Can I suggest actually saying that in the original post then? Her name wasn’t mentioned in your post, and neither was the fact that the text in your post was a quote from the link. I obviously just responded to what was in front of me. I’m going to skip this discussion.
My bad - it should have said interview with Lynn Margulis. Sorry.
And I think its downright ugly when atheists try to hijack it and say “oh we have evolution, it explains everything, who needs God anymore?” Excuse me?! :nunchuk:It is not wise to use the 98% related to the chimp argument anymore. It is around 80%.Evolution itself is very real and is observable in modern day. And there’s no doubt that humans also are evolved (and are even still evolving today). Is it random? I certainly don’t think so, and truly random evolution wouldn’t even result in life at all, let alone the multitude of well-adapted species that we can see today. Evolution has testable predictions, and those predictions have always been confirmed. The fossil record, biogeographical patterns and the radiations of species, our own physiology and ontogeny all point to evolution as a force of nature, and therefore also a creation of God. Science is a way of better understanding God’s creation, not an enemy of our Faith or a trick of Satan (as some Protestant denominations claim)–if anything it enhances it.
Could God have made every species as its own individual, independent creation? Of course. But he did not. I don’t think its a good idea to question “why” when it comes to God, but I think personally…there is a beauty in it. We share 90% of our DNA with a mouse for example, 98.5% with a chimp, and yet look at how much difference just that makes. When we are in the womb, our circulatory structures as those in fish, amphibians, and then reptiles before it goes to the mammalian structure, which we have in common with all other mammals. Does it have a deeper meaning? I am not sure, but for some reason it fills me with this sense of peace and wonder.
Other reasons for why, I think evolution is helpful to humans on two levels:
First and most obvious, it allows us to adapt. Those in equatorial climates, like South Asia or Africa, have darker skin to allow for better protection from the sun, and those away from the equator, like North Asians or Europeans, have lighter skin to aid in the absorption of Vitamin D.
And secondly, it allows us to make a better living. As humans, we use evolution, human guided evolution, to our own advantage. Just as God can guide evolution to create so many species able to fill all sorts of habitats and even the new habitats which come up through geographical shifts (like volcanic islands), so humans are able to create new crops to feed us (from wild corn which is difficult to eat, to our own domestic corn which feeds us much more readily to now corn which is immune to pests), new species of animals to become our companions (as in wolf to dog, and from dog to the many breeds of dog we specialize to serve us as guide dogs, companions, hunting dogs, etc), creating new medicines when we transfer genes from one species to another in order to produce an antibiotic more readily (something which would not have been possible if we were not genetically compatible with other species)! If anything the ability of our DNA to change in response to outside stimuli is a gift.
Just my thoughts. Obviously if you want to adhere to strict 7 day young-Earth style Creationism…well. I don’t think thats a sin or anything. But I don’t think any Christian should shy away from the Natural Sciences. They really are fascinating and give me a great feeling of wonder…I think nature and the laws of nature are like the artwork of God in some ways.
Well if you aren’t arguing against “micro” evolution then “macro” evolution is just the accumulation of differences in reproduction capacities. Its like saying you can walk next door, but its impossible to walk to the store. When two populations of the same animal are kept apart, they start creating barriers to reproduction as generations continue.
, it does have abrupt appearances though I would say. Point is that it shows gradualism and a progression from less complex to more complex. First unicellular organisms…then billions of years later we have multicellular organisms…millions of years later and we have terrestrial tetrapods. 
And whenever there is a transitional type of animal, it will appear between its two counterparts, just as you would predict. It shows an order to the creation of God, I think, and there is some beauty in that.Study up on the ATP synthase motor. Complex and right there from the beginning.Well if you aren’t arguing against “micro” evolution then “macro” evolution is just the accumulation of differences in reproduction capacities. Its like saying you can walk next door, but its impossible to walk to the store. When two populations of the same animal are kept apart, they start creating barriers to reproduction as generations continue.
