if not evolution....

[hazmat]

there is nothing missing from this statement:

“the only thing necessary for evolution to occur is for living things to reproduce and not make exact copies of themselves every time.”

…and you didnt cite anything that was missing, so for you to say say “not quite” makes no sense.

 

[buffalo]

mind just providing a link(s)? i don’t disagree with you, i want to make sure im reading the same stuff you are.

I would start with this:
The theory of facilitated variation

 

[1AugustSon7]

Considering the human nature which we inherited from the first human being, Adam, genetic changes or adaptations or whatever are not always vicious.

Adaptations are natural. Adaptation is not evolution.

I assure you, a genetic disorder is always a genetic disorder. There are thousands of them and they are multiplying and they always threaten life in some way: i.e. they are vicious or vitiate.

Consider the human immune system as one which can benefit from positive genetic changes.

That is not evolution. It is, in fact, a very good example of adaptation. Our immune system is already programmed to learn and remember, so to speak. This is not an evolutionary leap or else the human race would have been made extinct a long time ago by the first new bug that appeared.

However the whole person is more than genetics. The whole person includes the spiritual soul.

I did not and do not deny that a human creature necessarily has a soul.

 

[lemondiesel]

there is nothing missing from this statement:

“the only thing necessary for evolution to occur is for living things to reproduce and not make exact copies of themselves every time.”

…and you didnt cite anything that was missing, so for you to say say “not quite” makes no sense.

evolution can still take place if self copies are made.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Adaptation not part of evolution? Genetic potentialities? Are you implying that before there was land animals, the marine life had the “genetic potentiality” to have legs and walk!?

Evolution must itself necessarily posit that belief; and no, I do not assert that, though the Scriptures do seem to speak of certain land species being drawn or made out sea creatures in the Creation account.

Genetic potentialities are obvious. This is why children sometimes look more like ancient relatives than their immediate parents: e.g. possessing height that hasn’t been seen in living memory of the family.

My best friend and roommate sitting across from me is a perfect example of the above.

 

[hazmat]

evolution can still take place if self copies are made.

not exact copies.

 

[karaleigh]

Man/Woman were spirits because God is Spirit. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge, whatever substance it was, caused man/woman to become flesh or create flesh from eating the substance thereby nakedness/shame became known to the now humans in the garden. Banished in the flesh, we as humans must learn how to re-acquire the spirit that was given by God to us in man/woman’s creation.
:crying:

 

[1AugustSon7]

Man/Woman were spirits because God is Spirit. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge, whatever substance it was, caused man/woman to become flesh or create flesh from eating the substance thereby nakedness/shame became known to the now humans in the garden. Banished in the flesh, we as humans must learn how to re-acquire the spirit that was given by God to us in man/woman’s creation.
:crying:

No, Ma’am. Adam was indeed created of a composite nature, having both flesh and a living soul, and woman was created from out of him in order to impress the singularity and unity of the human race. Indeed we lost the state of original justice at the Fall but we kept our flesh and our souls, though these, in sin, could or can be styled as “dead” in a manner of speaking (Baptism correcting this).

 

[grannymh]

Man/Woman were spirits because God is Spirit. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge, whatever substance it was, caused man/woman to become flesh or create flesh from eating the substance thereby nakedness/shame became known to the now humans in the garden. Banished in the flesh, we as humans must learn how to re-acquire the spirit that was given by God to us in man/woman’s creation.
:crying:

Catholic teaching is that the first human (biblically known as Adam) was both matter *and *spirit. It is true that God is Pure Spirit; however, the human nature He gave Adam and Eve is an unique union of the spiritual soul *and *the material anatomy. This is why it can be said that we are in the image of God. This is why Adam could be called a “spiritual” creature because God called him and us to share in His own life through knowledge and love.

Starting out, Adam lived in harmony with God. However, this friendship depended on Adam, the created one, living in free submission to his Creator. Adam abused his friendship by choosing to disobey God. With this original disobedience, Adam and Eve lost their friendship status with God and were banished. However, God did not abandon them. He promised the Messiah.

The effects of Adam’s transgression (known as original sin) wounded the nature of Adam’s descendants. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and brings a person back into a harmonious friendship with God.

 

[Debora123]

seriously, if you believe in creation, how did man/woman come to be?? do you believe a fully formed man/or baby just ‘appeared’??etc…what is your belief on the PHYSICAL creation of man??serious replies only…ty

I fully believe in Evolution. I think people evolved from apes though we did get souls at some point during the transition into humanity.

You can believe in evolution and still believe in God/creation at the same time.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I fully believe in Evolution. I think people evolved from apes though we did get souls at some point during the transition into humanity.

