If Macro Evolution is true, Should we let the Sin begin?

[TruthisBeauty7]

A house divided cannot stand. This View almost makes God into the practical Joke Business.

Like …Im going to give you a body that was formed out of evolutionary process that took millions and millions of years, then place a soul within you that will run totally contradictory to it.

How can you really Blame Adam for The first Sin, how can you really blame us for any sin. Its Evolution baby. If we come from animals that eat each other, that mate with numerous partners, then we shouldnt expect to be Christians.

I disagree with My Pope what can I tell you. I know everyone of you is going to listen to him then you will me, so be it. But I just disagree, I don’t see how you can reconcile Macro Evolution and then ask man to be moral. It makes zero sense to me .

I totally reject Macro Evolution on its incomplete Fossil Record and that its not compatiable to the very dignity of man.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Thank you for the explanation. Now that we know your reasoning for your conclusion we have something to work with.

Listen I dont have some sort of agenda here. Im trying to really understand this question.

Im not saying to accept Evolution means you have to become an atheist. Im saying if you do accept Macro Evolution you need to change your concept of God. You will have to be some sort of deist.

So your thesis is that if macroevolution is correct then there is no room for a personal God. I want to make sure I understand your correctly so that in my rebuttal I don’t set myself up to attack straw. Your claim is one of definition, evident by the qualifier “have to” and is further clarified by this:

I was at Church alittle while ago and I came to the conclusion that I can’t accept Macro Evolution . If I did I would lose my faith totally and would fall into deism.

I, even as a Christian, can concede that the theory of evolution makes a personal God unnecessary, though not impossible. You on the other hand are saying that the theory of evolution makes a personal God both unnecessary and impossible. Consequently, I’ll do my best to address only the latter point.

Here’s My Main Points if we believe in Evolution. 1.Christian Morality Can’t be expected to be upheld when are very evolutionary design which was bred into us over a course of millions and millions of years totally contradicts it.

What do you mean by “Christian Morality”? Is it the “thou shalt not kill” part, or the “thou shalt have no other gods before me part”? The former is universally understood as an issue of morality, and indeed we even see other primates adhere to a very crude sense of such. This type of ‘morality’ is a character of our species (and one could even argue for our genus). The latter is a tenet of Judaism and Christianity, which owes its existence to divine revelation. No one has ever claimed such ‘morality’ to be ingrained in human beings.

You can say it has nothing to do with morality but how can you separate how man became from what man ought to be? Its like your saying God , messed up in his own design.

Ah! But why should we presume to know God’s intended design? You seem to be coming from the vantage point of God continually creating, messing up, and going back to the drawing board to create an even bigger and better creature. Let’s switch the paradigm up a bit: What if we view evolution itself as the means by which the creator creates? In this case God is not yet finished sculpting our anatomical features? There’s another possibility: Who’s to say God has any desire to have the human body conform to an ideal? What if we humans were to eventually evolve a third eye, reacquire our body hair, lose our nails and grow claws, etc? Are there any implications for such on the human soul or on the mind? Would we still not be moral creatures and we not still desire God?

Do you all understand when im saying your not being Congruent. What I mean is to me you can’t say Yes man was a single cell organism , transformed in 40,000 other species until he became human through the process of natural selection, survival of the fitess and then just competly ignore evolutionary morality for one that totally contradicts it like christian morality.

But you still haven’t demonstrated how the evolution of populations actually contradicts morality you mere claim that it does.

My point is you cant seperate how man became, his very origins the process of his origins and then give him a totally different set of rules, a set of morals , a set of behaviors aka Christianity.

Ah to the contrary! Thanks to the evolution that our species took (whether you wish to believe it was actively directed by God, indirectly so, or not at all) we have the capability to know right and wrong and consequently we can build, understand, and respond to a moral framework. You say that we cannot be held accountable to a sense of morality simply because we descended from a proteobacterium some 3.7 billion years ago. What you fail to recognize is that unlike the proteobacterium, we have a brain, we have consciousness, we harbor empathy, and most importantly, we’re a social species. Now that we’ve evolved the capability for morality, we are held responsible to it. The earthworm, who descended from the same proteobacterium, however has only a brain-like structure, no consciousness, no evidence of empathy, and is far from a social creature. In this case, there’s no reason to hold such a creature to moral standard (if any moral standard at all) tantamount to ours.

Similarly, you wouldn’t say “Since we all started out in life as know-nothing babies, we surely cannot be expected to act like reasonable adults. You cannot separate the man from the baby from whence he came after all!”