And no the fossil record doesn’t have “stasis”
And I think a reason why God uses evolution is that…it allows for life to colonize even new environments. Look at volcanic islands, formed after the creation of the Earth…what is on them? Different species of fish, birds, and insects. Its not that mammals are incapable of thriving on these volcanic islands, often when humans introduce them they go amok And the animals there are their own species. They are closely related to each other (in what you see as species radiations), and related to the species on the mainland (regardless if the climate is identical or very different), but they are all distinct species. Now if you believe in 7 day creationism, that is hard to really explain other then “well who knows” (and that’s fine)…but under guided evolution you can see how evolution allowed for certain select animals from the mainland (capable of swimming or flying) to colonize the new island, and then over millions of years, they form their own distinct communities, and eventually create new species, in order to best adapt to the island. So just like humans can use our own forms of “artificial slelection” evolution to assist us, so God uses evolution so his creations can change as they expand and grow…imho. So even as some people worry about climate change (if its man-made or natural doesn’t matter), there can be some comfort in that no matter what happens, life will continue to thrive in some form or another.
I will look at the link you posted later on, when I have some more time…just it is important to keep an open mind about how the creations of God works…and that regardless of his methods he has a plan for life. :yup:
aka - adaptation.
btw there is no second story of creation in Genesis - there is only one creation account and not quite a story as stories go - twinc
this brings us back to true Church teaching that belief in “instant and complete creation out of nothing” has been and is binding on Catholics and belief in Evolution is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics - see Catechism at CCC327,Lateran IV,Florence,
Yes, and adaptation via the change in the genetics of a population over time is aka…evolution.
Do you agree with molecules to man evolution?
I can’t say that I do. Most of the “molecules to life” theories I find very lacking, and unlike regular evolution, we don’t have the same observable precedent. Sure, we have viruses, prions, and viroids which are all replicating macromolecules (aka non-cellular) BUT they all require extant cellular life to begin with! Some scientists want to say that RNA alone would be capable of self-replication…but even in a world filled with RNA, in a world where almost every niche has been colonized…where is the self-replicating RNA? Not RNA viruses, but RNA which does not require a living host? You’d think such a simplistic form of independent “life” (in the loosest sense of the world) would be abundant, yet so far it only exists in the minds of a few scientists.
But did God start life as self-replicating RNA macromolecules? Well…nothing is impossible. I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. Am I skeptical? Very much so. It would require a LOT more evidence (as in, ANY evidence ) for me to really consider it.so here we have a dilemma about church teaching and exactly what the problem seems to be and is.What exactly is Church teaching and who is and is not teaching it causing doubt and division and many walking away from the Church - so who are we to accept,the teachings of the Church Councils and its Magisterium and its Catechism or individuals etc-mine are the former so how about you or others - twinc
could it just be that someone has not read or misread the evidence and facts regarding “instant and complete creation from nothing” as the true teaching of the Church at repeat www.cfnews.org/sung-pio.htm by the Church Councils and by the Magisterium at www.scripturecatholic.com - twinc
since Evolution did not or could not happen to say God was involved is ridiculous - Jesus Christ as God,lest there should be any doubt showed us how God works His wonders of “instant and complete creation out of nothing”.He instantly turned water into wine without growing,harvesting or distilling any grapes etc,He instantly gave sight to a man born blind etc and He who did not could not in an instant create a fully formed human will on the last day in an instant out of nothing create thousands of fully formed humans out of nothing - this I belief imho is binding on Christians
The Magisterium has taught for over 100 years that belief in evolution is compatible with the deposit of faith. That does not mean that Catholics must believe in evolution, but it does mean that Catholics are free to believe in evolution. The Pontifical Academy of Science held a major symposium on evolution in 2008. The Pope opened the symposium and it was attended by bishops, priests, theologians and scientists. Although there was much discussion of the current state of the study of the theory of evolution, and how that theory fits into Catholic faith, to my knowledge no one suggested that evolution and Catholcism are incompatible.
who told you that - it seems you have not read or refuse to read and comment on what the Magisterium and Church Councils have said and say as at www.cfnews.org/sung-pio,htm and Evolution and the Magisterium as at www.scripturecatholic.com - please do so and then comment on who and what Catholics should believe or accept - twinc
btw nowhere,nohow does or has the Church stated that Catholics are free to accept Evolution,nor can it ever if only because Evolution did not and could not happen - until DNA closed that open door also Catholics versed in both disciplines were free to research and discuss but this did not mean free to accept - twinc