You can believe in evolution and still believe in God/creation at the same time.

No, at least not in the God of Genesis and the Creation account He has given us.

The Scriptures are clear that man was made by God completely distinct and unique from all the other creatues; and that this is true is so patently obvious to all with eyes to see and ears to hear that to deny it is to deny reality itself. You, ma’am, are completely distinct not only from other human beings as touching your immaterial soul, but from other animals as touching your rationality, intellect and free will, and from the rest of creation as touching your being an animal (alive).

God did not make man out of an ape, which He made out of a fish, which He made out of some inanimate chemical compound.

Evolution has no scientific evidence to substantiate it whatsoever. It has a nearly infinite compendium of evidence against it. Perhaps the most damning is the fact that nothing has ever been observed to have actually evolved. A fish egg has never hatched a pig. Evolution, therefore, is a properly an -ism, or pseudo-philosophy or a belief and not a science.

Authentic science, for example, is able to make predictictions. No evolutionist has or even can predict what the next “evolutionary leap” or “evolutionary phase” of man or any other living being is or will be.

 

[Debora123]

No, at least not in the God of Genesis and the Creation account He has given us.

The Scriptures are clear that man was made by God completely distinct and unique from all the other creatues; and that this is true is so patently obvious to all with eyes to see and ears to hear that to deny it is to deny reality itself. You, ma’am, are completely distinct not only from other human beings as touching your immaterial soul, but from other animals as touching your rationality, intellect and free will, and from the rest of creation as touching your being an animal (alive).

God did not make man out of an ape, which He made out of a fish, which He made out of some inanimate chemical compound.

Evolution has no scientific evidence to substantiate it whatsoever. It has a nearly infinite compendium of evidence against it. Perhaps the most damning is the fact that nothing has ever been observed to have actually evolved. A fish egg has never hatched a pig. Evolution, therefore, is a properly an -ism, or pseudo-philosophy or a belief and not a science.

Authentic science, for example, is able to make predictictions. No evolutionist has or even can predict what the next “evolutionary leap” or “evolutionary phase” of man or any other living being is or will be.

Sorry to break it to you, but as a Catholic we indeed are allowed to believe in evolution… as long as we believe that humans have souls and that God is ultimately behind the creation of everything.

If you have any doubts you can read for yourself what an apologist here at CAF had said on this subject:

Originally posted by Michelle Arnold, CAF apologist:
There is a wide spectrum of permitted opinion within the Church on the issues surrounding evolution, from six-day, young-earth creationism to theistic evolution. There are very few absolute boundaries given by the Church on the matter. Two notable boundaries are that God created everything ex nihilo (Latin, “from nothing”) and that each human soul is the special and immediate creation of God, given at the moment of conception. Within those boundaries, theologians are free to speculate on how to resolve scientific discoveries on man’s origins with dogmas such as original sin.

See source here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354765

 

[1AugustSon7]

Sorry to break it to you, but as a Catholic we indeed are allowed to believe in evolution… as long as we believe that humans have souls and that God is ultimately behind the creation of everything.

If you have any doubts you can read for yourself what an apologist here at CAF had said on this subject:

See source here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354765

Let me see if I have this straight.

You place your faith and trust in the doctrines of evolution, which is to say men- with its originators, primary supporters and advocates being even Godless men- without even a single rational justification for doing so. Even if you wanted to produce such a justification, there is none, because it has never been demonstrated and there exists no evidence of evolution ever actually happening, let alone being anything like even remotely possible.

***At the same time, ***

A Book reported to be inspired directly by God posits for your belief that God made creation out of nothing “ex nihilo”]. Now this absolutely awesome, sublime and indescribable Truth of God’s Revelation, you seem to say you accept, if only because it is necessary to do so to be a Catholic.

But,

That self-same inerrant source, within even the very same Book, proceeds to say that God made man out of the aforesaid creation/earth (which He had just made out of completely nothing): this proposition, however, (which is rather more easy to believe than the last one, because in this case at least something is being created out of something) you reject in preference for your private belief in evolution, which as I have already said has no evidence whatsoever nor any authority to rest itself on (as opposed to say the Bible’s inerrancy) - this is what you believe?

Now Michelle Arnold may be right in saying you are perfectly at liberty to believe such things. Still, Michelle Arnold can’t stop anyone from noticing how confusing, irrational, illogical and inherently contradictory such beliefs are.

 

[Debora123]

Let me see if I have this straight.