<>

 

[xixxvmcm85]

<>

You can say God was behind this all you want, but then you must question what sort of God he is? Is he really that concerned about us? Evolution is a self sustaining mechanism.

This all depends on one’s vantage point. Remember, I already conceded that a personal God is not necessary, however you are arguing that a personal God is impossible in light of macroevolution.

What sort of God is he?
The atheist says he’s a nonexistent one.
You say he’s an impersonal one.
I say he’s a personal one.

Is he really concerned about us?
You say he isn’t.
I say he is.

Evolution is a self sustaining mechanism.
You believe this demonstrates that God is now asleep at the wheel.
I believe it demonstrates the super-genius status of the universe’s greatest biologist ever: AKA God.

We’ve now left the realm of science and find ourselves in personal feelings. Just as two different observers can look at the exact same painting and experience diametrically opposed feelings in response to the painting, so too the creation seems to evoke different feelings from different observers.

You still have not made your case that accepting macroevolution makes a personal God impossible.

To me the question about how man became , is tied into what man is , what man should be and do… Do you understand my reasoning here?

If our ancestors are Monkeys then we shouldnt have something like marriage. It takes a village…etc

I already addressed this type of reasoning earlier in this post, and quite frankly, the more you use it, the more foolish it apparently becomes. You claim that since we evolved complexity, we should live our lives as if we never acquired such complexity. Is this correct?

If so, doesn’t this negate the very purpose of such an evolution in the first place? Where do you draw the line? We evolved intelligence that an amoeba lacks, should we forgo the intelligence that we possess simply because our ancestors didn’t have it?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Like …Im going to give you a body that was formed out of evolutionary process that took millions and millions of years, then place a soul within you that will run totally contradictory to it.

You keep claiming this but you haven’t once explained how our anatomy is at odds with being moral.

How can you really Blame Adam for The first Sin, how can you really blame us for any sin. Its Evolution baby. If we come from animals that eat each other, that mate with numerous partners, then we shouldnt expect to be Christians.

Again, you suggest that we actually forgo the evolutionary advantages we have (such as morality, intelligence, and a social framework) simply because our bodies came from a species that lacked such. Not only have you not shown us why this should be, but it actually (in your own terms) “contradicts the body that we have, formed from the evolutionary process”

Riddle me this: We have evolved the capability to be moral, why in your mind is it ideal that we forgo it?

I disagree with My Pope what can I tell you. I know everyone of you is going to listen to him then you will me, so be it. But I just disagree, I don’t see how you can reconcile Macro Evolution and then ask man to be moral. It makes zero sense to me .

I will listen to reason, not necessarily what the Pope says. I’ve given you numerous chances to explain your reasoning, but just as above you merely appeal to your personal incredulity. This isn’t convincing at all.

I totally reject Macro Evolution on its incomplete Fossil Record and that its not compatiable to the very dignity of man.

I must say, those are two very foolish reasons to reject the theory of evolution. The fossil record is expected to be incomplete due to the very improbable conditions by which a corpse is fossilized. Nonetheless there are countless other forms of evidence that solidify the conclusion. To reject the theory out of hand due to the lack of evidence * in the area of weakest evidence while completely ignoring other morphological evidence* only shows that you’re not looking for truth, rather you’re looking to be validated. Furthermore, the latter part of your reasoning for rejecting macroevolution demonstrates you only wish to be validated. We don’t reject science merely due to its implications. This is yet another logical fallacy: Affirming the Consequent.

 

[rtconstant]

Like others here I think that you begin with a flawed premise. I don’t think its in the fact that you find macro evolution incompatible to Christianity, I think that is just a symptom. I think that you mistake is in how you are viewing God and morality. Many Christians view God’s moral law as arbitrary and designed “just because”. This isn’t the case. God’s moral law is there for our benefit not to chain us down.

Things like fidelity to one’s spouse are good for us, not just a rule. Human young stay frail much longer than other creatures. We also draw deep emotional strength from our communities. Humans also do not have the speed, and strength of other predators. Yet I think it can be safely said that no other species on earth has been as successful in every direction as humanity. We nurture our young, and protect our mates, and encourage them to greater heights. Fidelity and loyalty to mates, family, friends, and community allow us to build upon experiences of the group and our forebears. So unlike other creatures who adapt to their immediate surroundings, we adapt and flourish in almost all of the surface area of the earth.

