T
Techno2000
Guest
What was all these environmental pressures that is causing all these mutations . And it must of have been a lot of them to evolve all these thousands of different kinds of animals we have today.
- Status
I
IWantGod
Guest
You mean obvious design like this?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The problem is that what appears obvious to you always turns out to have a natural cause, and that natural cause is the focus of science, not design…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The problem is that what appears obvious to you always turns out to have a natural cause, and that natural cause is the focus of science, not design…
J
J_the_Centrist
Guest
Ok, yes, you are right. All I said was that the natural world is far more violent then people like to realize. Every scientific advance, as the twentieth century attests over and over again, can be used to our detriment and utter destruction. We can wipe out all of humanity with the touch of a few buttons. That’s the point I was making. I also am not suggesting anything against you for rejecting evolution, or at least this part of it, despite that I am convinced by it as a science. Yes, it is being used by the spirituality bereft individuals in contexts they know little to nothing about.
I’ll put it to you this way. Google the leg and foot of both a pigeon or the bird of your choice and that of that of a fossilized dinosaur and tell me if you can see anything remarkably similar. I remember when I was in my dead end job years ago, lifting boxes and utterly miserable and there was a pigeon nearby. I observed it’s bodily makeup and it’s lower body in particular and I was convinced of the theory, but this has no affect on my Faith and why should it?
Evolution is a very complicated science and most of its proponents haven’t studied it, they just nod and say “yeah” and some add nodding aggressively,”yeah, Christianity is stupid, yeah.” Again, I have nothing against your position but if people are basing their morals on evolution then I doubt they’ve ever thought very deeply in what it actually means.
I’ll put it to you this way. Google the leg and foot of both a pigeon or the bird of your choice and that of that of a fossilized dinosaur and tell me if you can see anything remarkably similar. I remember when I was in my dead end job years ago, lifting boxes and utterly miserable and there was a pigeon nearby. I observed it’s bodily makeup and it’s lower body in particular and I was convinced of the theory, but this has no affect on my Faith and why should it?
Evolution is a very complicated science and most of its proponents haven’t studied it, they just nod and say “yeah” and some add nodding aggressively,”yeah, Christianity is stupid, yeah.” Again, I have nothing against your position but if people are basing their morals on evolution then I doubt they’ve ever thought very deeply in what it actually means.
J
J_the_Centrist
Guest
I also would like to add that evolution only suggests that all life forms are descended from a common ancestor. Other things to be very certain but this is the main part of the theory.
B
buffalo
Guest
No like this:
T
Techno2000
Guest
And yet it is taught in the fourth grade.
J
J_the_Centrist
Guest
By people who likely have an agenda I might add.
E
edwest211
Guest
Then how do you explain a biologist like Richard Dawkins and his book, The God Delusion? Regarding faith, there is something the Catholic Church teaches quite clearly:
- Adam and Eve were two literal individuals. They were given what are called preternatural gifts by God, including infused knowledge and bodily immortality.
- Eve was not born but formed from Adam’s side as he lay in a deep sleep. God molded Eve.
- Both were give one command, or restriction, by God. They freely broke His command. This is how a literal and spiritual Original Sin came into the world. We all have it.
- In order to restore our relationship with God, Jesus Christ was born and died as a sacrifice. He then rose from the dead. He was the second Adam. He was true man and true God. He performed miracles without the aid of any scientific instruments. That is what God can do. Miracles still occur today.
E
edwest211
Guest
As long as you say yes, you get crossed off the list.
E
edwest211
Guest
And then we have this.
Bag-like sea creature was humans' oldest known ancestor
Researchers have identified traces of what they believe is the earliest known prehistoric ancestor of humans -- a microscopic, bag-like sea creature, which lived about 540 million years ago.
www.sciencedaily.com
J
J_the_Centrist
Guest
Richard Dawkins is exhibit A on how science should not be approached and it is very easy to see why. He attempts to come off as a brilliant philosopher but he is only a brilliant scientist and given a forum by an anti-Christian media with an agenda. He also usually only comes off looking arrogant and foolish. I am converting to Orthodox Christianity so I can address each of your points from both sides.
