Why do some catholics believe in evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rbarcia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
Wirraway, I didn’t mean to imply that egg laying began with dinosaurs.

I have another question: when did sex become fun? That is, when did sex begin to carry an orgasmic payoff beyond whatever it is instinct-driven reproductive sex conveys? With primates or earlier? I know bonobos engage in recreational sex.
Click to expand...
You are calling me a liar, you should look at the so called evidence for evolution in your field. Your transition of the topic of the thread mirrors that of Romans 2. From creation to sexual immorality

Romans 2

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Enjoy your hijacked thread.
 
rbarcia said:
crammed with transitional forms? This is a lie. They don’t even have one conclusive transitional form.
Click to expand...
Different genera discovered BY VIRTUE OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS:

Tristychius
Ctenaccanthus
Spathobatis
Protospinax
Cynodesmus
Leptolepis
Parasemionotus
Osteolepis
Cantius
Amphipithecus
Propliopithecus
Panderichthys
Pholidogaster
Habilis
Cimolestes
Simpsonictis
Dendrerpeton
Archegosaurus
Eryops
Doleserpeton
Triadobatrachus
Karaurus
Protursus
Plesictis
Enaliarctos

And these are just off the top of my head.

So who here is the one lying?
 
rbarcia said:
Because I believe God’s word to be true.

John 17

17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

We believe that the first reference to Jesus in Prophecy is in Gen 3:15 in the Fall. If this did not really happen, then neither did hte prophecy. Same for things like sin, if sin did not enter here, then the belief in Christ saving us becomes questionable.

Jesus spoke as if creation was literal.
Click to expand...

Creation can be real without the details of the story about being real; verisimilitude is not the same as reality or as history. Or is a story about Jesus going to France & becoming the ancestor of the Merovingian kings to be treated as an account of real events merely because Jesus was a real person ? If so, you’ve just put forward a reason for taking “The Da Vinci Code” as sober history…​

Gen. 3.15 is not a prophecy, & is not about Jesus at all. As Adam & Eve are as really historical as “The Simpsons”, this is no surprise.

Sin can perfectly well be a fact, even though it is attributed to mythical beings. In the Bible, there is no straightforward relation between a prediction & its fulfillment; & a prophet can be a false prophet even if his prediction comes true. There is a prophecy of the future greatness of Britain in “The History of the Kings of Britain” by the 12th-century author Geoffrey of Monmouth: Brutus, great-grandson of Aeneas, goes to an oracle of the goddess Diana, & is told that he will rule Britain (which he has not at that point discovered) & that his descendants will rule a great empire. This was duly fulfilled - & it suggests that fictitious predictions by fictitious deities to fictitious heroes are a lot more reliable than the predictions in the Bible, many of which have very been conspicuously falsified - like the never fulfilled prediction about Egypt in Ezekiel 40. The Romans & Greeks & Assyrians had their prophets who made predictions - & several of these came true. The “argument from prediction” proves too much or too little to be of any value to Christians. Too much, by validating other gods; too little, by failing to show that the god of the Jews is anything special.

Was the British Empire a fiction, because Brutus, Diana, & that oracle were fictions ? If not, then neither need sin be a fiction merely because it is traced back to fictitious characters. The suggestion that its reality stands or falls with theirs is a non sequitur. What Jesus may have thought about their reality is irrelevant, as there is no reason of any kind to suppose that He was any better or worse informed on that subject than anyone else. The Incarnation was not a guarantee of being able to win “The Weakest Link”. He was a man, not an infallible & exhaustive encyclopedia of theology; so there is no need to suppose He had any knowledge of nuclear fission, computing, or the works of Shakespeare.
 
“Again, similar DNA does not prove one gives birth to another, only an intelligent designer using common DNA structure. Neandertals IU believe was exposed as a hoax. Most of these supposed ancestors have turned out to be something else, or they just found a piece of a bone + artist redemption, or just a hoax. Nonetheless, how does similar DNA prove evolution when in engineering it proves common design to have things of similar makeup.”

They aren’t supposed ancestors. They are another species. As I said, there also isn’t any evidence of mixing.

Yet the DNA is more similar to ours than a bonobos.

There is no hoax. Neandertals did exist. How do they fit into your story? The Bible never mentions them.

The Bible doesn’t mention any of the animals found only in North and South America either. If Noah didn’t have those animals on the ark, and evolution doens’t happen, where did they come from?

Where did all the fossils come from? At one time there were no land animals. There were no birds. Are you admitting, then, that a new form of animal did come from another? How do you explain that at one time there were only single-celled animals, for example, and then there were multi-celled. Later still there were fish. If fish can only come from fish, where did they come from? And why doesn’t the bible mention dinoaurs? And why weren’t the dinosaurs around when man was formed, if they were only a day or two old?

How do you explain the fossil record?
 
