C
ccolley2
Guest
that’s one interpretation of the Scripture, but that isn’t what the text says.
CC
- Status
CC
K
kalt
Guest
The beginning of the world would be Day 1. No human was living then, so no prophets. Obviously, “since the beginning of the world” takes into account all of time, though humans weren’t there from the very beginning. Did humans arrive a few days after “the beginning of the world” or many years later? The evidence points to many years later.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Hey guys, thought I’d chime in. I didn’t really understand evolution, honestly, so I picked up some books by Jerry Coyne, etc.
Then I’d read material from the ID guys, some of the Creationist camp, etc.
I have to be honest, it seems like either side makes enough valid points that a thinking man could swing either way. For this reason, I don’t really fault either side, as long as they fall in line with the basic guidelines put out by the Catholic Church (I thought there were 7, but I could be wrong so don’t quote me on that).
The one thing that even the evolutionary side seems to concede over and over again, however, is that if the Creationists were to be more specific about what is meant by “kinds” (when God created the various kinds) their argument would be more cohesive and carry more force. I think it would be something to keep in mind for the Creationist scientists out there…
Then I’d read material from the ID guys, some of the Creationist camp, etc.
I have to be honest, it seems like either side makes enough valid points that a thinking man could swing either way. For this reason, I don’t really fault either side, as long as they fall in line with the basic guidelines put out by the Catholic Church (I thought there were 7, but I could be wrong so don’t quote me on that).
The one thing that even the evolutionary side seems to concede over and over again, however, is that if the Creationists were to be more specific about what is meant by “kinds” (when God created the various kinds) their argument would be more cohesive and carry more force. I think it would be something to keep in mind for the Creationist scientists out there…
E
edwest2
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Adam and Eve, two individuals. There are those who post here that tell us that two such individuals did not exist, as first parents of all, only a population of humans.
It is Church teaching that Eve was made by God from Adam’s side.
Original Sin. Why was Jesus born? Why did He die for us?
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Who told you that? In order to be Catholic we have to embrace Jesus Christ.
Evolution is not the new circumcision. It is not a requirement for entering the life and House of God.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Scary? What do you think of signs on buses that read: Man Created God? Where did they get that idea? From evolutionary psychology that tells them their genetic material kept increasing the size of man’s brain but since we were still too primitive, our genetic material allowed us to come up with the idea of god/gods as a survival mechanism. How many people do you think are being deceived? Even one is too many. Consider what others might think after seeing the following on a billboard: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
The reason some people, Catholics in particular, are concerned is because atheists are now using what they call science to prove: Man Created God, as the sign reads on the sides of buses. According to evolutionary psychology, our genetic material kept increasing our brain size until one day, our brains needed to create god/gods as a survival mechanism. Then there’s: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. In other words, let’s face it, we’ve evolved to the point where we no longer need that god/gods stuff. This is deception.
Peace,
Ed
R
Rites
Guest
Yes, according to me, similarity in DNA does not prove relatedness. And by relatedness I mean common origin from a single parent species.
What evidence right in front of me? You are using a typical evolutionist tactic in simply calling me ignorant instead of trying to justify your position. Macroevolution has not been observed and cannot be tested, and I have never seen any compelling evidence to the contrary in any field; if such was not the case, I would gladly accept the theory as a valid one. So unless you do something more than merely point at DNA and expect me to suddenly see the light, this exchange will get us nowhere.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Paternity DNA tests are quite common and show how similarities in DNA do show relatedness even to a very very specific scale.
Microevolution and Macroevolution ARE THE SAME THING. The only difference is timescale. You ask for evidence, but honestly if you haven’t seen it yet then you’ve already made up your mind because you’re filtering it out or not wanting to understand it, so I don’t see the point in trying to convince you.
Read one of these if you’re genuinely interested in the topic:
amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787
amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532/ref=pd_sim_b_5
Or evolution from a Christian standpoint:
amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497
A
a_priori
Guest
That idea is extremely old and didn’t start with evolutionary psychology. Man wanting to put himself in the place of God has been a part of the human condition since the beginning. Ignoring what our God-given brain has allowed us to observe about His creation simply because is causes a problem that has been with us for thousands of years anyway seems unnecessary.
H
historyb
Guest
No one told me that, just looking here seems that you want to be catholic you need to tow the evolution line. When I was catholic I always felt looked down upon because I choose to take God at His Word about Him creating all Life.
E
edwest2
Guest
Thanks for your reply. I always took God at His word. Now I wonder why all these people are promoting evolution as somehow being so important.
Peace,
Ed
H
historyb
Guest
That is a very good question
L
liquidpele
Guest
Technically you’re not taking God’s word, you’re taking the word of books written about God by people and translated twice. Just sayin’.
H
historyb
Guest
Which as Christians and Catholics believe is God breathed by Him, in other words God used those man to write His Word.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Word for Word? And we have the original texts written by the original authors with perfect translations? Because I specifically remember playing the telephone game and things had a funny way of changing.Which as Christians and Catholics believe is God breathed by Him, in other words God used those man to write His Word.
My point is not condemning religion here, it’s just that as a rational person, one has to look and see the limitations of the written books - they can serve as guidance sure, but taking them as literal for no reason beyond that that’s what the book says just seems childish.
H
historyb
Guest
Yes God has perfectly preserved His Word, we have ancient manuscripts which line up exactly with what we have now. God’s Word is completely inerrant
L
liquidpele
Guest
Okay then, so as to not turn this negative I’ll just say good luck with that.
- Status