B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, God loved them so he gave them free will. He could have created us programmed to love Him. As a parent, what is better? To receive the love of your children freely or under compulsion?
- Status
G
Glark
Guest
The only thing wrong with that is that perfect golf would quickly become very boring to play. This is why God genetically programmed us to play imperfect golf (and some of us are evidently more imperfect than others).Floated? No, before the Fall they didn’t need to float because they never went into the water. Every tee shot was a hole-in-one!
Incidentally, I achieved my first hole-in-one recently, so I think congratulations are in order. Send me money, if you like.
G
Glark
Guest
Yes, getting life out of dead molecules is really quite simple. Once I tried to make some spaghetti sauce, but make a mistake with the ingredients and ended up producing a live fish instead. Weird, but true.
G
Glark
Guest
… but our stubborn atheist brethren will deny this until their last, dying breath.
G
Glark
Guest
Adam and Eve were given free will, because without free will, they could not freely love God. The flipside of free will is, humans can chose to disobey God’s commandments and even chose to not to love God at all and reject Him completely.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
Sounds like the book of Wisdom 19:19
For the elements, in ever-changing harmony,
like strings of the harp, produce new melody,
while the flow of music steadily persists.
And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place.
For land creatures were changed into water creatures,
and those that swam went over on land.
Didn’t say it was God who did the changing directly, so it could have been evolution.
G
Glark
Guest
Interesting. I’ll have to look into that.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Good for you, and we just might have a biblical proof for evolution! :hugs:
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Given billions of years, anything’s possible. It’s like magic!
G
Glark
Guest
They had to commit the sin first, before God could look back in time and see that would commit it. It’s a weird thing. It’s something like, you can’t fast-forward or rewind a movie to see what happens, until someone first makes the movie.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
This could include the story of whale evolution!
A
anon65111186
Guest
G
Glark
Guest
So, you don’t consider sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record to be evidence of creation? What about the absymal lack of “missing links” betwen the major groups?
Evolutionist are quick to point out that there are plenty of transitional fossils at the species level. Well, no kidding! Speciation (microevolution) is a fact, after all; so we would fully expect to see evidence of it in the fosssil record.
The scientific community, being essentially atheistic, refuses point blank to consider the obvious possibility that the lack of transitionals between major groups is due to no such (macro)evolution ever occurring. This stubborn refusal is hardly surprising - these same scientists refuse point blank to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of design in nature and believe in the senseless superstition that life arose naturally from inanimate matter.
Here’s an interesting quote from the late Stephen Jay Gould: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms (between the major groups) in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” What’s this about a “trade secret”? Sounds a bit nefarious, doesn’t it? Oh, that’s just evolutionists trying to hide the fact that the fossil record doesn’t actually support their beloved theory
Evolutionist are quick to point out that there are plenty of transitional fossils at the species level. Well, no kidding! Speciation (microevolution) is a fact, after all; so we would fully expect to see evidence of it in the fosssil record.
The scientific community, being essentially atheistic, refuses point blank to consider the obvious possibility that the lack of transitionals between major groups is due to no such (macro)evolution ever occurring. This stubborn refusal is hardly surprising - these same scientists refuse point blank to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of design in nature and believe in the senseless superstition that life arose naturally from inanimate matter.
Here’s an interesting quote from the late Stephen Jay Gould: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms (between the major groups) in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” What’s this about a “trade secret”? Sounds a bit nefarious, doesn’t it? Oh, that’s just evolutionists trying to hide the fact that the fossil record doesn’t actually support their beloved theory
Last edited:
A
AIPM1615
Guest
Please, for the love of God (literally), stop trying to make this into an “us vs. them” situation.
It’s an embarrassment to people of faith to portray science as being “essentially atheistic.” There are a lot of religious scientists, especially Catholics and Muslims. But you know why it seems atheistic? Because empirical science is not a religious field. It cannot prove nor disprove God. That’s why we have philosophy and revelation. Most scientists are not “out to get us.” It’s when evangelical nuts start forcing young earth creationism down people’s throats that the issues arise, and all believers end up being lumped together with the idiots. Sad.