Avoiding things like theft and murder, allow us to keep an atmosphere of peace, comfort and safety in our communities which lends itself to a more open atmosphere for the sharing of ideas for mutual benefit. Honoring our elders helps to keep the wisdom and mistakes of those with the most experience fresh and at the disposal of the young. Keeping the Sabath gives us at least one day out of seven to stop, rest, rejuvenate and not let ourselves get worn down.

Even larger moral issues like aversion to genocide has a larger evolutionary benefits. Removal of entire populations not only destroys massive stores of knowledge, but also weakens the gene-pool over all. Our morality allows us a luxury no other species has. We don’t have to just breed for the physical power. As humanity draws value from all our members, even those who have physical weaknesses. Stephen Hawkins cannot walk, yet what a powerful mind. In any other species he would have long since been dead. But in humanity he not only thrives, but is respected.

God’s rules for the ethical treatment of our fellow man, stewardship of our the gifts of this world. Aren’t there to appease some sense of control on His part. They are there to help us survive and thrive.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

Thank you for the explanation. Now that we know your reasoning for your conclusion we have something to work with.

So your thesis is that if macroevolution is correct then there is no room for a personal God. I want to make sure I understand your correctly so that in my rebuttal I don’t set myself up to attack straw. Your claim is one of definition, evident by the qualifier “have to” and is further clarified by this:

**Im not saying he cant be personal per say, but rather you must change your concept of God’s nature, or embrace deism. **
I, even as a Christian, can concede that the theory of evolution makes a personal God unnecessary, though not impossible. You on the other hand are saying that the theory of evolution makes a personal God both unnecessary and impossible. Consequently, I’ll do my best to address only the latter point.

Im not saying that, Im saying this isn’t the God of Christianity.

What do you mean by “Christian Morality”? Is it the “thou shalt not kill” part, or the “thou shalt have no other gods before me part”? The former is universally understood as an issue of morality, and indeed we even see other primates adhere to a very crude sense of such. This type of ‘morality’ is a character of our species (and one could even argue for our genus). The latter is a tenet of Judaism and Christianity, which owes its existence to divine revelation. No one has ever claimed such ‘morality’ to be ingrained in human beings.

When I say Christian Morality…Im simply saying Love thy neighbor as yourself, and God with all thy heart.

Ah! But why should we presume to know God’s intended design? You seem to be coming from the vantage point of God continually creating, messing up, and going back to the drawing board to create an even bigger and better creature. Let’s switch the paradigm up a bit: What if we view evolution itself as the means by which the creator creates? In this case God is not yet finished sculpting our anatomical features? There’s another possibility: Who’s to say God has any desire to have the human body conform to an ideal? What if we humans were to eventually evolve a third eye, reacquire our body hair, lose our nails and grow claws, etc? Are there any implications for such on the human soul or on the mind? Would we still not be moral creatures and we not still desire God?

**To me this is the whole problem with evolution, its just plain weird . There’s no solid grounding of what man was in his past or what he will be in the future. I will say my vantage point is that God doesnt make mistakes, we do, and then he supplies grace for correction and betterment. **

But you still haven’t demonstrated how the evolution of populations actually contradicts morality you mere claim that it does.

**Im simply stating that man cannot be held accountable for a morality if the way he was formed came about in a way that runs totally contradictive to morality. I cannot Seperate Man’s body and Soul , as if man is divided into halves, man is one unified being as his Maker is. **

Ah to the contrary! Thanks to the evolution that our species took (whether you wish to believe it was actively directed by God, indirectly so, or not at all) we have the capability to know right and wrong and consequently we can build, understand, and respond to a moral framework. You say that we cannot be held accountable to a sense of morality simply because we descended from a proteobacterium some 3.7 billion years ago. What you fail to recognize is that unlike the proteobacterium, we have a brain, we have consciousness, we harbor empathy, and most importantly, we’re a social species. Now that we’ve evolved the capability for morality, we are held responsible to it. The earthworm, who descended from the same proteobacterium, however has only a brain-like structure, no consciousness, no evidence of empathy, and is far from a social creature. In this case, there’s no reason to hold such a creature to moral standard (if any moral standard at all) tantamount to ours.

**Your saying we evolved to a new level of being so now we can be moral. Your basically now saying the soul evolved as well. This sorta sounds like a form of pantheism. My point here is that if the laws of evolution brought us about, and were apart of an evolutionary mechanism, then we can’t expect to be moral because the process that brought us into what we are isn’t moral or just. I see an intimate connection tied to how we came about into what we are and should be. Your saying well now were this way so its different and we have a whole new set of rules. To me that is not congrugent and I cannot accept it. **

Similarly, you wouldn’t say “Since we all started out in life as know-nothing babies, we surely cannot be expected to act like reasonable adults. You cannot separate the man from the baby from whence he came after all!”

