Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

[Techno2000]

A million years for God is like the blink of an eye.

But, that doesn’t mean he had to use evolution, when he can create in a blink of an eye too.

 

[rossum]

So why would God wait billions and billions and billions of years when he can have them ready in a few seconds ?

Because to an eternal God a million years and a fraction of a seconds are both 0.00% of eternity, and so, to God, there is negligible difference between them. It is only us that sees a big difference.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

So why would God wait billions and billions and billions of years when he can have them ready in a few seconds ?

Because to an eternal God a million years and a fraction of a seconds are both 0.00% of eternity, and so, to God, there is negligible difference between them. It is only us that sees a big difference.

rossum

Ok, so you believe in God now.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Many thanks to Aloysium and buffalo for getting down to the nitty-gritty of how the living things on earth today might have got here via a creationist scenario. I will address them in detail later, but thanks.

Edwest211? Still nothing?

Techno2000, for what it’s worth I am one of those, in concert with the teaching of the Church as expressed in the Catechism, Encyclicals and so on, that Eve was not created from a rib of Adam, nor that there was ever a global flood within the existence of human beings. But then again, | don’t think that a snake actually spoke to Eve, nor that the garden of Eden had gates. I do think that the bible, especially the earlier books, has to be carefully interpreted to understand God’s message in it.

 

[Techno2000]

Eve was not created from a rib of Adam, nor that there was ever a global flood within the existence of human beings. But then again, | don’t think that a snake actually spoke to Eve, nor that the garden of Eden had gates.

You need to keep going and throw out the whole Bible. Because the donkey didnt talk… nobody turned into a pillar of salt…the oil ran out… angels didnt turn into demons…nobody came back from the dead…the water never changed into wine…Jesus never walked on water…

 

[Aloysium]

Then the Church would be in error to allow such an allegorical interpretation. But as The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit, the allowing of an allegorical interpretation is okay. Remember that I’ve defended the Truths we need to hold such as God’s making the world in addition to Adam and Eve’s literal existence.

I’m here to grow in faith, not to question people’s beliefs, but to get closer to the living Truth.

Just to refresh our understanding referencing the CCC:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. . . written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
108 . . . If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open (our) mind.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. . .

115 . . . one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis . . . “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. the allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.
2. the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.
3. the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

The allergorical does not mean that what is spoken is merely a story; events are described for our instruction to lead us to God, by discovering their meaning.

As opposed to the scripture of other major religions, which are solely spiritual, describing who we are not historically, but ontologically as an emanation of the Divine, the Abrahamic religions reveal God as Love, with us in time as we journey to life eternal. Suffering is explained and shown to be the key to transcendence, in the cross.

There are layers of meaning in Genesis including the historical. The question as to how God formed mankind is explained in terms that are understandable by anyone in any time. It is all about creation.

I just think Darwinism is bad science. There are no spontaneous mutations of matter that brought this world into existence as it is and has been; its all about acts of God and the consequences of the fall.

 

[mVitus]

I’ll not deny there are some historical truths such as Adam and Eve and The Fall. And if you want to believe it’s literal about A&E’s creation, you’re free to do so. But to point out from your post:

115 . . . one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses.

The Church allow for an allegorical interpretation of Genesis. So when you asked the question of how I could possibly reconcile evolution and Genesis, it was interpreted by me that you were saying evolution contradicts faith. That to accept the science behind evolution is a heresy of sorts. If you meant it in a different way, please explain.

 

[Aloysium]

I suppose the point relevant to this thread was:

I just think Darwinism is bad science. There are no spontaneous mutations of matter that brought this world into existence as it is and has been; its all about acts of God and the consequences of the fall.

 

[rossum]

Ok, so you believe in God now.

I am merely accepting, arguendo, the premises of your argument in order to show the inherent error in your argument.

rossum

 

[mVitus]

You are looking at supernature works of God through the lens of human reason.What you think is huge…is tiny to God.

Given your statement there, I find it interesting you now are asking why God would’ve used evolution and not ex nihilio. In other words, your logic is contradicting.

 

[mVitus]

So to be clear, we’re back to discussing whether or not evolution fact as opposed to whether or a Christian can accept evolution as fact. Correct?

 

[Aloysium]

That would be an offshoot of the OP. One can believe the earth is flat and still be Catholic. When we get to evolution it gets more complicated because the basic tenets of Darwinistic theories do not hold that there was a first man and they assert polygenism. They are reductionistic and materialistic in terms of the driving force of the growing complexity from bacteria to humanity and in understanding the sculptor to be natural selection - merely survival. This is not in keeping with the teachings of the church, which in fact illuminates how the process actually works. Adhering to the Catholic faith, we can believe whatever we want, if we are disinterested in the truth of nature and it’s workings because that doesn’t really matter.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It pretty much is. There’s 4 letters and they go in a special sequence to identify different things, just like words.

And then the copying procedure is incredible as well, it’s copied multiple times so as to be in the correct order as it started out with. As I said, there’s literally a proofreading function (to paraphrase my biology textbook).

It’s pretty appropriate to refer to it as a language, in fact I’m sure I have heard the term the “language of DNA” before.

If you use the term “language of DNA” then fine, at long as it is not used to read into the process of life anything we normally associate with human language, such as “intelligent design.” In this sense, “language” just means anything that carries information that affects another process.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Nope. Not every pattern is language. Language requires a sender, a receiver and a key.

All languages and codes come from a mind.

Nope, not every language requires a sender, a receiver, and a key. The language of DNA does not.

 

[rossum]

Nope, not every language requires a sender, a receiver, and a key. The language of DNA does not.

Or alternatively, DNA does not fit that particular definition of language.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I ask again, did you go through the links I provided,…

And I ask again, why didn’t you read the book I suggested after I read the book you suggested? You want everyone to study your links, but seem to be unwilling to reciprocate.

 

[benjamin1973]

Instead of speculating on what God “has to” do, maybe look around and see what He did.

 

[edwest211]

The climate, we are told, is becoming fatal for everything right now, but evolution won’t be stepping in in time.

Oh well…

 

[edwest211]

For some, speaking generally, that does appear to be the goal.

 

[edwest211]

I’m not going to add anything further regarding the nitty-gritty. I’ve done so in the past and it never went over well.