Catholicism and science have never been in conflict. The greatest minds of the Church have thoroughly rejected a literal reading of Genesis, so why some Catholics seem hellbent on defending fundamentalism is beyond me. Follow the evidence to where it goes. Goodoness gracious.
It’s an embarrassment to people of faith to portray science as being “essentially atheistic.” There are a lot of religious scientists, especially Catholics and Muslims. But you know why it seems atheistic? Because empirical science is not a religious field. It cannot prove nor disprove God. That’s why we have philosophy and revelation. Most scientists are not “out to get us.” It’s when evangelical nuts start forcing young earth creationism down people’s throats that the issues arise, and all believers end up being lumped together with the idiots. Sad.
Catholicism and science have never been in conflict. The greatest minds of the Church have thoroughly rejected a literal reading of Genesis, so why some Catholics seem hellbent on defending fundamentalism is beyond me. Follow the evidence to where it goes. Goodoness gracious.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Yeah…did Porky the pig invent the internal combustion engine ?benjamin1973:
Sure … just as inevitable as chimps building a nuclaer reactor one day.
A
Aloysium
Guest
It’s the modern version of spontaneous generation, which held it important to keep things clean because bugs were understood to arise from dust and other inanimate or decaying matter. It’s now spread over billions of years, since I guess, in time anything impossible in the moment becomes possible.
We ingest “dead molecules” all the time. What part of our body was not something other before it became incorporated into our body? And, what holds this all together as one person, but our spirit?
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
No.
How do you get random mutation and natural selection from these beautiful verses?
A
Aloysium
Guest
The message is most certainly not getting through. Let’s be clear, the issue is not science but the co-option of science to propagate atheism. The standard theory of evolution is very bad science. It is in fact simply a story, a way to sneak in a materialistic metaphysics into the classroom. The problem is that people, having heard it their entire lives, naturally default to that vision of life’s past without reflection as to how it could be at all possible given the realities of daily life. The evidence of every waking moment, every interaction with one another, every breath we take shouts God and creation.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
So. . . God didn’t know that they would do that? He was limited in that way?
A
Aloysium
Guest
It’s a bit long and the way of thinking might be foreign but stick with it and see if this makes things a bit clearer.
We are brought into existence with a free will, which means that we create our own destiny with what we are given.
God’s existence is eternal, which means He is outside of time, but as Creator, He brings all time, everything and everywhere into existence. He is One, in every here and now.
Think of everything as existing, that is how He is everywhere. Things exist as themselves in relation to everything else. Whether it is you as a person or an atom, beings are individual and relating to others, and a part of something bigger. Ultimately, we would be one humanity joined in love within the Beatific Vision of all creation centred around God - perfect relationality, Divine Love.
The entire universe exists within the infinite ocean of His compassion. Through us, it journeys towards communion with its Source. We refused to do so at the beginning and now we are on the road forward to what was initially offered.
When we chose to make ourselves the centre of our lives, by usurping what belongs to God in the Garden that is our existence in the world, we lost the grace that not only grants us eternal life, but that allows us to see truth rather than illusion, within the wholeness of ourselves and within the world.
God reaches down to us to guide us. It is up to us to listen or not. The Word of God, the Son in the Trinity of the one God became incarnate. In and through Jesus Christ, we are able to know God again. He is the Way, manifesting Himself in each of us the journey of becoming Love itself.
The paradox from our perspective is that He, being the One Source of all time, knows our future which includes our decisions and His interventions. Speaking ontologically rather than temporally, we could say we surprise God, because although He is aware of all time, our decisions are our own.
We are playing out our destiny in time, each action a sacrifice to what we hold dearest. Where Love is at the centre of our lives, we are already in heaven, the suffering and ugliness of this world as powerful as it might be, dwarfed by the transcendent joy and the beauty of it all.
- Status