**Coming from a Christian Viewpoint of course ,The difference here is Babies are born with a Soul made in the image and likeness of God, his very nature innately knows right and wrong. As he grows he comes to better understand and grasp what his behavior should be, he matures. **

<>

 

[TheQuestioner]

How can you really Blame Adam for The first Sin, how can you really blame us for any sin. Its Evolution baby. If we come from animals that eat each other, that mate with numerous partners, then we shouldn’t expect to be Christians.

ahhh there it is. Those words you used reveal that you do not have a complete understanding of theistic evolution, and also you lack an understanding of the state of humanity before the fall.

If you had a good understanding of it you would know that adherents to the Catholic understanding of theistic evolution are required to believe that Adam committed the original sin. God had guided human evolution to the point where he believed his creation was ready to receive a soul. When he created the soul (which was not subject to evolution) Adam was born in a ‘glorified’ state (not the same as a glorified body i believe). Thus he was not subject to the sins and wrongful desires that we are.

“The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ” (CCC 374).

It was only after the original sin that we became subject to all the wanton needs and desires that plague all of human kind. Thus to say “how can you blame Adam?” is an uninformed statement as you are assuming that just because he was a product of evolution Adam was just the same as any other animal or that he was subject to the same sinful desires as we are today before the fall. God made Adam “good”. Adam ruined that goodness. Jesus restored it 100 fold.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

If you had a good understanding of it you would know that adherents to the Catholic understanding of theistic evolution are required to believe that Adam committed the original sin. God had guided human evolution to the point where he believed his creation was ready to receive a soul. When he created the soul (which was not subject to evolution) Adam was born in a ‘glorified’ state (not the same as a glorified body i believe). Thus he was not subject to the sins and wrongful desires that we are.

I understand exactly what your all saying, I disagree. Ive said why numerous times

“The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ” (CCC 374).

It was only after the original sin that we became subject to all the wanton needs and desires that plague all of human kind. Thus to say “how can you blame Adam?” is an uninformed statement as you are assuming that just because he was a product of evolution Adam was just the same as any other animal or that he was subject to the same sinful desires as we are today before the fall. God made Adam “good”. Adam ruined that goodness. Jesus restored it 100 fold.

Im showing why I believe evolution is incompatiable with Christian theology. You guys are trying to it make it fit when it doesnt at all.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Im showing why I believe evolution is incompatiable with Christian theology. You guys are trying to it make it fit when it doesnt at all.

How does what i posted not fit with Christian theology? Please explain any loop holes.

 

[kalt]

If you had a good understanding of it you would know that adherents to the Catholic understanding of theistic evolution are required to believe that Adam committed the original sin. God had guided human evolution to the point where he believed his creation was ready to receive a soul. When he created the soul (which was not subject to evolution) Adam was born in a ‘glorified’ state (not the same as a glorified body i believe). Thus he was not subject to the sins and wrongful desires that we are.

I understand exactly what your all saying, I disagree. Ive said why numerous times

“The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ” (CCC 374).

It was only after the original sin that we became subject to all the wanton needs and desires that plague all of human kind. Thus to say “how can you blame Adam?” is an uninformed statement as you are assuming that just because he was a product of evolution Adam was just the same as any other animal or that he was subject to the same sinful desires as we are today before the fall. God made Adam “good”. Adam ruined that goodness. Jesus restored it 100 fold.

Im showing why I believe evolution is incompatiable with Christian theology. You guys are trying to it make it fit when it doesnt at all.

We, also, understand what you’re saying and disgree. We don’t think that you’ve proven the point you made - that God and evolution are incompatible. We think that you are trying to make it not fit when it does.

 

[dzheremi]

I will say this, for TruthisBeauty7’s benefit:

If our understanding of evolution were that it denies the Creator, either in necessity or in actual fact (in other words, if evolution ‘made’ God either unnecessary or impossible), then no Catholic in their right mind would for a second entertain the idea. Then it would truly be poisonous, as you claim it is, and to be rejected by every believing Christian. To the extent that there are understandings of evolution that claim to do so, I reject those understandings completely and totally, and I always will.

