Is Genesis True

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Deconi << Until someone can point to two different species and show me its one or various ā€œintermediariesā€ also walking around >>

See this wolf-like creature? Yeah the one near the top of this picture? šŸ˜ƒ

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

OK, now see this bottom one, yeah the one that looks most like a whale? There you go. šŸ‘ Wolf to Whale in 50 million years.

Deconi << and say, ā€œSee that dog? Itā€™s on it way to becoming that horseā€ then I might reconsider the No.2 >>

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HorseEvolution.gif

Errrrr, see that little doggy-like horse with the 4 toes front, 3 behind? Yeah, the one at the bottom of this picture. šŸ˜ƒ What is that again?

It is: Hyracotherium (early Eocene, about 55 Ma, previously ā€œEohippusā€) ā€“ The famous ā€œdawn horse,ā€ a small, doggish perissodactyl, with an arched back, short neck, omnivore teeth, and short snout, 4 toes in front and 3 behind.

Its on its way to becoming a much bigger modern one-toed horse. There you go. šŸ‘ Eohippus (Hyracotherium) to Equus in 50 million years orā€¦

The line that eventually produced Equus developed as follows: M. primus, M. sejunctus, M. isonesus (these last two still had a mix of primitive, hipparion, and equine features), M. intermontanus, M. stylodontus, M. carrizoensis. These last two looked quite horsey, with quite small side toes, and gave rise to a set of larger three-toed and one-toed horses known as the ā€œtrue equines.ā€

You are soooo welcome. :newidea:

Phil P
 
I believe Genesis to be true.
I do not be in the theory of evolution.

Iā€™ll not place my faith into something that could very well be proven wrong. I like to deal with fact. At present, evolution is mere theory.

Prove it, and Iā€™ll believe in it.
 
edwest2 said:
According to evolutionists, these are your relatives:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1935558.stm

The Church rejects polygenism (Humani Generis).

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
I was surprised to read this in the article:

It also suggests that continental drift played a role in how primates evolved in different parts of the world. **It even has implications for our own descent - the first humans may have appeared about eight rather than five million years ago. **
 
To my fellow Catholics, here is the information you need.

catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

Allow me to highlight a few parts by quoting them:

It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis I as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

It is equally impermissable to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2-3) as a fiction.

The acount of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

This is bedrock Church teaching, not to be ignored. Also see, Humani Generis.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Your sleight of hand and misdirection are tiresome. You accuse me of anger when you donā€™t know what my motivation is. Here it is: Adam and Eve willfully disobeyed God. Fact. Genesis is actual history. Fact. Jesus came to live and die for all men because of the sin of Adam and Eve, our first parents. Fact.
**Yes its sleight of hand to cite to papal documents. Your motivation is obviously personal. Your facts are your opinions.You can scream that all day, its still your opinion. You deny what Pius, JPII and Benedict say. **
Those who believe these things know them to be true. Fact. Evolution is in error. But you and others hold it up as being more important than anything else to the Christian. It MUST be believed and you and others are obviously committed to promoting this as long as it takes to achieve universal acceptance. It is also clear that there is an agenda: the Theory of Evolution allows for the development of man without supernatural intervention which most people who hear this understand to mean that since the theory is a sufficient explanation and God is not needed then God should be discarded.

**NO, I didn;t start the thread. You continue to ignore the evidence. Evolution is a scientific construct to explain reality. It does not address God. As a Christian I know the difference. It has no particular relevance to me at all, until someone attempts to tell the world it is the doctrine of my Church. Then I will stand up and continue to do so. You will not pervert church teaching to achieve some personal need. Your statement that if Genesis is not true there is no God is blasphemous. You now claim our Popes are in heresy. **

Thatā€™s the foundational idea being promoted. There is no God.

**That is utterly false and you know it. While there may in fact be an atheist lurking here I sure havenā€™t seen evidence of it. Atheists I assume have better things to do then waste their time on this. Your arguments has now devolved from pseudo-science links which you realized convinced no one but fellow delusionists, into calling us antiGod to now implying the Popes are in heresy. **
Click to expand...
 
Explain ā€œIn the Beginningā€¦ā€
Explain ā€œTheology of the Bodyā€
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Explain ā€œIn the Beginningā€¦ā€
Explain ā€œTheology of the Bodyā€
Click to expand...
  1. When Christ, referring to the ā€œbeginning,ā€ directed his questioners to the words written in Genesis 2:24, he ordered them, in a certain sense, to go beyond the boundary which, in the Yahwist text of Genesis, runs between the first and second situation of man. He did not approve what Moses had permitted ā€œfor their hardness of heart.ā€ He appealed to the words of the first divine regulation, which in this text is expressly linked to manā€™s state of original innocence. This means that this regulation has not lost its force, even though man has lost his primitive innocence.
Click to expand...
Christā€™s reply is decisive
Click to expand...
 
