Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some parts of the Catechism that relate to the origins of man can’t be trusted and don’t deserve to be called Catholic. It’s a corrupted document produced by a corrupted Church.
 
Jesus promised that He would protect the Church. The Church is not corrupted. Some people in it may be.
 
I wasn’t arguing for or against Noah’s flood covering the entire earth. By now that you’ve brought it up, the opinions expressed in your quotes seem to be at odds with Scripture. For example:
  • "So the Lord said “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them” (Genesis 6:7).
  • “And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered … covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon hte earth, and every man; everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died” (Gen 7:19-22).
  • “the Lord said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground because of man … neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done’” (Gen 8:21).
Furthermore, it’s hard to imagine a flood that covered the highest mountains, yet was not global (although God isn’t bound by the laws of physics).

Modern science is apparently at odds with Scripture - how unusual!
 
benjamin1973 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry, your argument fails. The findings that we are all carbon-based and share double-helix DNA - which are undoubtedly useful - are not in any way dependent on the theory of common ancestry. These findings would have been arrived at if no one had ever heard of evolution.

And why mention the Big Bang? We’re talking about the theory of common ancestry and biological evolution - which you have yet to demonstrate is of any practical use.
 
anon65111186 said:
Explain how evolutionists rely on wishful thinking, I’m not following what you mean.
Click to expand...
The three pillars of evolution “science”: 1) wishful thinking, 2) rank speculation, 3) wild extrapolation.
The proof doesn’t rely on consensus, many people agreeing or disagreeing with Wisdom 19:19 doesn’t change the scriptures.
Click to expand...
Are you saying you are the only theistic evolutionist who has ever believed that Wisdom 19 refers to evolution? If so, then a consensus of one isn’t very impressive. I wish you luck, but I doubt if the Church will adopt the eccentric opinion of one unknown theologian.
 
The three pillars of evolution “science”: 1) wishful thinking, 2) rank speculation, 3) wild extrapolation./end quote
 
Glark said:
Some parts of the Catechism that relate to the origins of man can’t be trusted and don’t deserve to be called Catholic. It’s a corrupted document produced by a corrupted Church.
Click to expand...
What gives you the authority to question the Church? Or were you just being sarcastic?
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
Okay, so Gen 1:2 says “and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters”

So it was formless, without any form whatsoever, yet animals could inhabit it? That doesn’t make sense. The only other thing existing at Gen 1:2 is “water” which may not be H20 exactly. Animals weren’t even created yet, and neither was any form for them to live on, and the dinosaurs most definitely lived on land.
Click to expand...
As I read it, the six days of creation begins in Genesis 1:3 with “And God said 'Let there be light”. This means “God created the heavens and the earth” (v.1) before the “six days” creation - so there are two separate creations. How long before the “six days” was the earth created? It doesn’t say - it could have a very short period of time or it could have been a very long period of time. Some Christians believe in the latter, and that it’s possible that there existed a creation prior to the “six days” creation - a creation that was destroyed as a result of the rebellion of angels, led by Lucifer. The result of that destruction being described in Gen 1:2 - “The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon on the face of the deep.” In other words, that first creation was destroyed by a global flood similar to Noah’s flood. This theory is known as the Gap Theory of Creation. (The fact that no details are mentioned of this possible previous creation doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. The Bible tells us only what we need to know.)

In this first possible creation, there may have existed animals that didn’t feature in the later “six days” creation - dinosaurs, for example. This could explain (what scientists claim is in) the fossil record.

In Jeremiah 4, there is an very interesting passage which describes a great destruction brought on God’s people. The resultant devastation is described (in part) this way: “I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void; And the heavens, they had no light.” These words should sound familiar - they are almost identical to Genesis 1:2 - “The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon on the face of the deep.” This suggests the possibility that Genesis 1:2 is also describing the aftermath of great destruction - the destruction of the first (“dinosaur”) creation.
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
Are you referring to Genesis 1:29-30?

See, I give you every seed-bearing plant on all the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the wild animals, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the earth, I give all the green plants for food.
It says God gave them plants, doesn’t mean they ate the plants, or that they ate only the plants. It doesn’t mean the animals started eating animals after Adam sinned, or anything of the like.
Click to expand...
If there were herbivores, carnivores and omnivores, it seems very odd that God should mention only the vegetarians in Genesis 1:29-30.

Furthermore, after Noah’s flood, God gave permission to humans to eat animals - presumably, for the first time: “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything” (Genesis 9:3). The words “shall be food for you … as I gave you the green plants” is of course an allusion to Gen 1:29-30. We can therefore conclude that Gen 1:29-30 suggests all creatures were created vegetarian.
 
Step 1: Don’t bother studying evolution, even its most basic principles. Don’t follow links that people provide for you to find answers to your questions.

Step 2: Pretend that whatever you originally asserted is still true, and nobody has bothered to contest your assertions.

Step 3: Rinse and repeat.
 
I guess God must have made a mistake in letting the Church which represents him go in a direction with which you disagree. Maybe you should take it up with Him.

It probably has nothing to do with the Church’s disinterest in being willfully ignorant, and yours to remain so.
 
Kei said:
Jesus promised that He would protect the Church. The Church is not corrupted. Some people in it may be.
Click to expand...
Jesus promised that the Church would not be destroyed. This doesn’t mean it can’t be corrupted to some extent. During the Arian heresy, about 90% of bishops believed Jesus was not God. The Church eventually overcame this very widespread heresy. And thankfully we don’t have a Pope going around praising every pagan religion under the sun and kissing antichrist books like the Koran anymore.

The Catechism is an official Church document and parts of it are corrupted - therefore the Church has been corrupted to a certain extent.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
What gives you the authority to question the Church?
Click to expand...
I am a Catholic, therfore I can question what I perceive to be false and misleading teaching going on in my Church. And in my opionion, the Catechism contains some false and misleading teachings regarding origins science and the interpretation of Genesis.
 
Aloysium said:
The short of it is that the word animal is derived from the Latin anima - soul.
Click to expand...
Okay, so we agree that we are animals in one sense, since we are animated, but animals themselves are animated with material soul, and we with a spiritual one.

So although we are rational animals, we are not animals proper due to our spiritual souls, but that I though was already a given. Our non spiritual nature is very much animal, and has a lot in common with all animals, especially those species with whom scientists classify us.
 
Aloysium said:
If the goal is to understand the nature of life and ourselves as expressions of life, how does the theory of evolution bring us any closer to the truth? The scientific evidence points towards creation.
Click to expand...
Not everyone thinks it points towards creationism, but it surely can bring us to wonder and marvel at God’s creation, if indeed it is true. That He uses something we don’t understand very well “randomness”, and “natural selection” to achieve His ends. Praise God that He did so, and for making us engage in finding the truth on our own.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Some parts of the Catechism that relate to the origins of man can’t be trusted and don’t deserve to be called Catholic. It’s a corrupted document produced by a corrupted Church.

What gives you the authority to question the Church? Or were you just being sarcastic?
Click to expand...
It’s not the first time he’s said as much, he thinks he knows better than the Church, it’s no secret.
 
Glark said:
“The earth was without form, and void
Click to expand...
Okay but I don’t see how something that didn’t have shape or form and was literally empty space could have contained a flood or animals or anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top