However, there are understandings of evolution from which it does not follow that there is no God, or that there needn’t be a God, or that God is henceforth an impossibility, or that God is not, in fact, all powerful. Such understandings that have been called in this thread “theistic evolution” are permissable within Catholicism to the extent that they do not in any way shake or deform the faith of the Catholic in the reality of the Creator, who after all stands above and beyond and and all human theories, past, present, or future.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Im not saying he cant be personal per say, but rather you must change your concept of God’s nature, or embrace deism.

How is his nature changed by whether macroevolution is true?

Im not saying that, Im saying this isn’t the God of Christianity.

How so? What specifically is it about macroevolution that alters, negates, or defines the “God of Christianity” as impossible?

When I say Christian Morality…Im simply saying Love thy neighbor as yourself, and God with all thy heart.

Again, how is this negated by macroevolution?

To me this is the whole problem with evolution, its just plain weird . There’s no solid grounding of what man was in his past or what he will be in the future. I will say my vantage point is that God doesnt make mistakes, we do, and then he supplies grace for correction and betterment.

You completely glossed over my point in that post. Why is it that you assume that God has actually “made mistakes”? What is it about our anatomy and morphology that says anything at all about our spirits, our morality? You’ve drawn the dots but you still haven’t connected them.

Im simply stating that man cannot be held accountable for a morality if the way he was formed came about in a way that runs totally contradictive to morality.

Again, simply saying this without qualifying your assertion is baseless. How does our accountability to being moral change simply because our ideas of how the morphology of our species came to be? Again, from my last post. How would our having three eyes, an extra toe, reverting to having fur or claws in any way say anything at all about our morality?

I cannot Seperate Man’s body and Soul , as if man is divided into halves, man is one unified being as his Maker is.

That’s fine, but you must explain why it is the physical characteristics of our bodies have any effect on our morality (save for the obvious capability of being moral). Again, dubious things such as the number of digits, eyes, height, hair, skin color, hormones, protein synthesis, and the such; what do any of these things say about our spirituality? Does the fact that we are indeed a social, ethical species change whether we were created instantaneously by God or if we were developed by God over billions of years?

You claim there are implications here, yet you don’t actually offer those implications! I can understand if the theory simply makes you “uncomfortable”, but please understand that this isn’t an argument.

Your saying we evolved to a new level of being so now we can be moral. Your basically now saying the soul evolved as well.

No, I never said that. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. As such, it can only postulate hypotheses about our physical, material existence. The soul by definition is immaterial and can only exist with respect to a dualistic philosophy. If you embrace such a philosophy, as I do, then its nonsensical to speak of “the soul evolving”. That is inherently a pseudoscientific assumption. Science is a system of falsification, and it can only falsify material hypotheses. The “soul” being immaterial is unfalsifiable and so is not a matter that science can address.

What I did say is that there are certain physical components necessary for morality, sociability, and most importantly a true sense of consciousness; namely a brain with a cerebral cortex. We know that these are necessary due to the consequences of trauma to the brain (Phineas Gage is the oldest, classic textbook example with respect to inhibition).

The soul on the other hand? I don’t know, since as I stated earlier; it is untestable. One could come up with a number of possible explanations to how the soul arose and none would contradict science as none actually deal in the scientific domain! As the physical body evolved, the soul could very well be endowed at a given moment. Natural selection works on diversity in phenotype. Diversity in phenotype arises due to mutation in one’s DNA. The only possible way for the soul to be subject to the rules of natural selection would be to assume it has DNA upon which natural selection could select. By doing so, you immediately redefine the soul as a material object, which then begs the question whether such a material object even exists. This is precisely why it’s nonsensical to speak of the soul evolving.

<>

 

[xixxvmcm85]

<>

This sorta sounds like a form of pantheism.

I don’t see how. Pantheism is the belief that matter is itself God, and so everything in the universe is also God (Pan = all, Theos = God). I haven’t in any way espoused this belief. Matter is not God. Matter is matter. God is God. God is the creator and so by definition resides outside the creation (i.e. the material world). All I’m proposing is that accepting that the morphology of living things evolves over time due to natural forces in no way negates the idea of an extramaterial deity or an extramaterial soul.

My point here is that if the laws of evolution brought us about, and were apart of an evolutionary mechanism, then we can’t expect to be moral because the process that brought us into what we are isn’t moral or just.

I think I’m beginning to see from whence you’re coming. You are assuming (as you asked earlier in this post) that the soul itself is a material object which is likewise subject to natural selection. Is this correct? If so, I believe I adequately addressed this a paragraph or two up. I’d be more than happy to clarify if it needs clarification.