My point:

ā€œFr. Coyne was writing against Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, a principl author of the Catholic catechism, who said that an ā€˜unplanned process of random variation and natural selection,ā€™ both important parts of evolutionary thinking, are incompatible with Catholic belief in Godā€™s ordering and guiding of creation.ā€

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
My point:

ā€œFr. Coyne was writing against Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, a principl author of the Catholic catechism, who said that an ā€˜unplanned process of random variation and natural selection,ā€™ both important parts of evolutionary thinking, are incompatible with Catholic belief in Godā€™s ordering and guiding of creation.ā€

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying that.

Now back to my post where I cited Cardinal Ratzinger. What say you about that?

Peace

Tim
 
PhilVaz said:
Deconi << Until someone can point to two different species and show me its one or various ā€œintermediariesā€ also walking around >>

See this wolf-like creature? Yeah the one near the top of this picture? šŸ˜ƒ

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

OK, now see this bottom one, yeah the one that looks most like a whale? There you go. šŸ‘ Wolf to Whale in 50 million years.

Deconi << and say, ā€œSee that dog? Itā€™s on it way to becoming that horseā€ then I might reconsider the No.2 >>

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HorseEvolution.gif

Errrrr, see that little doggy-like horse with the 4 toes front, 3 behind? Yeah, the one at the bottom of this picture. šŸ˜ƒ What is that again?

It is: Hyracotherium (early Eocene, about 55 Ma, previously ā€œEohippusā€) ā€“ The famous ā€œdawn horse,ā€ a small, doggish perissodactyl, with an arched back, short neck, omnivore teeth, and short snout, 4 toes in front and 3 behind.

Its on its way to becoming a much bigger modern one-toed horse. There you go. šŸ‘ Eohippus (Hyracotherium) to Equus in 50 million years orā€¦

The line that eventually produced Equus developed as follows: M. primus, M. sejunctus, M. isonesus (these last two still had a mix of primitive, hipparion, and equine features), M. intermontanus, M. stylodontus, M. carrizoensis. These last two looked quite horsey, with quite small side toes, and gave rise to a set of larger three-toed and one-toed horses known as the ā€œtrue equines.ā€

You are soooo welcome. :newidea:

Phil P
Click to expand...
 
HA HA HA HAā€¦šŸ˜ƒ šŸ˜ƒ

Thatā€™s funny Phil. I really wish I had the time engage you in a bit of ā€˜fencingā€™ regarding your nice pictures, but Iā€™m not sure if youā€™re seriousā€¦and Iā€™m in the middle of 'varsity EXAMS for the year!

I spent a portion of my life in science ā€˜fencingā€™ creationists until science itself smacked me in the face!! Even astrophysics and cosmolory couldnā€™t help me! Iā€™ve even dabled in genetics but the examinations of human innards part just doesnā€™t do it for me.

I may be back later.

Sorry I havenā€™t read all your referred sites, but will get to it.

Those pictures and a stack like them ALWAYS make me laugh for days!! HA HA HAā€¦šŸ‘

:cool:
 
Just as an aside note, I hold with The Church.

Science is a ā€˜truthā€™ and is a legitimate tool for us to use. Thereā€™s nothing wrong with the Evolution Theory. Itā€™s actually quite plausible on some of itā€™s tennets. Itā€™s just that I know when people are ā€˜doctoringā€™ facts, or postulating probable projections from subjective basisā€¦and a comedy of errors doesnā€™t begin to describe what I see.

As I say, I may be back after the exams.

This stuff ā€˜killsā€™ meā€¦šŸ˜ƒ

:cool:
 
adrift said:
40.png
Deconi:
HA HA HA HAā€¦šŸ˜ƒ šŸ˜ƒ

Thatā€™s funny Phil. I really wish I had the time engage you in a bit of ā€˜fencingā€™ regarding your nice pictures, but Iā€™m not sure if youā€™re seriousā€¦and Iā€™m in the middle of 'varsity EXAMS for the year!

I spent a portion of my life in science ā€˜fencingā€™ creationists until science itself smacked me in the face!! Even astrophysics and cosmolory couldnā€™t help me! Iā€™ve even dabled in genetics but the examinations of human innards part just doesnā€™t do it for me.

I may be back later.

Sorry I havenā€™t read all your referred sites, but will get to it.

Those pictures and a stack like them ALWAYS make me laugh for days!! HA HA HAā€¦šŸ‘

:cool:
Click to expand...
lolā€¦I love the attack with no evidence, make fun of the poster and promise someday to have some real evidence.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
adrift:
sorry I cannot bring up the post as its all quoted within. but the reference to ā€œIn the beginningā€¦ā€ and Theology of the Body refer to writings by Benedict and JPII respectivelyā€¦you were errrrā€¦adrift of the conversation. šŸ˜ƒ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top