Is evolution a fact?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_Sully
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The geneologies in scripture trace Christ’s lineage from Adam. Using these genelologies, we come up with Adam being about 6,000 years ago. To deny that is to deny God’s Word and you may as well be called apostate.
 
Linkowski said:
The geneologies in scripture trace Christ’s lineage from Adam. Using these genelologies, we come up with Adam being about 6,000 years ago. To deny that is to deny God’s Word and you may as well be called apostate.
Click to expand...
To deny that those are literal histories is not to deny God’s word. You may call me apostate if it makes you feel superior, but luckily for me, is meaningless.

Peace

Tim
 
Linkowski said:
You need to go look for yourself…look at “Answers in Genesis”…they have a website. Look at icr.org. Look at “Creation on the Web”.
Click to expand...
Well, those are the sites I had in mind when I noted that creationists don’t do science. Any other resources you would like us to look at?

Peace

Tim
 
Linkowski said:
You need to go look for yourself…look at “Answers in Genesis”…they have a website. Look at icr.org. Look at “Creation on the Web”.
Click to expand...
I checked it out and it is bad, I did no see anything I could call real science. It comes down to because the Bible said so and the atheists are out to get us.

It comes down to limiting God to what you can easily understand.
 
Linkowski said:
How about the lengths of their lives - are those allegorical too?
Click to expand...
You will have a birth certificate giving your exact day and maybe even exact time of birth. You will regularly fill this date in even on, say, a form to apply for a library ticket, without any thought.

However probably most people in the world don’t know how old they are. When we do epidemological surveys of Third World countries we always bin ages 15-25, 25-35 and so on, not 10-20 and 20-30 because so many people round their age to the nearest ten years.

Do you think Methuselah lived more like you or more like a Third World person?
 
I think I will take the biblical account over the fallacies of evolution. I think it takes more faith to believe that natural selection and mutations caused what we see today than to believe the straight-up biblical record.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
 
Linkowski said:
The geneologies in scripture trace Christ’s lineage from Adam. Using these genelologies, we come up with Adam being about 6,000 years ago. To deny that is to deny God’s Word and you may as well be called apostate.
Click to expand...
I pointed out before that you cannot always rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible. For an example of a genealogy which should not be treated literally, how about Matthew 1:1 “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Is that genealogy to be interpreted literally? Was David the son of Abraham? Was Jesus the son of David?

It is obvious that a literal interpretation of genealogies is not always the correct interpretation.

rossum
 
Linkowski said:
I think I will take the biblical account over the fallacies of evolution. I think it takes more faith to believe that natural selection and mutations caused what we see today than to believe the straight-up biblical record.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
Click to expand...
Genesis Chapter1 or Chapter 2 ?
 
Linkowski said:
I think I will take the biblical account over the fallacies of evolution. I think it takes more faith to believe that natural selection and mutations caused what we see today than to believe the straight-up biblical record.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but that is the stance of someone who neither understands science nor scripture.

Peace

Tim
 
Future Prodigy:

I agree with some of your comments in your last post. That is all except the one in which you said it was important to have this discussion on a Catholic website.
Continue the good work, while I read my morning paper:D
 
Liberian said:
Seamus,

I am an engineer with rather a scientific education.

Once upon a time I wrote on the blackboard before my quantum mechanics class, “If you believe in quantum mechanics, you may as well believe in God.” The professor came in, erased the board
  • Liberian
Click to expand...
Now thats embarrasing. :o Your brave.
 
Liberian said:
There has been recorded the evolution of a new species of bullrush that was a hybrid from two existing species of bullrush. It was fertile and was not able to interbreed with either of the two progenitor species. I don’t know whether this counts as “macro evolution” or not.
  • Liberian
Click to expand...
Its still a bullrush.
 
JimG said:
I don’t see why this keeps cropping us as some kind of a problem. There are lots of Catholic scientists who accept evolutionary theory as probable. There’s no reason it must conflict with theology.
Click to expand...
It conflicts with the time table. I have failed to find a satisfatory explaination, however this is not to say that there isnt one. Peace
 
rossum said:
Macroevolution has been observed in fast breeding species: bacteria, fruit flies, mosquitos and so forth.

One point to be aware of is different definitions of “macroevolution” between biologists and creationists. For a biologist “macroevolution” means “evolution at or above the level of species”. Hence for a biologist, seeing one species of fruit fly evolving into a different species of fruit fly is a valid example of macroevolution.

rossum
Click to expand...
Nobody who honestly looks at the facts can seriously say that evolution isnt true. However, it is valid for somebody to challenge the mechcanism involved such as blind chance/ natural selection. I do not believe that these mechanisms can be legitimatly held accountable for the complexities of life. Rather it is an alternative and the only alternative to design, this is why some people are so adamant on regecting design, never really looking at what its actually saying. I dont think this regection of design is what you can call good science, rather I think that it is a prejudice naturalism.

Evolution is not the new religion. It is naturalism, or naturalistic philosophy, which seems to me to be the governing body of the “Neo Evolutionary theory” .
 
Didn’t Cardinal Schonborn (spelling? Sorry!) write something really good about this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top