Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
This is just a commonsense argument.

If God created species, then apart from animals that have gone extinct, all the animals that exist today should be no different from when they were first created; there should be no new species. So it should be true that the Platypus has always existed for as long as there have been animals. From the moment animals existed they ought to be identical to the animals that live today. The evidence does not bare out that cl;aim.

So while one might not want to take evolution as fact, i think one can think that it is the most likely origin of species when compared to the biblical 7 day creation explanation…
 
Last edited:
Could plants and animals be translated like Elijah and Enoch? Perhaps life is placed here from elsewhere…
 
I don’t believe in purely natural evolution of species.

I believe in natural evolution overseen and driven by the supernatural Creator. Also, the evolution of those species happens after the supernatural Creation of them. I believe the “Cambrian explosion” of the fossil record roughly coincides with the 5th day of Creation in the biblical record.
 
This is a non-sequitor. There’s no reason God couldn’t have created species with the capacity to change from that point on. You are assuming that He would have created them to be stationary, fixed as they are. That is a completely baseless assumption.

That said, I do believe that the theory of evolution is correct in-so-far as species change over time. This is just a really, really bad “proof”, and anything but “common sense.”

I pretty much agree with everything Spyridon said.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
There is no reason God couldn’t have created species with the capacity to change from that point on.
Click to expand...
The problem is your explanation is ad-hoc. Better to not reference the bible at all for how God chose to create the world because your explanation is not what is presented in genesis. Genesis implies that God created distinct species of creatures. There is no reason at all given in the bible to think that they evolved. The author wrote genesis according to the creatures he saw in the world. If we are to take genesis as a literal account of how God created the world then surely it should seem to you a bit odd that he left out the verse “and the creatures began changing according to my will”.

God could have done a great many things, and we can come up with ad-hoc reasons all day.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
The problem is your explanation is ad-hoc, better to not reference the bible at all for how God chose to create the world.
Click to expand...
[/quote]
You referenced Genesis. Therefore, I am free to reference Genesis in my rebuttal.

Also, the argument that God should not be included in the discussion presupposes that God had no hand in creation. This is not a point any Christian is going to be willing to concede, because it is false.
that is not what is presented in genesis.
Click to expand...
Only if you take it to be 100% literal, which Catholics are not obliged to do. The genre of the creation account is historic allegory, relating ontological truth through poetic language. If you read it in the original Hebrew, the Genesis account of creation is quite clearly a poem.
Genesis implies that God created distinct species of creatures. There is no reason at all given in the bible to think that they evolved.
Click to expand...
I always love how people trying to refute the Bible take it much, much, more literalistically than believers.

The Bible is not a scientific textbook, it is the story of God’s love for humanity. The specific methods of creation, whether immediate or over the course of billions of years, is inconsequential to the question of human salvation, which is the primary focus of the texts. The Bible does not need to discuss the mechanics of creation, in part because the people to whom the OT was related would have had zero basis for understanding the complex mechanics of astrophysics and evolution. It’s just not important to the question of God’s sovereignty and human salvation.
The author wrote genesis according to the creatures saw in the world. If we are to take genesis as a literal account of how God created the world then surely it should see to you a bit odd that he left out the verse “and the creatures began changing according to my will”.
Click to expand...
Then it’s a good thing we’re not obligated to take it literalistically, despite what you seem to think. You are a creating a problem where none exists in order to fuel your faulty attempts to disprove God. This entire argument is a straw man because it is not based on what Catholics actually believe, but rather is founded on a caricature of Christians as a collective whole.
God could have done a great many things, and we can come up with ad-hoc reasons all day.
Click to expand...
You’re the one choosing to create conflict where none exists. Don’t get upset when people poke holes in your argument.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
ProdglArchitect:
Also, the argument that God should not be included in the discussion presupposes that God had no hand in creation.
Click to expand...
No it does,'t, it just means that secondary causes exist, in other words natural events.
Click to expand...
Natural events must take place within a framework in which “nature” exists, even an empty nature. That is something, not nothing, and therefore requires a transcendental creator.

