Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hugh_Farey said:
So far, insofar as our creationist colleagues have any kind of consensus, I seem to have established that they think God created, either from nothing or from earth (atoms), a number of living organisms, or groups of living organisms, sufficiently different from each other as to be called separate species. Subsequent generations of these species were not spontaneously created, but appeared by normal biological processes, and, within the space of a few thousand years (any advance on fifty thousand years?), diversified into the millions of species we recognise today, plus, of course, the even more millions which have gone extinct. Is that correct? If not, is there any creationist out there bold enough to correct it?
Click to expand...
Pretty good. Yes, God created ex nihilo, which has been a long held understanding. One He created, he armed life with the necessary programming to survive and flourish. From the prototypes regeneration happened as we observe. Isolation, mutations and such led to variations, (not necessarily the same as our species definition). The many variations of dogs are wolves. We have over 300 since domestication and breeding. There are around 5,000 animal families.

The evolution story is the one that keeps on ticking no matter the data against it. It always has an explanation.
 
I don’t think anyone has said God had to use evolution. The position I, and I believe Hugh does too, is that He did use evolution. That He has the power to create everything ex nihilio isn’t the debate. It’s whether He did.

So to answer your question, He didn’t have to use evolution to create the species of fish that fed the multitudes, but in my view He did.
 
Let’s rephrase that: If our omniscient God used His process to create what He desired, did Adam look the way He intended?

What do you think the answer is? I don’t see why you’d expect a Catholic to answer ‘no.’
 
If God knew what Adam would look like and as He planned, it was then by design.
 
mVitus said:
The position I, and I believe Hugh does too, is that He did use evolution.
Click to expand...
So God used evolution , but the word of God said he created Eve from Adam’s rib… I’m confused. So the Bible is wrong in every way.

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,
1 Corinthians 14:33
 
I would agree. God did not wind up a toy/process and let it run and bump into things and go this way and that “naturally.” Naturally is another way of saying evolution did “whatever ‘it’ wanted.” As if it had intelligence, which it didn’t.
 
By remembering the writers of scared scripture were writing in a different style where allegory was common.
 
To Him, yes. But to our observations, which is how we base science, it’s random.

It makes me think of Moses’ parting the Red Sea. Some scientists have theorized about an earthquake contributing to the sudden refilling as Pharaoh crossed. Should that have happened, what would’ve, by our observations, have been a coincidence, would’ve been seen as clearly intended in God’s eyes.
 
Jesus raised the dead and gave sight to the blind on more than one occasion.
 
mVitus said:
To Him, yes. But to our observations, which is how we base science, it’s random.

It makes me think of Moses’ parting the Red Sea. Some scientists have theorized about an earthquake contributing to the sudden refilling as Pharaoh crossed. Should that have happened, what would’ve, by our observations, have been a coincidence, would’ve been seen as clearly intended in God’s eyes.
Click to expand...
You are looking at supernature works of God through the lens of human reason.What you think is huge…is tiny to God.
 
Aloysium said:
How does one reconcile Genesis and evolution?
Click to expand...
mVitus said:
By remembering the writers of scared scripture were writing in a different style where allegory was common.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t reconcile them. It disregards the historical truth Genesis contains, a truth that actually corrects the errors found in the modern secular understanding of how we were created and who we are in relation to one another, the universe and it’s Maker. What you mean by allegorical may also do away with the reality that is the Word of God, whose revelation is scripture, the purpose of which is to allow us to know Him and to establish a dialogue between God and each of us both individually and together as His church.
mVitus said:
It makes me think of Moses’ parting the Red Sea. Some scientists have theorized about an earthquake contributing to the sudden refilling as Pharaoh crossed. Should that have happened, what would’ve, by our observations, have been a coincidence, would’ve been seen as clearly intended in God’s eyes.
Click to expand...
God caused what a geologist might call an earthquake, the temporary rising of the land thereby providing a bridge from one side of the sea to the other. I don’t see a coincidence, but I can understand why others might.
Mark 4:35 - That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, “Let us go over to the other side.” 36 Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. 37 A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. 38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”
39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.
40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”
41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It is most interesting that many will admit God created ex nihilo but could not part the waters or cause a flood.
 
benjamin1973 said:
I can conceive of new languages being created by computers for computers, with no actual mind behind them.
Click to expand...
The computers of course would have a mind behind them, no? And of course the program would have to be designed as well. So to say there would be no mind behind such wouldn’t be correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top