Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

[Glark]

So new species coming from from old species is an idea inspired by demons? Does that sound rational to you?

No, but It is perfectly rational for me to conclude that a pseudo-scientific theory that has hijacked the intellectual high ground of a civilization and leads many people to believe that there is no need for a divine Creator is a theory invented by demons.

 

[Glark]

Pope JPII in the intro said “it is the sure norm for teaching”

He forgot to mention that the sections on the origins of man were written by biased theistic evolutionists and are therefore unreliable. This the same Pope who devoted much of his papacy to praising false religions - even voodoo! He even went so far as to kiss that antichrist unHoly Book, the Koran, in public. (the late Catholic intellectual, Paula Haigh, described his bizarre inter-faith circus as “outrageuos blasphemy”.). Apparently, this is what a Catholic “saint” does these days. Can his judgement be trusted?

 

[edwest211]

That is not credible at all.

 

[Glark]

You keep mentioning a literal interpretation, but I wonder if you know what a literal interpretation would look like, considering the literary intent of the author living at the time.

It would look just what 99.9999% of Catholics believed before Darwinism came along - the present creation was created in six days of 24-hours duration; Adam was created in an instant from inanimate matter; Eve was created in an instant from Adams’s rib.

 

[Glark]

The same universe in which God says “you are that inanimate matter”

I notice you didn’t comment on Genesis 3:23. I thought that for a trained theologian like yourself it would be easy to explain how this verse can be reconciled with your Darwinist belief that Adam was the offspring of a pre-existing creature.

 

[buffalo]

Who wrote these parts?

JPII was faithful. He did not endorse evolution.

 

[Glark]

The value of evolution is that it explains things we see in nature.

You are assuming there is “value” in a mere explanation. How is believing that man evolved from microbes valuable?

One question it answers is why do separate species share DNA? Because they evolved that way.

There is another explanation - God used the same molecular building-blocks to create many very different creatures.

 

[Glark]

Which context are you referring to? What is unreasonable about it? Clay has a number of translations in the Hebrew

I’m glad you asked. Here are my reasons for rejecting the theological argument that Adam could have been the offspring of a pre-existing living creature (I had to spread it over two posts):

The argument centres around Genesis 2:7, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being”, but let’s set the tone with something short and sweet and simple - Genesis 3:23 - “Therefore the Lord God sent him (Adam) forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.” The meaning of this verse couldn’t be clearer -the “ground” from which Adam “was taken” was obviously soil, ie., inanimate matter. How can this possibly be reconciled with the evolutionist claim that Adam was the offspring of a pre-existing creature? Moreover, the Hebrew word “ground” here is exactly the same Hebrew word “ground” from which Adam was formed in Genesis 2:7.

Speaking of which let’s now consider the central Scripture - Genesis 2:4-7,
“(4) This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (5) before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; (6) but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. (7) And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

Note the references to “ground” in verses 5 and 6, which establish the context for the “ground” from which Adam was formed in verse 7. Not surprisingly, “Adam” means “ground” in Hebrew … which makes no sense he was the offspring of a living creature

Verse 7 then states that after God breathed into Adam’s nostrils he became “a living soul”, but this is a bit misleading as it doesn’t refer to Adam’s spiritual soul. Instead of “living soul”, many Bibles use the translation, “a living being.” The word “soul” here is the same Hebrew word (nephesh) that can also refer to non-human life, eg Deut 12:23. So to state that Adam “became a living soul/being” is simply to state that Adam became alive - as opposed to not being alive. This would be a meaningless thing to state if Adam was the offspring of a living creature. Its use only makes sense if it serves to make the distinction between the lifeless matter of the “dust of the ground” at the beginning of the verse and the life-filled Adam that God created at the end of the verse.

(continued in next post …)

 

[Glark]

(Continued from previous post …)

Bible translations of “ground” (Strong’s Hebrew 127, adamah) are “land, ground, earth, soil, lands, country, dirt, dust” - nothing even remotely close to “a living creature”.
Biblical translations of “dust” (Strong’s Hebrew 6083, aphar) are “dust, ashes, debris, ground, dry soil, earth, heap, loose earth, rubbish, rubble”, Again, nothing that in any way suggests “a living creature”.

