlerites and adopted by the U.N. and its agencies? You actually cannot believe any other explanation could be out there? It took an evil king and three Zoroastrians to believe Jesus was a powerful king in infancy, whereas the Pharisees were not concerned at all until he made waves later because of their rottened-out version of Judaism that valued riches and human glory. I see the movers and shakers of evolution as the King Herods who had to get rid of the threat to their throne. Those who persecute non-believers of an unimportant-in-itself-to-man theory like evolution for being non-believers are like the Pharisees in that they may warn, when threatened, but go for your grant or job if questioned.

Science’s findings are to be questioned lest they become dogmas and thus, a new religion.
 
Why is an ape or gorilla giving a person a branch in a famous biology museum?
Never heard of it.
Otherwise, that museum it’s in must be some religious temple. Can we really take it seriously if macroevolution was borne into a time of illuminati and freemasons trying to squelch religion and wipe out the “feeble-minded” and passed onto Stalinists and Hitlerites and adopted by the U.N. and its agencies?
I’m getting the feeling that you’re loading a whole lot of personal anxieties onto science. You do know that Stalin officially denounced Darwinism, right? He was on your side.
You actually cannot believe any other explanation could be out there?
In science, evidence counts, not imagination.
Science’s findings are to be questioned lest they become dogmas and thus, a new religion.
That’s why evolutionary theory has been changed from time to time, when successfully challenged. Compare to creationism, which being a religion, never changes.
 
Naturalistic evolution is inextricably connected to a worldview that affects how persons view themselves and each other. It is disordered and mechanistic.

God bless,
Ed
 
Apes didn’t compete with humans until very recently, when people began large scale forest clearing.
Evolution in action. We are able to take the environment away from the apes and numerous other large animals, so it’s obvious that evolution has naturally selected those species for extinction. We are naturally selected to triumph. Survival of the strongest species which is able to adapt—us.
 
Evolution in action. We are able to take the environment away from the apes and numerous other large animals, so it’s obvious that evolution has naturally selected those species for extinction. We are naturally selected to triumph. Survival of the strongest species which is able to adapt—us.
Sounds good. :rolleyes: We’ll win because we’re better suited to survival. Evolution has guided us well. 😉
 
Actually, communism changes too. It’s called glasnost (it gives a friendly face to communism). Hitler did not believe in the League of Nations, but hate-mongering fascists there still send their goon squads to African nations to further the natural selection of evolution–your people. Long before Darwin and political communism, elitist organizations wanted to break up families and end any trace of religious observance, amongst other things. A false science called evolution, with no solid evidence that one species becomes another (but only having educated guesses, as Popes only know pre-dogmatic conclusions for sure, until their successful dogmatism makes them known as guided by God and 100% correct; an authority science doesn’t have) which is how the Church comes up with dogmas, came in real handy for that. Glasnost allowed well-to-do Catholics, well-intentioned or not, to bring about the Illuminati’s designs for them. Stalin did recognize the use of “useful idiots” who would carry out their designs with a Christian-friendly face. As such, many Catholics, even before Vatican 2, unfortunately, did and do vote for candidates who promote abortion and euthenasia outright, as long as their U.N. is giving food to the poor (though, to be fair, many conservatives think all conservative presidents are 100% trustworthy and/or God-fearing because they throw them a bone at times).
Slight changes in one’s understanding of macro-evolution is only a micro-evolution of the theory and thus, it still leaves us with a dogma that was and is successfully challenged by those who actually were believers in macro-evolution–not that the pride of believers in macro-evolution will be broken by this open-mindedness of real scientists. These real scientists must be discredited immediately to maintain the status quo, ego and/or legacies of many in organized science, Deacon Drmpjhess…
 
Excuse me, Deacon Barbarian–same naturalistic religion. There is a difference between theistic evolution being a false peace and being truly reasonable. The animosity toward any other origin of man possibilities than macroevolution pretty much puts one in the false peace camp; whereas Coast to Coast, despite welcoming those who play with demons by pagan practices, is reasonable even though they learn more toward an old earth and other poppycock philosophies indoctrinated upon the dopey, non-scientist masses by those who can say anything as scientists or even Catholic and/or otherwise Christian scientists (which adds the kind of trustworthiness ignorant good people give to any either Republican or Democrat), because they are “experts” and we common folk don’t know any better than to trust those slanderized and calumniated against, in many cases, I believe, as witch doctors posing-as-creationist-scientists. Maybe some are, but there is good reason evolutionists are not trusted as are not Washington politicians from the mother-district of the Masonic all seeing eye. I don’t recall Alex Jones being religious or not.
 
Ok those part of the halocaust of the eugenics programs in the U.N.'s and P.Parenthood’s killing fields are not technically “your people” (that was too tit for tat and probably slander), but you indirectly help the farce of these kind of people by disallowing any argument from certain groups. The rigid establishment is run by those who hated the rigid establishment of organized religion. You only help the new religion, even if you want God to be a part of their genesis story, by denouncing converts from the atheist’s nihilistic religion (and its general genesis story) who once adhered to their book. You help make their religion even more religious than what it was under atheistic eugenicists. Theistic evolutionists try to put God into macroevolution and quote popes and saints, while wanting His Church out when it’s not complying. God is together with His Church. God is truth and the Church, His bride, is universal. The Church has a right to decide upon science and everything else God created. It keeps heathens from establishing religions that set up institutes of false science.

