Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimR-OCDS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Al_Moritz said:
Thank you for this, NeedsMercy. I knew that the alleged ‘debunking’ was a lie. I had planned to ignore Buffalo’s request to discuss the paper, because it is a sensitive topic.

But now that it’s out: Atheists have a nasty name for this:

Lying for Jesus

And guess what: I agree with the atheists on this one. It is shameful, and it discredits our faith. These are dark souls who feel they have to resort to this. Disgusting.
PS: I am not acccusing Buffalo of this practice, he is just naively believing this nonsense. It is those alleged ‘researchers’ who are “lying for Jesus”. Creationists do that all the time; their quote mining (deliberately quoting out of context) is another deceptive practice that falls under this category. Again, plain disgusting.
Click to expand...
I am glad you do not accuse me.

Are you certain that scientists do not lie for the god of BUC? Have you seen the recent issues with the peer review process and the manipulation of data? Do not think for one minute that it is unique to one camp. I submit the camp that does not believe in absolute truth or morality would be more suspect, after all they cannot let a divine foot in the door.

I present evidence as it appears. It is worthy of being discussed and not just waved away because someone doesn’t like it. We should be interested in the truth.

Is it true or not the fusion sits are in different locations?
Was it predicted that a fusion site would result in more DNA? An additional 150K base pairs?
 
Monkey1976 said:
Biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution simply describes how life - however it came into being - changed over time into the forms we see today.

The distinction between “micro” and “macro” is something invented by Young-Earth Creationists. What they call “macro” is nothing more than “micro” adaptations accumulating and carrying forward through time. The idea of a “species” in real terms is nothing more than a somewhat arbitrary bucket that we put life-forms into to classify them. For example, we call coyotes and wolves different species, but we’re seeing a quickly growing population of fertile hybrids appearing - coywolves. A similar case is happening with grizzly and polar bears: Two different species who are birthing fertile hybrids because of an increasing overlap in their native ranges. This new population is being called “Grolar bears”.

I thought that phrase was from boxing… Mythbusters did a couple episodes about it - turns out that the pressure needed to knock a person out of their socks without actually touching either sock or leg (>100 PSI) has an unfortunate side effect of instant death. Myth busted. 👍
Click to expand...
Adaptation has limits and it is proper to distinguish between micro (which no one argues) and macro which is contentious no matter who coined the term. Often adaptations revert back to the core when pressure is relieved as in the finches.

They are still bears. We will better be able to define species from genetics soon enough.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
On the contrary, the case for separate ancestry requires special pleading, for the following reason: The separate ancestry claim requires an explanation of the “separately-designed basic type” which had 48 chromosomes and more similarity in the fusing parts than could be justified by functional need or by random chance. How did these separate instances of the “basic type” get to be so similar in the first place? This exact structural form of chromosomes is not a necessary part of life in general, as most species do not have it. Sure, you could say that God (or some intelligent designer) looked ahead and realized that this basic type of chromosomes would be useful in both apes and man, and so economized on His design effort and designed it only once. But this assumption flies in the face of the evidence of God’s extravagance in having so much diversity in the forms of life in general. Or it suggests again a deceptive God who smiled as He separately created two similar structures that had no functional need of being so similar. The more reasonable assumption is that the similarity in structure is evidence of a common ancestor somewhere.
Click to expand...
Designers capitalize on good designs and reuse them often.

Computer hardware is similar but the programming is diverse. The key here is the information God imparted into the DNA.
 
buffalo said:
Designers capitalize on good designs and reuse them often.
Click to expand...
Yes, mortal designers with limited capabilities. There is no need for God to economize, as He has shown on numerous occasions. Sorry, this explanation of the similarity of forms does not cut it.
 
Jon_S said:
How could it be separate?

There was a time when there was nothing but single cell creatures.

Many millions of years later mammals emerged in the form of small creatures.

Many millions of years later mammals were diversified into the species we now see

Somewhere in that process millions of years ago, modern apes did not exist nor humans, but perhaps some other creatures that led to the species we see today.

Perhaps such an idea explains Neanderthals. Perhaps they were “soulless” hominids. That God gave us our soul transforming us into a new creation which emerged as humans leaving others like Neanderthals behind.
Click to expand...
I learned evolution in Catholic High School ( over 50 yrs. ago ) The one -celled creatures, over eons, became sea creatures, they, through natural selection & survival of the fittest, finally developed lungs & limbs & became mammals, then primates, then man & God breathed the soul into him. ( Adam ).