I don’t think it’s about truth vs fiction. These people truly don’t understand. They aren’t telling lies. They just don’t know the truth. .
xixxvmcm85 said:
Different genera discovered BY VIRTUE OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS:

Tristychius
Ctenaccanthus
Spathobatis
Protospinax
Cynodesmus
Leptolepis
Parasemionotus
Osteolepis
Cantius
Amphipithecus
Propliopithecus
Panderichthys
Pholidogaster
Habilis
Cimolestes
Simpsonictis
Dendrerpeton
Archegosaurus
Eryops
Doleserpeton
Triadobatrachus
Karaurus
Protursus
Plesictis
Enaliarctos

And these are just off the top of my head.

So who here is the one lying?
Click to expand...
 
You’re quoting a social darwinist? Egads!

Spencer believed, incorrectly, that “survival of the fittest” (a term he coined) applied nicely to human society–a belief that many Americans and the Nazis also thought was swell.
rbarcia said:
A well-known scientist, a very decorated scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. In his scientific career he had become noted for one great discovery, it was a categorical contribution that he made. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories…time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories…time, force, action, space and matter. Nothing exists outside of those categories. That was a very astute discovery and didn’t come until the nineteenth century.

Now think about that. Spencer even listed them in that order…time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning,” that’s time…“God,” that’s force, “created,” that’s action, “the heavens,” that’s space, “and the earth,” that’s matter. In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn’t catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.
Click to expand...
 
“The fact that complex DNA looks similar shows special creation more than anything. I am an engineer at IBM.”

But wine isn’t water. And water isn’t wine.

That you are limited in what you do, doesn’t mean that God is limited.

If God could create the Earth out of nothing, why does he need to make Bonobos more similar to people than kangaroos?

Why is the DNA so similar in species that the evolutionists always considered related, and less similar in species that they considered more distant?
 
rbarcia said:
Yes, and I repeat. They find skulls or a leg bone, etc… and construct phony transitional forms it is all based on guesses.

There is great danger in basing conclusions on a single bone. In 1922, paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, an ardent evolutionist, was shown a single tooth found in Nebraska by geologist Harold Cook. After examining it, Osborn declared it belonged to an early ape-man, whom he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii in Cook’s honor. Popularly, it became known as “Nebraska Man.” Osborn hailed the tooth as “the herald of anthropoid apes in America.” At the American Museum of Natural History, William K. Gregory and Milo Hellman, specialists in teeth, said after careful study that the tooth was from a species closer to man than ape. Harris Hawthorne Wilder, a zoology professor at Smith College, wrote: “Judging from the tooth alone the animal seems to have been about halfway between Pithecanthropus [Java Man] and the man of the present day, or perhaps better between Pithecanthropus and the man of the Neanderthal type. …” In England, evolutionist Grafton Elliot Smith convinced the Illustrated London News to publish an artist’s rendering of Nebraska Man. The picture, which appeared in a two-page spread and received wide distribution, showed two brutish, naked ape-persons, the male with a club, the female gathering roots. All this from one tooth. However, further excavations at Cook’s site revealed that the tooth belonged neither to ape nor man, but to a peccary, a close relative of the pig.
Click to expand...
Wait, a close relative? I don’t remember any references to peccararies in the Bible. 😉
 
rbarcia said:
Or take the Piltdown Man. It was declared an ape-man, 500,000 years old, and validated by many of Britain’s leading scientists, including Grafton Elliot Smith, anatomist Sir Arthur Keith and British Museum geologist Arthur Smith Woodward. At the time the discovery was announced (1912), the New York Times ran this headline: “Darwin Theory Proved True.” For the next four decades, Piltdown Man was evolution’s greatest showcase, featured in textbooks and encyclopedias. But what did the Piltdown Man actually consist of? A very recent orangutan jaw, which had been stained to look old, with its teeth filed down to make them more human-looking, planted together with a human skull bone, also stained to create an appearance of age.
Click to expand...
Someone once decided that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Of course that’s not true.

Now, while scientists readily admit that there have been mistakes and hoaxes in the fields of evolutionary science, literalists refuse to admit that the new Earth thinking was wrong. Why?
 
rbarcia said:
As an engineer, similarities in things that are engineered are based on patterns. So SWG is designed with common patterns, buildings are built with the same proven architecture patterns. So when we look at ‘man-made things’, when we see something made the same way, we can conclude design. This is why for example, a technical company sues another because of patent infringement. Because the design is the same.

So I look at similarities of DNA the same way. The fact that there is so much similarities, is proof enough that it was all engineered.

Since we are made in God’s image, we naturally follow the patterns of our great engineer.
Click to expand...
LOL I think I see why you have to believe that God “engineered” the world as is. 😉 .
 
rbarcia said:
You may have been joking, but I was not. There is no circular argument here. Many start with the premise that we must view the Bible in view of modern science. But I view it as the Word of God is true and science should be in line with God’s word, or else, it is not good science at all.

