Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew 16:25

New International Version
“For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.”

New Living Translation
“If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake, you will save it.”

English Standard Version
“For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

16:26

New International Version
“What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?”

New Living Translation
“And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?”

English Standard Version
“For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?”
 
That’s impossible! They were eating everything in sight! Even those little mammal things which would… uh… be dead.

“This seriously impeded their ability to produce new species, which left them vulnerable to extinction.” Typical nonsense statement.

And if an asteroid hit the earth today, how ready would anyone be to survive? I’m guessing nobody. More nonsense.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
That’s impossible! They were eating everything in sight! Even those little mammal things which would… uh… be dead.

“This seriously impeded their ability to produce new species, which left them vulnerable to extinction.” Typical nonsense statement.

And if an asteroid hit the earth today, how ready would anyone be to survive? I’m guessing nobody. More nonsense.
Click to expand...
I love one of the comment down below : “They know so much about 250 million years ago, and still can’t find Jimmy Hoffa”
 
anon65111186 said:
this is the strongest Biblical proof that God did change species into other species, and refutes the claim that all creatures were the same from the beginning and continued that way without any change.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

Proof? Evolutionists rely on wishful thinking in science … their approach to theology is no different.

Okay, if this is your best shot, then creation exegesis doesn’t have anything to worry about. Can you cite any other evo-theologians who share your opinion?
God is the God of evolution.
Click to expand...
On this point you are a tad confused … Satan is the god of evolution.
 
benjamin1973 said:
It is true that abiogenesis hasn’t been achieved yet, despite much effort. But let’s say we could completely fabricate DNA, or find a way to force a soup of molecules to develop single-celled organisms. What would this mean?
Click to expand...
A moot point. This is like asking, “What if we found a Tooth Fairy? What would this mean?” Humans will never ever produce life from inanimate matter - not in a billion years. It’s impossible. Only God can produce life.

Apart from that, abiogenesis has nothing to do with my question: How is the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor useful to science?
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Proof? Evolutionists rely on wishful thinking in science … their approach to theology is no different.

Okay, if this is your best shot, then creation exegesis doesn’t have anything to worry about. Can you cite any other evo-theologians who share your opinion?
Click to expand...
Explain how evolutionists rely on wishful thinking, I’m not following what you mean.

The proof doesn’t rely on consensus, many people agreeing or disagreeing with Wisdom 19:19 doesn’t change the scriptures.
Glark said:
On this point you are a tad confused … Satan is the god of evolution.
Click to expand...
Unless you think our Lord and Creator, Father Son and Holy Spirit to be Satan, then no. Satan is not God, but wanted to be like God, without God. God is the creator of all creatures, and all the evolution that they underwent. Evolution could not exist without God. He created evolution before it was called evolution.
 
Last edited:
It’s not a “moot point.” The point is that you don’t need to worry about conflicts between your religious views and scientific views, because there will always be room for God, no matter where science is, what subjects it’s studying, or what answers it’s arrived at.

As for the utility of the idea of common ancestry: it’s useful, because it explains why all animals have certain shared features-- for example, that we are all carbon based, that we all have double-helix DNA, and so on. We can infer from the decreasing complexity of forms as we go back in time in the gelogic records that there was likely an organic “Big Bang,” that point where if you keep rewinding back far enough, you’ll arrive at an individual event.

Not sure why this would be a problem for any Catholics-- you just rewind back to God’s will and the act of creation ex nihilo.
 
benjamin1973 said:
As for the story being a historical truth, that seems pretty unlikely to me. The thing about the flood and building a boat to prepare-- okay, I’m down with that. The thing about every (EVERY!) species on Earth getting marched in pairs onto a giant boat for their preservation. . . well, this seems like a very strange way to go about doing things. I mean. . . why would you need to save them at all, since God can literally just snap his fingers and have them right back in place once the flood subsides?
Click to expand...
Here are some verses from Genesis 7,8 re Noah’s Flood. Please note the very precise chronological details contained therein:

“And after the seven days were passed, the waters of the flood overflowed the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:
12 And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights …
And the waters returned from off the earth going and coming: and they began to be abated after a hundred and fifty days.
8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, the seven and twentieth day of the month, upon the mountains of Armenia.
5 And the waters were going and decreasing until the tenth month: for in the tenth month, the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared.
6 And after that forty days were passed, Noe, opening the window of the ark which he had made, sent forth a raven:
7 Which went forth and did not return, till the waters were dried up upon the earth …
And he stayed yet other seven days: and he sent forth the dove, which returned not any more unto him.
13 Therefore in the six hundredth and first year, the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were lessened upon the earth, and Noe opening the covering of the ark, looked, and saw that the face of the earth was dried.
14 In the second month, the seven and twentieth day of the month, the earth was dried”.

