If evolution theory were true

  • Thread starter Thread starter abcdefg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
steveandersen:
oh and (c) I’m an Ape not a monkey 😉
Click to expand...
I’m a human instead of an ape or a monkey. humans are mammals(not familiar with the defination of “primates”) but not apes or monkeys
 
40.png
AndyF:
How would you explain to a copper/stone age man the theory of DNA , or there was an animal the size of a 2 story house that once lived and took cubic yard chunks out if it’s prey, or genetic mutation,or a man was made from mud(primal matter),etc?

You would write a book in a such a way and reveal just what he can handle until he can formulate hypothesis and reason.

So,* voila*, we have what we have now. No big mystery really.

Andy
Click to expand...
Just tell them humans come from monkeys,apes etc if possible God make human souls and plant it in the monkeys. thus came the first man. Do you need DNA to explain this?

reasoning is OK but trying to reason while excluding God begins after the temptation of the snake
 
40.png
abcdefg:
Is question of whether individual life begins at conception or birth important to you? origin of species is the same.
Click to expand...
No. False analogy. I care about when individual life begins, not to have knowledge for its own sake, but because some people kill the unborn and deny they are human.

No one is denying the humanity of the human race, nor killing it before the creation of man. Therefore I am not required to believe that humanity was created at any one specificly defined historical instance. It is perfectly acceptable in the Church’s eyes to believe that man was created some 6,000 years ago, or 6,000,000 years ago.
40.png
abcdefg:
It’s taken as official Church position since St Peter and taught generation after generation.unlike flat earth which has no theology base, this one directly concerns God. what’s your understanding of the word “Tradition”. PP Piux X’s teaching condemns adjusting theology to suit contemporary culture. tell me what you think about it. use the translator from google to read it if you can’t understand Italian.
Click to expand...
The Church does not require us to reject science.
 
40.png
rossum:
A small point, I accept evolution rather than believe in it. I see evidence for evolution so I have no need for belief.

As to your main question, firstly Genesis uses the language available at the time. What was the ancient hebrew for genotype, allopatric speciation or deoxyribonucleic acid? The required vocabulary to explain evolution was not available then. Genesis is scripture, not a science textbook, and is written using the vocabulary available in 1200 BCE - 100 CE.

Secondly, there are a large number of different interpretations of the Bible around at the moment. Many people are currently being “fooled” by incorrect interpretations. Why do you think that things would have been any different in the past? The Bible is written in such a way that it always has allowed many different interpretations, not just of Genesis.

rossum
Click to expand...
Just one question: Did Rome have any different interpretation of Genesis before modern evolution theory?Theology isn’t about “evolution”
 
40.png
Isidore_AK:
The younger brother is Moses…
Click to expand...
at the beginning of an olympic meeting Brezhnev delivered a speech “O…O…O…O…” an aide ran near and whispered “Mr Brezhnev, these are Olympic rings not O, you don’t have to read them out”
 
40.png
Della:
I’m no scientist, but I have read a few things, both metaphysical and scientific, and what works for me is the idea that God “wrote the program” into nature that made it possible for various forms of life to emerge. I believe he guided the process as its Creator just as a modern programmer does on the computer. There’s no jumping in artificially in what God does, but rather a refining and molding of the processes of nature in order to bring about all He wished to exist. Does that sound about right to our scientifically-minded folks here? Our religiously-minded folks? Or am I way off either way?
Click to expand...
I’m afraid this appeals to neither kind. it’s a deism belief that God made the rules and let them run without further interference
 
Steve and Vern:

Please send me some info on the irrefutable scientific proof that the human eye has evolved 40 or more times. I have never came across it.

Thanks in advance.

in XT.
 
40.png
abcdefg:
I’m a human instead of an ape or a monkey. humans are mammals(not familiar with the defination of “primates”) but not apes or monkeys
Click to expand...
You’re correct that we are not monkeys. And neither are gorrillas. But humans, monkeys, and gorrillas are all apes. Why would that be offensive when the broader category of mammal is not offensive to you?
 