1-2 - John Paul II put it very succinctly when he said that, “ two truth’s cannot contradict each other.” And the recently reposed and brilliant physician, theologian, and Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church in England has said that the story of the Creation is not history. Not history merely because it would be impossible for a fallen humanity to recollect direct communion with God before the fall. Need I also remind you that the overwhelming majority of the founders of modern science were Christian men, many of whom were Catholic, even the priest who theorized the Big Bang Theory believed the bread and wine turned into the Body and Blood of Christ. Pope Pius XII also acknowledged the theory of evolution and many others in the Church did and do as well. If you want to say that Christians that believe in evolution as a science, who number in our millions, are contradicting ourselves then that’s another argument. Besides, the Church has to look to the Bible for answers and many points in the Creation scenario requires Faith, like Eve being made by Adams rib. While we’re at it I forgot to mention that there are two, not one but two, Creation accounts in Genesis. Scripture seems to favor the story of Adam and Eve but it’s very interesting that we have two and not one. The Church also has a long history in the east and west of a thing called allegory.
3 - Indeed humanity in the form of Adam and Eve broke this command. God and humanity, even without the Creation story, are divided to such an extent that it isn’t such a stretch of the imagination to see us as a fallen humanity. By Faith, I believe that and based on the beautiful words of the Metropolitan above. Science does not, nor will it ever have all the answers, especially when it comes to morality.
4 - I completely agree with this statement unflinchingly both as a recovering alcoholic and as an employee in a hospital. Miracles don’t have to be something dramatic where everyone instantly converts and all is well. Christ is indeed the second Adam. Everyone that believes in evolution is not confined to a particular dogma, if that were so then strictly evolutionists would be more religious than we are.
If this isn’t good enough then I can explain further. God be with you.
And I don’t “believe” in evolution, I believe in God.
1-2 - John Paul II put it very succinctly when he said that, “ two truth’s cannot contradict each other.” And the recently reposed and brilliant physician, theologian, and Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church in England has said that the story of the Creation is not history. Not history merely because it would be impossible for a fallen humanity to recollect direct communion with God before the fall. Need I also remind you that the overwhelming majority of the founders of modern science were Christian men, many of whom were Catholic, even the priest who theorized the Big Bang Theory believed the bread and wine turned into the Body and Blood of Christ. Pope Pius XII also acknowledged the theory of evolution and many others in the Church did and do as well. If you want to say that Christians that believe in evolution as a science, who number in our millions, are contradicting ourselves then that’s another argument. Besides, the Church has to look to the Bible for answers and many points in the Creation scenario requires Faith, like Eve being made by Adams rib. While we’re at it I forgot to mention that there are two, not one but two, Creation accounts in Genesis. Scripture seems to favor the story of Adam and Eve but it’s very interesting that we have two and not one. The Church also has a long history in the east and west of a thing called allegory.
3 - Indeed humanity in the form of Adam and Eve broke this command. God and humanity, even without the Creation story, are divided to such an extent that it isn’t such a stretch of the imagination to see us as a fallen humanity. By Faith, I believe that and based on the beautiful words of the Metropolitan above. Science does not, nor will it ever have all the answers, especially when it comes to morality.
4 - I completely agree with this statement unflinchingly both as a recovering alcoholic and as an employee in a hospital. Miracles don’t have to be something dramatic where everyone instantly converts and all is well. Christ is indeed the second Adam. Everyone that believes in evolution is not confined to a particular dogma, if that were so then strictly evolutionists would be more religious than we are.
If this isn’t good enough then I can explain further. God be with you.
And I don’t “believe” in evolution, I believe in God.