This is quite obviously not written as a myth. Myths don’t include details like, “In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month” and “in the six hundredth and first year, the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were lessened upon the earth”. It is clearly written as real, literal history.
The logic of this story, as a historical truth, is just so absurd that I’d need really compelling reasons to believe it to be intended in that light.
Click to expand...
We humans cannot possibly understand every action of God . No doubt, He had his reasons for the Flood. It is not for a Christian to judge if those reasons are justified or not. And there is no end to questions about why God did this or why God did that. Mystery is everywhere. God is not obliged to explain His every move to human beings - this would be like parents explaining their every move to their baby. Beside, answers just lead to more questions.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
It is clearly written as real, literal history.
Click to expand...
Church fathers are pretty unanimous in saying yes, it was history. It is also backed up independently by other accounts of a great flood.

However, “neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.”
If the Fathers had considered the universality of the Flood as part of the body of ecclesiastical tradition, or of the deposit of faith, they would have defended it more vigorously. It is true that the Congregation of the Index condemned Vossius’s treatise “De Septuaginta Interpretibus” in which he defended, among other doctrines, the view that the Flood covered only the inhabited part of the earth; but theologians of great weight maintained that the work was condemned on account of its Protestant author, and not on account of its doctrine.
Click to expand...
There are also certain scientific considerations which oppose the view that the Flood was geographically universal. Not that science opposes any difficulty insuperable to the power of God; but it draws attention to a number of most extraordinary, if not miraculous phenomena involved in the admission of a geographically universal Deluge.
Click to expand...
 
Glark said:
And there is no end to questions about why God did this or why God did that. Mystery is everywhere. God is not obliged to explain His every move to human beings - this would be like parents explaining their every move to their baby. Beside, answers just lead to more questions.
Click to expand...
God can reveal to us if He wills, but also as in His words, “ask, and it will be given to you”. Who is asking God to explain his every move? We are seeking to know God, after all, that is our purpose on earth, to know, love and serve God.

That’s the joy of learning! - Asking and finding answers, which lead to more questions.

Science works exactly the same way. If scientists said, let’s not ask questions, it just leads to more questions, we would have been a lot worse off today.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
That’s a big source of the emptiness in atheism - no one to thank, or to ask, to share our innermost feelings, our happiness, shame and guilt.
Click to expand...
I once heard an atheist say, “We’re just grubs.” It’s hard to imagine how any human being could be happy with such a thought.
I heard another atheist say “The ocean looked so beautiful that day … I wish I had someone to thank for it.”

It is any wonder so many people suffer from depression these days?
 
Last edited:
Apparently not, since the Church says it’s fine to believe in evolution, and you do not.
 
benjamin1973 said:
evolution
Click to expand...
The definition of evolution is restricted by a belief that we began with one man, who committed the original sin, that brought suffering into this world. Since it would mean creation as a step-wise process, not controlled by the four forces of nature and not as an outcome of natural selection, you’ve pretty much done away with Darwinism by this point.

At any rate, Adam would have been created in an instant, regardless of how long it took to prepare an adequate environment for him.

I’m not sure why people have difficulty with the idea that Adam could have been formed fully adult given that it is happening now with each of us. Although all this has a history, it is brought into existence here and now from nothingness.
 
Last edited:
Where does the Bible say that Adam was created fully formed? It said that God formed him, not that he was fully formed in an instant.
 
Aloysium said:
The definition of evolution is restricted by a belief that we began with one man, who committed the original sin, that brought suffering into this world. Since it would mean creation as a step-wise process, not controlled by the four forces of nature and not as an outcome of natural selection, you’ve pretty much done away with Darwinism by this point.

At any rate, Adam would have been created in an instant, regardless of how long it took to prepare an adequate environment for him.

I’m not sure why people have difficulty with the idea that Adam could have been formed fully adult given that it is happening now with each of us. Although all this has a history, it is brought into existence here and now from nothingness.
Click to expand...
As a theological possibility, I have no difficulty accepting that as a possibility. What I don’t accept is the claim that there is actual scientific evidence that it happened that way, or that it could not have happened as Darwin said.

Furthermore, I have no problem with the claim that God suspended the rules of nature to create Adam and Eve fully formed and not through evolution. But if He did do this, He also covered His tracks by arranging the scientific evidence to make it look like it was evolution. Science is based on what the evidence seems to support. If you don’t like those rules, don’t play that game.
 
Last edited:
That’s the thing-- if scientists are so wrong, it would have to be because God is a trickster.
 
benjamin1973 said:
God formed him, not that he was fully formed in an instant.
Click to expand...
He was created in an instant, a new creation, whether it was as a seed or adult.
We are not a species of animal, although sharing a similar physical form.
And, no more descended from apes than from last night’s chicken wings and rice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top