40.png
petra:
You’re correct that we are not monkeys. And neither are gorrillas. But humans, monkeys, and gorrillas are all apes. Why would that be offensive when the broader category of mammal is not offensive to you?
Click to expand...
word “ape” generally refers to non-humans. if you want to discuss biology use “Hominidae”
Anybody wants, I can call him ape everytime.
 
a) It isn’t important to the message and
(b) Even in the 21st century with the aid of molecular biology and genetics we have people who have trouble grasping the principles of evolution so why would Jesus or Moses muddy the waters by trying to explain such concepts to a pre-industrial people?
Click to expand...
A reminder of the topic

explain to me: Why God thinks how human is made is unimportant and how do you know God thinks it’s unimportant?

you don’t need molecular biology and genetics to explain evolution thoery as clearly shown in quite a few posts.
 
40.png
Della:
I’m no scientist, but I have read a few things, both metaphysical and scientific, and what works for me is the idea that God “wrote the program” into nature that made it possible for various forms of life to emerge. I believe he guided the process as its Creator just as a modern programmer does on the computer. There’s no jumping in artificially in what God does, but rather a refining and molding of the processes of nature in order to bring about all He wished to exist. Does that sound about right to our scientifically-minded folks here? Our religiously-minded folks? Or am I way off either way?
Click to expand...
Hi Della,

My view is similar…I think that God coded creation to develop along predetermined boundaries, but the process was not completely deterministic. There was some wiggle room allowed through some degree of random chance, but it was not purely random, as atheists suggest. I also believe that God has been personally and intimately involved in the process, while not interfering with this randomness.

I see strong parallels with how He relates to creation and how He relates to people. He is sovereign, but does not violate our free will. He can choose to exert influence upon us (actual graces), but our choices are ours. The wild card of human choices creates some degree of flexibility in how history will unfold, although in the big picture, things are unfolding as God has sovereignly willed.

Similarly, God created laws of physics that drastically limited the kind of universe that could result and stacked the deck in favor of life. I am of the view that all of the necessary genetic information for every species was implanted in the first 1-celled organism and that traits became expressed through simulus from environment plus some degree of randomness. The scientific community now believes that changes in species were not gradual as previously thought, but were relatively punctuated. Sudden changes in environment would be a catalyst for these changes. If all the information was already there, a narrow range of randomness could “find its way” to improved physical features that are better suited to the new environment.

Although we can’t scientifically test for God’s involvement in creation, analogous to actual graces in the lives of people, there is definitely room for Him to work and “nudge” without overriding physical laws, nor the limited randomness that He allows. As a layperson, I’ve been reading a bit about quantum mechanics (John Polkinghorne), and that may well be the realm of God’s intimate nudgings upon creation.

I don’t know whether it was this thread or another, but someone mentioned that he sees beauty in evolution (theistic evolution, that is). I completely agree. The more I learn, the more intimate I see that this process has been. It has been a work of love, and like His love for us, He has allowed creation to express itself it a way that is not purely deterministic.
 
40.png
abcdefg:
word “ape” generally refers to non-humans. if you want to discuss biology use “Hominidae”
Anybody wants, I can call him ape everytime.
Click to expand...
According to Widipedia (your citation), Hominids means “the great apes,” which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

So I’ll ask you again: why is it not offensive to you that humans are said to be mammals, while it is offensive that humans are said to be apes?
 
alright ape. I don’t study biology for a living and I’m willing to force my will on anyone. I’m a hominidae. don’t call me an ape, OK?
 
  1. How do one reconcile the order of creation described in the Bible with the one described by evolution theory?
 
<< (4) How do one reconcile the order of creation described in the Bible with the one described by evolution theory? >>

EASY. Read John Paul II and tell me what you think this means:

“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

John Paul II says: “don’t worry about the order, Genesis is not a scientific treatise.” Cardinal Ratzinger / Benedict XVI says the same. The evolution order is invertebrates, vertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, primates and man. What’s to reconcile?

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top