You place your faith and trust in the doctrines of evolution, which is to say men- with its originators, primary supporters and advocates being even Godless men- without even a single rational justification for doing so. Even if you wanted to produce such a justification, there is none, because it has never been demonstrated and there exists no evidence of evolution ever actually happening, let alone being anything like even remotely possible.

***At the same time, ***

A Book reported to be inspired directly by God posits for your belief that God made creation out of nothing “ex nihilo”]. Now this absolutely awesome, sublime and indescribable Truth of God’s Revelation, you seem to say you accept, if only because it is necessary to do so to be a Catholic.

But,

That self-same inerrant source, within even the very same Book, proceeds to say that God made man out of the aforesaid creation/earth (which He had just made out of completely nothing): this proposition, however, (which is rather more easy to believe than the last one, because in this case at least something is being created out of something), you do nonetheless reject this, in preference for your private belief in evolution, which as I have already said has no evidence whatsoever nor any authority to rest itself on (as opposed to, say, inerrancy); and this is what you believe?

Now Michelle Arnold may be right in saying you are perfectly at liberty to believe such things. Still, Michelle Arnold can’t stop anyone from noticing how confusing, irrational, illogical and inherently contradictory such beliefs are.

You can certainly have the opinion that these “beliefs” are “confusing, irrational, illogical and inherently contradictory.”

However, you cannot say that having such “beliefs” is against Church teaching, because it is not.

 

[1AugustSon7]

You can certainly have the opinion that these “beliefs” are “confusing, irrational, illogical and inherently contradictory.”

However, you cannot say that having such “beliefs” is against Church teaching, because it is not.

The Church doesn’t forbid me from believing, say, that you are actually an angel in disguise from Heaven or a lizard that is jumping randomly on a key board and, by awesome chance, producing intelligible sentences and posting them online. It does not follow, though, that such beliefs are actually promoted by the Church, or that it is in any way actually justified, logical or rational.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

There is no scientific evidence for the soul, although some try to connect human development with the soul which cannot be examined by science.

Peace,
Ed

And who told us that scientific knowledge is truth?
Even the scientist are at a lost to find it.
Soul CAN NEVER be proved scientifically.
It is not an object of science.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

You are right. Currently.

Many, many moons ago, in some geographic areas, the “whole person” was a Catholic concept which actually included the soul. Basic philosophy and Catholic theology courses were part of a liberal arts education.

On CAF, I have used “fully-complete” human such as Adam to differentiate between our human nature and the material nature of archaic beings. I am wondering how younger people would react if I used “whole person” with my usual description of human nature which is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world.

I wonder if re-introducing “wholeness” would help people recognize their emptiness.

I am no problem with “wholeness” as long as it includes the Soul, which seems not to happen in this materialistic world.

The other day, a priest in the mass, trying to be different, asked the audience to raise their hands those who believed in afterlife. On the full Church, 2 hands raised up.

I priest was dumbfounded and said: “What are you doing here?”

I was doubly dumbfounded…

 

[1AugustSon7]

And who told us that scientific knowledge is truth?
Even the scientist are at a lost to find it.
Soul CAN NEVER be proved scientifically.
It is not an object of science.

The soul is the subject of true science. Analytical science cannot grasp what it cannot actually grasp. Such sciences are by nature the lower sciences. They can tell you: what it is, in terms of its material composition, but not what it means, and certainly not why it is or what’s its purpose (final or ultimate purpose, that is).

Science means knowledge and especially an organized body of knowledge. We know things about the soul. Indeed we know a lot about the soul. The sacred sciences or Perennial Philosophy or Scholasticism deals with the soul at times.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry to break it to you, but as a Catholic we indeed are allowed to believe in evolution… as long as we believe that humans have souls and that God is ultimately behind the creation of everything.

If you have any doubts you can read for yourself what an apologist here at CAF had said on this subject:

See source here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354765

Unfortunately, many Catholics are not up to date with 21st century science, especially in the area where biological theories intersect with Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, original sin, and the salvific mission of Jesus Christ, True Man and True God.

Catholics are not permitted to accept biological opinions (polygenism in the 21st century) which deny the reality of two, sole, founders of the human race, biblically known as Adam and Eve. The Catholic doctrine is known as monogenism.

Sources: St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4.1, Council of Trent DS 1511-1512, Humani Generis Section 37, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edtion paragraphs 355 - 421*.*

 

[Ubenedictus]

Evolutionary explosion need a reason to explode, they don’t just come from no where. For example, human beings would not have emerged hadn’t the dinosaurs went extinct… which allowed for mammals to become the new dominate family.

pls maybe u can help, is nature rational? How can nature know that d dinosaurs are dead so man could emerge. I wanted to keep away though, just too tempting.
Ubenedictus