Small adaptations do happen - we have different kinds of dogs, and different kinds of roses, which come about because of small changes - but we never have dogs giving birth to creatures that are not actually dogs of some kind (even if it is a new kind of dog), and we never have roses producing flowers that are not actually roses of some kind.Is it necessarily an either/or proposition? Why couldn’t God have allowed his creation to adapt and change?
Huh? You now say that gravity has something to do with origins? But you must reject gravity, Ed. It doesn’t use God as a mechanism.What a bunch of speculation. All creatures live under the same gravity, atmosphere and for those underwater, fresh and salt water conditions. God, who designed everything, built these creatures to exist on the same world, so no wonder there are similarities. Evolution is dogma that is dressed up with relationships that should be there by design.
Citation or withdrawl of that claim, Ed.Evolution, as written in textbooks, says that God was not involved in any way, shape or form. It may be possible that some limited form of evolution occurred but only because God made it so.
Gravity is observable. Evolution is not. Evolution makes no sense, because it violates what we observe in biology (namely, that creatures give birth to other creatures of the same kind).Huh? You now say that gravity has something to do with origins? But you must reject gravity, Ed. It doesn’t use God as a mechanism.Citation or withdrawl of that claim, Ed.
Wrong. Evolution is observable and it make complete sense precisely because of what we observe in biology. You have a twisted idea of what evolution predicts.Gravity is observable. Evolution is not. Evolution makes no sense, because it violates what we observe in biology (namely, that creatures give birth to other creatures of the same kind).
Both, not “either or”.It is just as possible that different creatures look similar because the same Artist designed them, as that they had a common ancestor.
(They either had a common ancestor or a common Creator, for sure.)
Demonstrably false. I accept both. Your statement has just been falsified.Evolution (the common ancestor idea) is what’s left to explain the evidence when you reject the idea of a common Creator.
Either a citation from all textbooks or retract your claim, Ed.From Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69:
“An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…”
I didn’t write that, Cardinal Ratzinger did.
God bless,
Ed
And he is right, of course. Not that that says anything about the validity of evolution.From Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69:
“An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…”
I didn’t write that, Cardinal Ratzinger did.
God bless,
Ed
Nice citation. Now how about one to back your assertions?One more thing from the “evolution is OK” movement:
evolutionnews.org/2005/10/lawsuit_says_national_science_foundation.html
God bless,
Ed
“All textbooks state that evolution occurred by purely natural, no God required, means.” post no. 36.Retract what?
Because science deniers like yourself spout out things like you did in post 36 even though it is false. Because some people cannot get over the fact that their belief in a literal 6 day creation is not required by the Church nor is it supportable with easily observable scientific evidence.After 867 threads people are still confused. Why?
That’s neither a citation or a retraction. Can you support your claim or not? If so, please point us to where all textbooks say what you claim they say. If not, retract your statement.Nice try Tim. I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of cases where people, confused by what they’ve learned in school, come here to get the real answer. The real answer is one part science and the work of God. Since school textbooks don’t mention that, I can certainly understand why they come here. And I can certainly understand why the Church invokes God’s intimate hand in whatever “evolution” may have occurred.
God bless,
Ed
It only took a few hundred years for dogs to have adapted from wolves. And every dog you see today came from the wolf.No, that’s not part of it at all. Let’s say you have a population of wolves, not all wolves, but a few packs – and their environment changes to the point that they begin to adapt to it. Maybe the optimal jaw shape is different, maybe they start walking differently – the particulars don’t really matter. Each successive generation is selected for the more ideal traits, until all these wolves’ jaws are shorter, et cetera, et cetera. Enough of that, and you can’t really call them wolves any more. They’ve become so different they aren’t the same species; but other wolves still exist.
honestly, this seems almost satirical…mid << What is this ‘stronger science’ you speak of that favors creationism? >>
All kinds of stuff, you know, the usual:
I read that article, and nowhere did it say where these transitional fossils are.
That’s because there are none. Take a trip to any museum you want. You’ll never find any. Every so called transitional fossil has either been proven a fraud, or misidentified. I hope you’re not going to use Lucy or Homo Erectus or any other so called ape men.
There is not one scientific proof of evolution. Period. Tell me your best proof that you have for accepting such a ridiculous theory over the reality of God creating the world in 7 days.
To accept such a theory, thereby you would have to deny God and that would affect every decision and every thought you have in the rest of your entire life on this Earth. That sounds like something I would have to have overwhealming evidence to accept.
Evolution is a new liberal Godless theory…yes theory…that evil men have conjured up (just a couple hundred short years ago) in order to deny God, so that they will have no one to answer to, and no rules to follow.
Maybe we are wrong that dogs are a different species than wolves. (Can they interbreed? If so, then they are two varieties of the same species, no?)It only took a few hundred years for dogs to have adapted from wolves. And every dog you see today came from the wolf.
There were no dogs to breed with wolves.Maybe we are wrong that dogs are a different species than wolves. (Can they interbreed? If so, then they are two varieties of the same species, no?)