If you aren’t assuming that the soul is material and subject to natural selection, then I don’t quite understand your above point. The “laws of evolution” (as you put them) dictate how our material bodies came to be. For morality (or any other form of cognition) to exist, sentience must also exist. Non-sentient entities are amoral indeed. Natural selection (which is neither moral nor an entity) dictates how our populations physically evolve. The results are our physical bodies which likewise are amoral. Does the heart have morals? What about our lungs? What about the circulatory system? The reproductive system? Do you see how silly this all sounds?

I see an intimate connection tied to how we came about into what we are and should be. Your saying well now were this way so its different and we have a whole new set of rules. To me that is not congrugent and I cannot accept it.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. What I’m saying is that the nature of our physical bodies is (pardon the pun) immaterial to our morality (save for the basic physical entities necessary for such: our brains). We indeed have the capacity for morality, so we are indeed subject to it. Henceforth, it doesn’t matter how the rest of our physical bodies evolve. I’ll repeat from my previous post: Would it matter if we were to evolve a third eye, lose our nails for claws or our hair for fur? How would any of that imply anything at all on our morality?

Coming from a Christian Viewpoint of course ,The difference here is Babies are born with a Soul made in the image and likeness of God, his very nature innately knows right and wrong. As he grows he comes to better understand and grasp what his behavior should be, he matures.

So how does this analogy differ with respect to the evolution of populations? Your basic thesis was that the state from whence we came should dictate how we conduct ourselves in a matured state. Look at the title of your thread! “… Should we let the Sin begin?” Similarly I ask you, using your paradigm, should we walk around naked, and defecate when its convenient just as we did when we were babies?

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

However, there are understandings of evolution from which it does not follow that there is no God, or that there needn’t be a God, or that God is henceforth an impossibility, or that God is not, in fact, all powerful. Such understandings that have been called in this thread “theistic evolution” are permissable within Catholicism to the extent that they do not in any way shake or deform the faith of the Catholic in the reality of the Creator, who after all stands above and beyond and and all human theories, past, present, or future.

This is exactly my point . It must alter one’s perception of not only God but of your very self and that of your fellowman.

 

[dzheremi]

Frankly, I’m out of ways to try to explain to you what is wrong with these threads. It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in the portion of my post that you are quoting that suggests that evolution “must” make anyone change their position on any moral or religious matter, as again, evolution does not make religious or moral claims.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

How is his nature changed by whether macroevolution is true?

I** Said your concept of God’s nature must change not that God ever changes. **

How so? What specifically is it about macroevolution that alters, negates, or defines the “God of Christianity” as impossible?

How many different ways to I need to say this?

Again, how is this negated by macroevolution?

Again.!

You completely glossed over my point in that post. Why is it that you assume that God has actually “made mistakes”? What is it about our anatomy and morphology that says anything at all about our spirits, our morality? You’ve drawn the dots but you still haven’t connected them.

**God doesnt make mistakes we do, as we see demonstrated by your dogmatic stand on Macro Evolution. Im not talking about our biological makeup, Im talking about how we came to be, this is entirely a different statement. Your confusing my statement with human anatomy, Im talking about what man is as a single being , and if he sprung from an evolutionary process then he should not be asked to be moral. Because Evolution isn’t Moral, it isn’t fair, it isnt just, it isnt love. You say well God implanted the soul , I dont see how you seperate man’s soul from his body. Again man is one unified being, unless your a gnostic of course. **

Again, simply saying this without qualifying your assertion is baseless. How does our accountability to being moral change simply because our ideas of how the morphology of our species came to be? Again, from my last post. How would our having three eyes, an extra toe, reverting to having fur or claws in any way say anything at all about our morality?

Again your confusing my statements, Im not talking about this at all, your looking at the end of things , Im looking at the process of things , and if were apart of the natural process of an evoltionary mechanism, then we must abide by this evolutionary creation.

Does the fact that we are indeed a social, ethical species change whether we were created instantaneously by God or if we were developed by God over billions of years?

**Yes it does. Because its tied into man’s dignity, and the fact he’s made in the very image and likeness of God, not an ape or a single cell organism which then transformed 40,000 times until it became a man. I see Evolution as attacking the dignity of man. **

You claim there are implications here, yet you don’t actually offer those implications! I can understand if the theory simply makes you “uncomfortable”, but please understand that this isn’t an argument.

**
Ive giving my reasons, I think its my reasons that make you uncomfortable not that I havent shown logical implications**.