To coincide with the Bible…I believe God stopped at the primate apes & formed the human from the earth either complete, or as you say, Jon S., from microbes & onward to breathe the soul into him.

I hope this explains my position because I’m tired of spending so much time on this.
 
buffalo said:
Then evolution has foresight? See the dilemma?
Click to expand...
How is that a problem

God has foresight. He set it all in motion millions of years ago knowing exactly that it would create you and me.

Why do you think evolution has to be godless
 
Jon_S said:
How is that a problem

God has foresight. He set it all in motion millions of years ago knowing exactly that it would create you and me.

Why do you think evolution has to be godless
Click to expand...
It is then design and purpose.
 
If the Pope thinks God didn’t create life and the world the way it says he did in Genesis because God is not a magician or wizard, then what does he think about the hundreds of other miracles that were performed in the Bible that defy laws of science.
 
Jon_S said:
Sure…

Our universe was bang created with the words of God.

Our experience shows us that the biological world was not created that way.

I know people who take your position so far that they say, “God made the world look old”. As if he needed to trick us or something.

But alas, this is what happens when people rely on a couple dozen sentences in a religious book meant to teach religious principles for their entire scientific knowledge.
Click to expand...
So we believe God created sentient angelic life “puff” but man he let evolve from an ameba to some undefined point and then infused an immortal soul into a human pair and revealed himself? Got it.:rolleyes:

That book will be around a long time.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
 
Monkey1976 said:
Biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution simply describes how life - however it came into being - changed over time into the forms we see today.
Click to expand...
But has everything to do with whether there is a Creator involved.
 
Ed_Silvia said:
So we believe God created sentient angelic life “puff” but man he let evolve from an ameba to some undefined point and then infused an immortal soul into a human pair and revealed himself? Got it.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Angels are purely spiritual, immaterial beings. The best description I’ve heard of their nature actually comes from the TV show Supernatural: A multi-dimensional wavelength of celestial intent. As they are not physical, biological creatures, they fall outside the scope of the physical world and its laws. Remember the words of the Creed: “maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible” Just as heaven is not part of the physical universe - and therefore not subject to physical laws - angels are not biological creatures, therefore not subject to biological processes.
 
estesbob said:
But has everything to do with whether there is a Creator involved.
Click to expand...
It’s the description of a mechanism, nothing more. Whether that mechanism is driven by God or not is irrelevant unless one wants to take it outside the realm of science and turn it into a philosophy. Is Newtonian physics an atheistic plot because it doesn’t include God in its equations?
 
DaddyGirl said:
Common sense? That doesn’t sound like common sense to a lot of people.
There is no reason for those who understand the facts of evolution to “acknowledge up front that a Creator had to have done it”…since there is no reason for them to think this is true.
You can believe it of course–it is a theological belief of many religions that there is a God who created people and the world and people have all sorts of beliefs.
But there would be no reason for a scientist or biologist etc to mention this, never mind say it “up front”…since there is no physical or historical proof of this at all.

I do become amazed when people insist a God “had to have done it” when there is no way they can know this.
We don’t have all the answers yet, but think of how much we have learned in the last 50, 100 years about the earth and science and people.
The answers and details we will figure out in the next 50 years will most likely knock people’s socks off.

.
Click to expand...
The precise order of the universe demands it was designed by a supreme intelligence!

The old “if a watch was found in the desert, would you say it just popped up by an explosion, or it was made by an intelligent person?”

The complexity of a moth’s wing that even has a design to scare away predators ,shows it has an intelligent designer . Not to mention a fetus in the mother’s womb.

God’s creation "knocks my socks off ! " :clapping:
 
Ed_Silvia said:
So we believe God created sentient angelic life “puff” but man he let evolve from an ameba to some undefined point and then infused an immortal soul into a human pair and revealed himself? Got it.:rolleyes:

That book will be around a long time.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Click to expand...
We know nothing about the creation of the Angels. I’m not sure how you can compare the two. We can look into our past and see what happened. Can’t do that with Angels since it’s all speculation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top