The first chapter of Gen proves that the bird came before the egg. And that God made them with spoken words. If I can’t take God at His word in Chapter 1 of the Bible, what makes the rest of the Bible any reliable. Might as well believe in anything then.

Romans 1

20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

You would think that catholics who want so bad to unite all the Christians would make a stand for creation, rather than appealing to godless scientist who want nothing more to prove that there is no God.
Click to expand...
Do you remember when the science on the solar system had to “be in line with God’s word, or else, it is not good science at all.” ?
 
kalt said:
“Again, similar DNA does not prove one gives birth to another, only an intelligent designer using common DNA structure. Neandertals IU believe was exposed as a hoax. Most of these supposed ancestors have turned out to be something else, or they just found a piece of a bone + artist redemption, or just a hoax. Nonetheless, how does similar DNA prove evolution when in engineering it proves common design to have things of similar makeup.”

They aren’t supposed ancestors. They are another species. As I said, there also isn’t any evidence of mixing.

Yet the DNA is more similar to ours than a bonobos.

There is no hoax. Neandertals did exist. How do they fit into your story? The Bible never mentions them.

The Bible doesn’t mention any of the animals found only in North and South America either. If Noah didn’t have those animals on the ark, and evolution doens’t happen, where did they come from?

Where did all the fossils come from? At one time there were no land animals. There were no birds. Are you admitting, then, that a new form of animal did come from another? How do you explain that at one time there were only single-celled animals, for example, and then there were multi-celled. Later still there were fish. If fish can only come from fish, where did they come from? And why doesn’t the bible mention dinoaurs? And why weren’t the dinosaurs around when man was formed, if they were only a day or two old?

How do you explain the fossil record?
Click to expand...
There are no fossil records that support your claim about single formed cell becoming multi-cell, becoming fish, etc…

When DNA mutates, it always loses information, never gains new information out of nothing. If anything, devolution, not evolution happens.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Different genera discovered BY VIRTUE OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS:

Tristychius
Ctenaccanthus
Spathobatis
Protospinax
Cynodesmus
Leptolepis
Parasemionotus
Osteolepis
Cantius
Amphipithecus
Propliopithecus
Panderichthys
Pholidogaster
Habilis
Cimolestes
Simpsonictis
Dendrerpeton
Archegosaurus
Eryops
Doleserpeton
Triadobatrachus
Karaurus
Protursus
Plesictis
Enaliarctos

And these are just off the top of my head.

So who here is the one lying?
Click to expand...
These are labels made by man on pieces of bones discovered, not a discovery of a transitional form.

http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/evolution.gif
 
ralphinal said:
So is the sun the center of the solar system or is the earth? Does the sun orbit the earth or the other way around?
Click to expand...
The sun is the physical center of the Solar System.

The earth is the center of God’s Creation.

The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.

At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space:** “He…hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7)**.

All things were made by Jesus (see John 1:3), including dinosaurs. Why then did the dinosaur disappear? The answer may be in Job 40:15–24. In this passage, God speaks about a great creature called “behemoth.” Some commentators think this was a hippopotamus. However, the hippo’s tail isn’t like a large tree, but a small twig. Following are the characteristics of this huge animal: It was the largest of all the creatures God made; was plant-eating (herbivorous); had its strength in its hips and a tail like a large tree. It had very strong bones, lived among the trees, drank massive amounts of water, and was not disturbed by a raging river. He appears impervious to attack because his nose could pierce through snares, but Scripture says, “He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.” In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.
 
rbarcia said:
The sun is the physical center of the Solar System.

The earth is the center of God’s Creation.

The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.

At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space:** “He…hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7)**.

All things were made by Jesus (see John 1:3), including dinosaurs. Why then did the dinosaur disappear? The answer may be in Job 40:15–24. In this passage, God speaks about a great creature called “behemoth.” Some commentators think this was a hippopotamus. However, the hippo’s tail isn’t like a large tree, but a small twig. Following are the characteristics of this huge animal: It was the largest of all the creatures God made; was plant-eating (herbivorous); had its strength in its hips and a tail like a large tree. It had very strong bones, lived among the trees, drank massive amounts of water, and was not disturbed by a raging river. He appears impervious to attack because his nose could pierce through snares, but Scripture says, “He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.” In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.
Click to expand...
But the Bible literally shows the sun around the earth. In fact, Biblically, the earth is the center of the universe. Genesis makes that clear. Why is that figurative for creation and not for everything?
 
ralphinal said:
But the Bible literally shows the sun around the earth. In fact, Biblically, the earth is the center of the universe. Genesis makes that clear. Why is that figurative for creation and not for everything?
Click to expand...
How so, quote the scripture that says the sun surrounds the earth? To say that God made the sun to give light to the earth says nothing about their position? Even saying placed them in heaven again says nothing about this? So the Bible does not say anything about the earth being the physical center of the solar system.

**
Gen 1

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top