E
edwest211
Guest
Thank you for your polite and detailed reply. I worked at a major hospital for almost 10 years. I once asked the hospital chaplain if he’d seen miracles occur and he almost matter of factly said “Yes.” Pope Pius XII was very clear in Humani Generis. In summary, he wanted those with the necessary knowledge to consider those things for and against the theory and that all would submit to the judgment of the Church.
"36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”
"36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”
J
J_the_Centrist
Guest
I honestly cannot see why God cannot have created man with souls immediately. I have spoken loosely on the subject only because I have been exposed to it for many years, which is why I have learnt to place Faith first and Reason second. Those that fail to do this can explain all of the superficial causes, based on scientific evidence or not but still promoted as such, that have arisen in the past few decades. I don’t think I have to explain what those are.
One correction I can make was that Metropolitan Anothony Bloom and other Orthodox theologians aren’t saying that we shouldn’t believe in the story of Creation, only that we cannot possibly know what it was like to live in God’s presence on this earth in our current state. Even if I were to remain in the RCC, this is a point that is beautiful and appealing in its own way.
One correction I can make was that Metropolitan Anothony Bloom and other Orthodox theologians aren’t saying that we shouldn’t believe in the story of Creation, only that we cannot possibly know what it was like to live in God’s presence on this earth in our current state. Even if I were to remain in the RCC, this is a point that is beautiful and appealing in its own way.
E
edwest211
Guest
That’s where Jesus Christ comes in. The sinless sacrifice. He taught us how to live and view things correctly. One person, I can’t recall who, said, “To be more like Christ is to be more authentically human.” But, with this topic, what is a human being? A biological mechanism that somehow self-upgraded over millions of years? I don’t think so. If that is the case, then we are little better than the apes. Living and dying in very, very long succession. But man is different. That is not just a philosophical observation but a practical one.
I study the history of warfare and invention. Man is the most destructive being on the planet. We have to choose.
I study the history of warfare and invention. Man is the most destructive being on the planet. We have to choose.
C
Crocus
Guest
Ah, the wishbone. Mmmm …
Nice compilation. Thanks.
Nice compilation. Thanks.
C
Crocus
Guest
Interesting, the pterosaurs flew but did not give rise to birds. Thanks.
B
buffalo
Guest
How Evolution Means the Death of the Soul
Evolutionists rarely proclaim their incompatibility with Christianity so as not to alarm Christians. They will generally try to present evolution as a purely scientific theory that seeks to explain the origins of the universe. If religious people have a problem, it is their narrow vision that is to blame, not the theory itself.
The result is a situation that leads to many people, as Dr. Harari rightly claims, preferring “to reject the theory of evolution rather than give up their souls.”
Evolutionists rarely proclaim their incompatibility with Christianity so as not to alarm Christians. They will generally try to present evolution as a purely scientific theory that seeks to explain the origins of the universe. If religious people have a problem, it is their narrow vision that is to blame, not the theory itself.
The result is a situation that leads to many people, as Dr. Harari rightly claims, preferring “to reject the theory of evolution rather than give up their souls.”
Loading…
www.tfp.org
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Thank you for posting this. I have to disagree on one point. Humans have free will and some are using it to imprint their will on others. They are in favor of change, and these changes need to be planned, perfumed and made to seem palatable to the public.
J
J_the_Centrist
Guest
I am sorry but atheist evolutionists attack Christianity all of the time and they get most of the press by far. If a person places scientistific inquiry over faith in God then yes I can agree with this assertion, otherwise it’s just conjecture. One can believe in evolution as a scientific theory without losing their soul. Besides there are too many divergent views on what evolution actually is and most of them, by far, are wrong. Would one believe that belief in gravity or chemistry could kill the soul? Not likely. This article is based on a false dichotomy as this only presents one of those views. Evolution is a science which suggests that all life evolved from a common ancestor and not much more, OK evolutionary theories can fill volumes but this is its main point. Any evolutionists suggesting to do otherwise is either lying or deluded, like Richard Dawkins who is a brilliant scientist but a very poor philosopher and an even worse historian.
Last edited:
- Status