I’m not going to respond to a bunch of broken up posts. I don’t have the time nor the energy. I am prepping for a certification test tomorrow, and so will not be responding any further today.

Spyridon, I would appreciate it if you could field responses, you and I seem to agree on this subject.
 
Sorry, I had to respond once more.

What a truly though t provoking and mind-altering response. Truly, I say my mind is opened to the fault of my ways. < / sarcasm>

Seriously, if you can’t respond, don’t. It just makes you look worse to respond in that manner. Better yet, acknowledge that you have no response. At least then you look like someone who’s actually interested in intellectual integrity.

I’m out, have a good one.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
The Bible is not a scientific textbook
Click to expand...
Agreed, so i am not going to treat it as having the authority of a science textbook when trying to understand why creatures/species today are not identical to creatures./species when organisms first existed. If the evidence supports that platypuses have always existed since the first creatures existed, then i throw my hands up.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
Natural events must take place within a framework in which “nature” exists, even an empty nature. That is something, not nothing, and therefore requires a transcendental creator.
Click to expand...
I never argued that God didn’t create physical reality.
 
It’s a response of amusement at how you refuted yourself without me even trying.
 
This is not an ad hoc argument to refute your unsupported assumption in the original post. You are making a claim that if God created the species, he must have created them to be static and unchanging. That is an unsupported assumption.

You are further making an argument from silence to support this because Genesis doesn’t say specifically that they were created in a dynamic, evolving fashion.

You have committed two logical fallacies here. Pointing them out isn’t an ad hoc response.

ETA: making an unsupported assumption of the other side in order to refute the argument is a straw man fallacy as well.
 
Last edited:
James214 said:
This is not an ad hoc argument to refute your unsupported assumption in the original post. You are making a claim that if God created the species, he must have created them to be static and unchanging. That is an unsupported assumption.
Click to expand...
No, getting evolution from a literal account of genesis is unsupported and thus ad-hoc in response to my claim. At this point, given what scientists has uncovered in different fields, it makes no sense to look at genesis as being anything more than a symbolic representation of true events; the truth that God created the world.
 
Last edited:
James214 said:
You are further making an argument from silence to support this because Genesis doesn’t say specifically that they were created in a dynamic, evolving fashion.
Click to expand...
Thus what reason do i have to think they did according to the biblical account. If a creature was not present when creatures first existed (or after the 6th “day”) but exists today, then it is evident that something has changed. With the discovery of micro evolution and the fossil record, what reason do i have not to think that Darwin’s account is why a new species exists? If small changes in DNA code can lead to visible changes in organisms, then it makes sense that after millions of years there would be strong differences in some creatures today compared to creatures millions of years ago.

The view that the genesis account is in someway an authoritative account of actual historical events is the only reason i can think of as to why people would be so irate over the theory of evolution compared to other theories.They think, like some atheists do, that scientists are undermining Christianity. Even prodigal son accused me of trying to refute the bible.And everyone including the Pope is caught up in this delusion that natural evolution is true accept for a small band of fringe experts who supposedly know better than everyone else. Sorry but i am not buying it.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
If God created species, then apart from animals that have gone extinct, all the animals that exist today should be no different from when they were first created; there should be no new species. So it should be true that the Platypus has always existed for as long as there have been animals. From the moment animals existed they ought to be identical to the animals that live today. The evidence does not bare out that cl;aim.

So while one might not want to take evolution as fact, i think one can think that it is the most likely origin of species when compared to the biblical 7 day creation explanation…
Click to expand...
I do not agree. Built in adaptation allows variation within. We are learning that the kinds bend back to their mean over time. They stay what they are.

Reproductive isolation, damage from mutations and other environmental conditions cause extinction as well as what we refer to as speciation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top