Theistic evolution is just a protestant ship-abandoning of the barque of Darwin as macroevolution is a genesis book of an atheistic bible even if it isn’t directly at odds with dogmatic Church teaching, but then, neither is the modernist’s flying saucer-shaped church buildings. Wake up and smell the coming paganism. Who will be the savior for the gospel of the true atheists’ church: Gorbachev or Al Gore or maybe even the anti-christ?. He would be the Anti–CHRIST; who better to be their savior to fulfill the book of Macroevolution?
 
I have been thinking about this and realized that evolution undermines God’s plan of salvation.

There is nothing about evolution that says after man comes around evolution must stop, rather man must keep evolving as should everything else. At this point Jesus taking on human nature simply took on a stage of human evolution not a single once and for all defined human nature. Working both back in time and in to the future evolution means man isnt unique because at each extreme only semi-humans exist, for example where was the line drawn between monkey and man, and at what point was that individual created in God’s image? Monkeys are not created in God’s image, only full humans are. It also undermines the fact Adam was a unique individual but rather now he is simply the first of the monkey men with future men (and somehow women) evolving around him.

As for the future, what happens when man evolves into something else? They are no longer created in God’s image nor are they under the salvation plan.
Man, the decendant of Adam and Eve, never evolved from any other “thing” (lifeform) because man is not a particular-temporal lifeform. Just as all things in the universe, man is a “standing wave” in his physicality, but an immortality in his true existence.

Man has had various forms, all “cosmetic” and none changing our basic “man-ness”, but a pre-human proto-hominid was not “a man”, and man will never evolve into any form in which his “man-ness” will be destroyed.

The universe was created FOR man, and to have a universe with no MAN in it makes the universe unecessary. And, since we have been told that mankind WILL be “heaven-ized” (saved and resurrected), the “new heavens and new earth” will replace and destroy (obliterate) our current universe, but that “obliteration” of the old earth MIGHT be simply an “empty” universe spinning along with it’s present “physical laws” kept in “God’s back pocket” with no interaction with where resurrected man is the occupant.

In any case, lifeforms changing over time does NOT undermine salvation, because we know that lifeforms do change (dog breeding illustrates that quite well) and that “change” is CORRECTLY and SCIENTIFICALLY called “evolution”.

That some people choose to misuse the word “evolution” an make a religion of it doesn’t mean that true evolution isn’t evolution in reality.

The physical laws of this present universe have no bearing on man qua man, and no bearing on the pre-fall “time” or the post-fall “time”. Our “standing wave” will be “repopulated”, as it was at the fall, with some substance other than it had previously, at the resurrection, but man has always been and will always be man.
 
Excuse me, Deacon Barbarian–same naturalistic religion.
Creationism is naturalistic in the sense that it tries to use science to justify it’s doctrines. Bad idea.
There is a difference between theistic evolution being a false peace and being truly reasonable.
Theistic evolution is merely a religious doctrine that accepts God’s creation as it is. It is not science.
The animosity toward any other origin of man possibilities than macroevolution pretty much puts one in the false peace camp; whereas Coast to Coast, despite welcoming those who play with demons by pagan practices, is reasonable even though they learn more toward an old earth and other poppycock philosophies indoctrinated upon the dopey, non-scientist masses by those who can say anything as scientists or even Catholic and/or otherwise Christian scientists (which adds the kind of trustworthiness ignorant good people give to any either Republican or Democrat), because they are “experts” and we common folk don’t know any better than to trust those slanderized and calumniated against, in many cases, I believe, as witch doctors posing-as-creationist-scientists. Maybe some are, but there is good reason evolutionists are not trusted as are not Washington politicians from the mother-district of the Masonic all seeing eye. I don’t recall Alex Jones being religious or not.
Whoo… did you get that all out in one breath? I’m thinking that you’re way too worked up about this to think rationally about it.
It might be more productive for you to look at the evidence, instead of imagining Masonic Republican witch doctors or whatever.
 
Barbarian observes:
Apes didn’t compete with humans until very recently, when people began large scale forest clearing.
Evolution in action.
Humans are a very minor part of the problem for apes. The real killer was the colder, drier environment of of recent ages, which shrank forests and reduced the environment for apes. We may apply the coup de grace, but they were in trouble long before we became a threat.
We are able to take the environment away from the apes and numerous other large animals, so it’s obvious that evolution has naturally selected those species for extinction.
Maybe so. Large animals are particularly vulnerable to extinction.
We are naturally selected to triumph.
Maybe so. But bacteria rule. They are more diverse, successful and resistant to extinction than we are. Metazoans are a very high risk group.
Survival of the strongest species which is able to adapt—us.
“Strongest” has little to do with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top