What I did say is that there are certain physical components necessary for morality, sociability, and most importantly a true sense of consciousness; namely a brain with a cerebral cortex. We know that these are necessary due to the consequences of trauma to the brain (Phineas Gage is the oldest, classic textbook example with respect to inhibition).

Do angels have a material Brains? Ive just proven you wrong unless you dont believe in such nonsense as angels of course.

 

[LilyM]

How is his nature changed by whether macroevolution is true?

I****

Well, given that you haven’t even said it once … at least not coherently

**God doesnt make mistakes we do, as we see demonstrated by your dogmatic stand on Macro Evolution. Im not talking about our biological makeup, Im talking about how we came to be, this is entirely a different statement. Your confusing my statement with human anatomy, Im talking about what man is as a single being , and if he sprung from an evolutionary process then he should not be asked to be moral. Because Evolution isn’t Moral, it isn’t fair, it isnt just, it isnt love. You say well God implanted the soul , I dont see how you seperate man’s soul from his body. Again man is one unified being, unless your a gnostic of course. **

But man’s body DID change form drastically even if you take Genesis utterly literally - he began as a lump of formless clay and God changed that formless clay into man. You must admit a human body is VERY different from a lump of clay, no matter how the difference came about.

And I can just as blithely assert that if humankind has been formed from the clay and our bodies are truly united to our souls (tell that to those in heaven currently awaiting the resurrection of their bodies, eh!) then we shouldn’t be asked to be moral either - clay has no morality, after all.

If your logic is to be consistent then you should demand that we be treated like the clay we came from, no? And I can assert just as blithely as you that the process of fashioning us from clay isn’t moral, isn’t fair, isn’t just, isn’t love. What does the assertion mean anyway? It’s just an emotive motherhood statement with no evidence to back it up.

We are indeed unique but it isn’t our bodies that make us so, except that Christ chose to post facto honour humanity by coming to earth in our form.

Again, simply saying this without qualifying your assertion is baseless. How

does our accountability to being moral change simply because our ideas of how the morphology of our species came to be? Again, from my last post. How would our having three eyes, an extra toe, reverting to having fur or claws in any way say anything at all about our morality?

Again your confusing my statements, Im not talking about this at all, your looking at the end of things , Im looking at the process of things , and if were apart of the natural process of an evoltionary mechanism, then we must abide by this evolutionary creation.

Does the fact that we are indeed a social, ethical species change whether we were created instantaneously by God or if we were developed by God over billions of years?

**Yes it does. Because its tied into man’s dignity, and the fact he’s made in the very image and likeness of God, not an ape or a single cell organism which then transformed 40,000 times until it became a man. I see Evolution as attacking the dignity of man. **

Yes, man is made in the image and likeness of God because we have a soul akin to His.

If you knew anything about how human life comes about, you’d know that we ALL start as single cell organisms (otherwise known, as fertilised eggs) that change 40,000 times to achieve the bodily form of humanity.

You’d also note that we’ve well and truly changed since Adam - the different races have developed their different skin colours, hair types and other physical characteristics. We’re taller than our ancestors on average, and so on.

If those changes don’t negate the dignity of man then neither do the changes involved in a slower process of evolution.

[/QUOTE]

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I**** Said your concept of God’s nature must change not that God ever changes.

Fine, hair splitting aside; How does one’s concept of God’s nature change due to the implications of macroevolution?

How many different ways to I need to say this?

Only once would suffice, but you haven’t yet done so.

TruthisBeauty7:

xixxvmcm85:

Again, how

is this negated by macroevolution?

Again.!

See what I mean? I’ve been asking you since the dawn of this thread to explain your premises and you don’t bother giving me an answer, you merely repeat them.

**God doesnt make mistakes we do, as we see demonstrated by your dogmatic stand on Macro Evolution. **

No dogmatism here brother. If there is any convincing evidence which falsifies evolution I’d be most happy to hear it. In fact, I would hope to hear it so that I might run off to Sweden and get me a Nobel!

Im not talking about our biological makeup, Im talking about how we came to be, this is entirely a different statement.

In which case evolution doesn’t even matter! Organic evolution only purports to explain the physical morphology between species. You cannot claim that a scientific theory carries with it bad implications on something upon which the theory doesn’t even touch.

If you’re not “talking about our biological makeup”, then what exactly is the issue? You really are fighting your own ghost here.

Your confusing my statement with human anatomy, Im talking about what man is as a single being , and if he sprung from an evolutionary process then he should not be asked to be moral. Because Evolution isn’t Moral, it isn’t fair, it isnt just, it isnt love.

