Why do some catholics believe in evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rbarcia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rbarcia said:
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? 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.

**
Click to expand...
The Bible describes the earth as having a foundation and pillars, leading one to think it is fixed in place. Since the sun and moon seem to move through our sky, it would also lead one to beleive that. THe Bible does talk of sunrise and sunset, colloquial termns now, but at one time scientific. If you read the whole passage, the dome of heaven divides the land from the water. Is there water outside of the solar system? Does it make sense that the dome that divides the land from the water would not be covering earth as its center?
 
ralphinal said:
The Bible describes the earth as having a foundation and pillars, leading one to think it is fixed in place. Since the sun and moon seem to move through our sky, it would also lead one to beleive that.
Click to expand...
Why, you said it was a clear statement about the sun surrounding the earth, but it is not clear. Cars have foundations. they move. You can’t conclude that.
THe Bible does talk of sunrise and sunset, colloquial termns now, but at one time scientific.
Click to expand...
So? We use these expressions today.
If you read the whole passage, the dome of heaven divides the land from the water. Is there water outside of the solar system? Does it make sense that the dome that divides the land from the water would not be covering earth as its center?
Click to expand...
The word heavens here can mean the sky. Hebrew used heavens sometimes to refer to sky.

Our sky is made up our water, this is how we get rain. Some scientist believe that water in the skies was a canopy of water that surrounded the earth and allowed people to live longer. Then this rain came down as part of the flood. This is why the life span of humans drop significantly after the flood. Some lizards grow their whole life unlike humans. It is perfectly reasonable to think that since life spans were longer before the flood, some lizards can grow to be quite large.

Those are my own conclusions but no worse than some evolution theories (explosions causing order).

Nonetheless, the scripture is true, and I believe God’s Word.

2 Tim 3

16**All **scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
 
rbarcia said:
Nonetheless, the scripture is true, and I believe God’s Word…
Click to expand...
Are you wearing polyester? Or any other garment woven of two different kinds of cloth? If so, you don’t follow God’s word.
 
StAnastasia said:
Are you wearing polyester? Or any other garment woven of two different kinds of cloth? If so, you don’t follow God’s word.
Click to expand...
Where is this a violation of God’s law? Not every law written in the Bible is for every person.

I am not from the tribe of Levi, going to work in the temple? Now you are just going off topic?

And if you are going to pick every law for the book of Leviticus, then know that I am not bound by ceremonial laws because I am under the new covenant.

**

Acts 15

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

**

But this thread is not about weather I keep the law (because I am guilty of that and deserve hell), but weather I believe what is written happened when the context is historical. So I do believe the Lord gave Israel those rules. But I guess you have nothing else to say on the topic.

Example of a moving Pillar:

Exodus 13:21
And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:
 
rbarcia said:
And if you are going to pick every law for the book of Leviticus, then know that I am not bound by ceremonial laws because I am under the new covenant.
Click to expand...
So you pick and choose from among the passages of the Bible you take literally? Really? That is very convenient!😃
 
StAnastasia said:
So you pick and choose from among the passages of the Bible you take literally? Really? That is very convenient!😃
Click to expand...
I think you know that you are twisting the topic around. Which is typical

We are talking about whether history happened or not. Not if a law is meant for Israel, Christian, universal, etc… Which you know the difference. I know historically God gave laws to Israel.

And creation is not a command to obey. It is just history.

But since you have nothing to contribute about creation and evolution anymore, you resort to this.
 
rbarcia said:
We are talking about whether history happened or not.
Click to expand...
In the context of the question “Why do some Catholics believe in evolution?” your appeal to Genesis as “history” is risible. The question would better be formulated “Why do some Catholics not believe in evolution?”

But just for the record, no world class biologists believe in evolution. The accept it as the best explanation for biological diversity on earth. Catholic biologists accept evolutionary explanations, and believe in God.

StAnastasia
 
rbarcia said:
I think you know that you are twisting the topic around. Which is typical

We are talking about whether history happened or not. Not if a law is meant for Israel, Christian, universal, etc… Which you know the difference. I know historically God gave laws to Israel.

And creation is not a command to obey. It is just history.

But since you have nothing to contribute about creation and evolution anymore, you resort to this.
Click to expand...
You seem to be very confused. How do you ever find your way around a library? 😉

The Bible is neither a history book nor a science book.
 
kalt said:
You seem to be very confused. How do you ever find your way around a library? 😉 The Bible is neither a history book nor a science book.
Click to expand...
Kalt, why assume a Young Earth Creationist has any interest in libararies?:rolleyes:
 
StAnastasia said:
Kalt, why assume a Young Earth Creationist has any interest in libararies?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I just figured, since this person spends oodles of time doing Google searches and cutting & pasting other people’s ideas… 🙂

Your posts on the subject have been tops, btw. 👍
 
rbarcia said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not a DNA specialist, but this doesn’t ring true to me.
 
What is interesting to me about that “chart” is that it holds Neanderthals as one of the transitional forms. I am not aware of any science that teaches that.
 
kalt said:
What, in your mind, would constitute a transitional fossil?
Click to expand...
I do not think that one can prove a transition from fossils. No more than you can go into an automobile junk yard and prove from car parts from old cars give birth to each other.

Can you explain how I can examine a fossil and prove that it is a transition?

In terms like someone like me (who can’t find his way through a library) can understand?
 
It seems that my fellow catholics can’t keep up with you rbarcia, so they resort to uncharitable remarks.
 
rbarcia said:
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
Click to expand...
The majority of the genera I listed no longer exist, and quite a few share similarities with multiple contemporary ones. They amply demonstrate that any hypothesis of a static population (which is what all literalist-creationist advocate) is patently false.

I see the problem you are having is the same that all literal-creationists have. You guys like to move the proverbial goal posts around. You scream “There are no transitional fossils in between A & B”, biologists show you said fossils, and then you scream “Well now I want a transitional fossil between those two!” And this horrible pattern continues ad nauseum.

In other words, you seem to lack the understanding that ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL SPECIES.

And I would like to think that someone as intelligent as an engineer wouldn’t have to resort to lousy analogies to inanimate matter such as houses, boats, cars, and computers (as you have multiple times so far in this thread).

Maybe they never taught you in the university, but cars, houses, boats, and electronics lack heritable information (be it RNA or DNA) while living entities have such. We have demonstrated that this is the medium by which evolution happens. Using objects that lack self-replication in order to “disprove” evolution is rather illogical. Not only will a Chevy not give birth to a Ford (as you have correctly stated) but a Chevy will not give birth to ANYTHING.

And, referring to a previous post of yours, who on earth told you that “mutations never add new information”? I suggest you read up on genetic insertions and hox genes.
 
ralphinal said:
What is interesting to me about that “chart” is that it holds Neanderthals as one of the transitional forms. I am not aware of any science that teaches that.
Click to expand...
It was once hypothesized, and I believe there are still a handful of biologists that hold on to this hypothesis, but I believe it has been well repudiated by most of the scientific community. When I took a few evo clases, I was instructed that H. neaderthalis is currently hypothesized to have bifurcated from a common ancestor of ours (H. sapien) indicating that H. neaderthalis is not a transition from the common ancestor to us, rather a “distant cousin”.

I’m not certain though as my credentials are in molecular biology, not evolutionary biology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top