Next there is Genesis 3:19, in which God describes the ultimate fate of Adam as a consequence of his sin: “In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
When Adam dies his body will decompose into inanimate matter, described here as “ground” and “dust”. These are exactly the same Hebrew words used in Genesis 2:7, the same “dust of the ground” that Adam was formed from
And notice that God says Adam will “return” to inanimate matter - the word “return” implies that he was once inanimate matter. If Adam was “created” from a living creature, it makes no sense to say he will return" to inanimate matter.

In a similar vein is Job 10:9, “Remember that you that have made me of clay. Will you turn me to dust again?” Since Job was born of woman, he is obviously referring to how Adam was created (“of clay”), but his own death will result in his body decomposing into inanimate matter (“dust”), just as Adam’s body did. The key word here is “again” - Adam’s body cannot become inanimate dust “again” if his body was never inanimate dust in the first place. In other words, if Adam was the offspring of a living creature, he could never be lifeless dust “again”.

 

[edwest211]

Pope John Paul II was totally quoted out of context by the evo-evangelists. He deserves better. As a saint, he will be vindicated. To me, he has been vindicated more than once but a selective blindness has overcome some.

 

[edwest211]

Ash Wednesday: “Remember man that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return.”

 

[buffalo]

Here is what happens when you go against the current paradigm. You lose your job.

Report Of Soft Tissues In A Triceratops Horn

 

[IWantGod]

Ridiculous. If God is keeping creation in existence, sustaining its very being, i would say God is eternally and intimately involved with his creation. Far from separated. By your standard there can be no natural events because that would mean God is separated from his creation and there can be no freewill becuase that would mean God is separated from his creation.

Baloney!.

 

[Rau]

The late William Provine stated that he couldn’t think of even one evolutionary biologist who wasn’t an atheist.

Beats me why a Catholic (evolutionary biologist) would be expected to produce different scientific conclusions.

 

[rossum]

We already went over lactase persistence. It is a loss of an ability humans once enjoyed, that is the ability to digest mild sugar. Some no longer can.

You are grossly misinformed. Lactose is a component of milk, and every human baby has lactase in order to be able to digest its mother’s milk. At some point the baby is weaned and lactase production shuts down. Some humans have a mutation which blocks the shut-down and they keep producing lactase (hence lactase persistence) throughout their lives. This is an advantage in cultures where cows/sheep/goats/horses are raised and their milk can be used for food.

Lactase persistence is the retention, not the loss, of the ability to digest milk.

rossum

 

[rossum]

In what mad theological universe can inanimate matter (“dust” and “ground”) be interptreted to mean a living organism?

In the universe of Genesis 1:24 “Let the earth bring forth living creatures…” Hence all living creatures are formed from earth and so “dust” or “ground” are perfectly acceptable as descriptions of things made from earth/clay.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Once again: No one wants to answer these two simple questions:

1. Did God know what Adam would look like?
2. Did Adam look as God planned?

1. The TE God did, the ID God did not, because the ID God needed to intervene and tweak things part way through to get the result He wanted. ID claims to be able to detect those tweaks, so they must have happened.
2. Yes for the TE God. Sort-of for the ID God. Again, the ID God intervened in order to keep things on course. Had He not intervened, then Adam would have turned out differently.

The TE God is superior since He got everything right back at the start. The ID God didn’t get everything right at the start and had to nudge things later on to keep them on course.

ID required that its God intervenes and that His interventions are detectable. That has implications for the initial actions of the ID God – they contained faults that needed later correction.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It has ruled out natural macroevolution. God rested the 7th day. That means nothing new was created.

So, when we were told that God creates our souls individually at the moment of our conception we were misinformed, because God stopped creating anything new a long time ago?

If God is creating souls, then He has not stopped creating. If God has stopped creating then He is not creating any new souls.

You need to think more carefully about what you are saying here I think.

rossum

 

[rossum]

God created everything from nothing. But here is a ‘modern’ story:

Scientist to God: I’m going to take this dirt and make a living thing from it.

God to scientist: Get your own dirt.

Scientist: “Certainly,” and takes a vial of her own blood to work on.

Do not forget that you do not start with “nothing”, you start with God. God is not nothing.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Billions of years of suffering, violence and death to produce creatures God could have created instantly.

To an eternal entity like God, billions of years is instantly, it is 0% of God’s lifetime.

rossum