As I stated in my last post. You are correct. Man’s body is amoral as it’s foolish to even discuss the morality or lack thereof of a nonsentient entity. I’ll repeat a question of my last post. Does it bother you that our cardiovascular system and our reproductive system are likewise amoral? There’s no justice, no love there at all!

You say well God implanted the soul , I dont see how you seperate man’s soul from his body.

Because the former is immaterial and the latter is material. If the former is actually material then one should be able to find it, weigh it, measure it, and even observe it as it leaves the body of the recently deceased.

**Again man is one unified being, unless your a gnostic of course. **

Man might be more than the sum of his parts, but that doesn’t inhibit our ability to study each part in isolation. Let’s use a real world example: Music.

I can blow on my trumpet or tickle the ebonies and ivories of my piano. Involved are: a human body physically causing the motion, valves or keys (respectively), a metallic horn or wooden string box (respectively). The result is beautiful, heart-touching music. You wouldn’t say that theories of kinesiology (which explain the musicians motion), theories of physics (which explain the waves of sound) or theories of chemistry (which explain the metallic nature of the trumpet itself) somehow undermined or delegitimized the beauty and emotion of the resulting music simply because the individual theories which explain individual components lack such, would you?

Similarly I cannot fathom why the theory of evolution, which again only explains the physical, material, morphological component of man, would in any way even be capable of bringing implications on an unrelated component: spirituality.

Also, this is not “Gnostic”. The Gnostics actually taught that matter is evil. To the contrary, I’ve stated that matter cannot be evil or good.

Again your confusing my statements, Im not talking about this at all, your looking at the end of things , Im looking at the process of things , and if were apart of the natural process of an evoltionary mechanism, then we must abide by this evolutionary creation.

And we indeed do “abide by this evolutionary mechanism”. Our physical bodies which were sculpted by evolution, indirectly by God, continue to evolve and this evolution does not in any way impinge on (following the earlier music analogy) the spiritual symphony that is the human experience!

<>

 

[xixxvmcm85]

<>

TruthisBeauty7:

xixxvmcm85:

Does the fact that we are indeed a social, ethical species change whether we were created instantaneously by God or if we were developed by God over billions of years?

**Yes it does. Because its tied into man’s dignity, and the fact he’s made in the very image and likeness of God, not an ape or a single cell organism which then transformed 40,000 times until it became a man. I see Evolution as attacking the dignity of man. **

As another poster pointed out, the other option is to believe we were formed from dirt (per the account in Genesis). If this were literally true, would this also “attack the dignity of man”? In my subjective opinion, I think our primate cousins carry much more dignity than inanimate soil.

In any case, you’re still attacking a ghost in your own mind. The dignity of man (and any other philosophical concepts I’m sure you’ll in the near future mention) are in no way, shape, or form explained by evolution. Science in general cannot by definition explain these and biologists specifically do not purport to be able to.

**
Ive giving my reasons, I think its my reasons that make you uncomfortable not that I havent shown logical implications**.

No you have not. You assert, and assert, and assert, and assert some more yet when pressed for an explanation, for an argument of sorts you either repeat your assertion or you make an appeal to emotion just as you did above.

TruthisBeauty7:

xixxvmcm85:

What I did

say is that there are certain physical components necessary for morality, sociability, and most importantly a true sense of consciousness; namely a brain with a cerebral cortex. We know that these are necessary due to the consequences of trauma to the brain (Phineas Gage is the oldest, classic textbook example with respect to inhibition).

Do angels have a material Brains? Ive just proven you wrong unless you dont believe in such nonsense as angels of course.

I have no clue. I haven’t ever met an angel and I don’t know if (s)he would allow me to probe for a brain. In any case, when I wrote what I did above, I was speaking about human life. We know thanks to unfortunate brain trauma that the brain is a key player in human behavior. I even provided you with a historical example: Phineas Gage, who had an iron dynamite packing rod lunged into his face through his frontal lobe. We know that human beings owe our sociability and our ability to be moral directly to our brains. Though neuroscience can show us this, it cannot (again by definition) tell us which actions are specifically moral or immoral. The scientific framework cannot argue philosophy.

So per the thread title:

No, we should not “let the Sin begin” simply because even more transitional-species evidence has come to light.

 

[TruthisBeauty7]

Ok I will think more deeply about what you said about this. Im going to do some more research about what the Church teaches about this as well, not just the Pope. I also want to research some creationists websites and dwell more deeply in what they say about it.

I enjoy talking with you , you explain your positions well.