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

[Nelka]

Such confusion.

Monkeys are not human beings, so no, God does not look like a monkey. Who claimed God looks like a monkey?

God doesn’t look like a human being either. (Christ’s human nature is…fully human. And at the same time God in his essence does not look like a human being.)

“Made in God’s image” does not mean that God and man have physical conformity with each other. It’s a much deeper identification than material substance.

(And here we see that fundamentalism and materialism are strange bedfellows. )

It just means that God didn’t create apes in his own image that then evolved into the people we at today.

 

[goout]

goout:

Such confusion.

Monkeys are not human beings, so no, God does not look like a monkey. Who claimed God looks like a monkey?

God doesn’t look like a human being either. (Christ’s human nature is…fully human. And at the same time God in his essence does not look like a human being.)

“Made in God’s image” does not mean that God and man have physical conformity with each other. It’s a much deeper identification than material substance.

(And here we see that fundamentalism and materialism are strange bedfellows. )

It just means that God didn’t create apes in his own image that then evolved into the people we at today.

Who said God created apes in his own image? source please

Did you know that the Catholic Church speaks about evolution? Do you know what has been said?

 

[Nelka]

Are you aware that Jesus is a divine person with two natures?

Do you know what the Trinity is?

Do you know what the Church teaches about God in relation to matter?

No. you don’t

Me?

1st yes Jesus is divine with two natures, one of those isn’t animal.
2nd Yes of course I understand the Trinity.
3rd Matter?

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Yes I know…
How does that change anything?
Who is saying humans are the same as apes?

 

[goout]

These are silly and arrogant arguments.

The most scandalous thing of all is that God created everything that exists from his own divine will. Where “nothing” existed, God made everything.

And at the same time we get the silly notion that evolution from preexisting material can’t happen.
For beings like us, who created nothing, it smacks of arrogance to tell God how our bodies came to be without employing our God-given reason.

So consider:
God has need of nothing, and still creates us from “nothing” but his own divine will, and part of that creation is a human brain, which is unique among all of creation. The human brain is unique because we are the only creature that can contemplate our own meaning, purpose, existence, destiny, identity, before God. No other creature can do that.

That brain is given to you by God. Using your brain to understand science is a good thing, To tell God he can;t use the processes he reveals to do the things he wills is just arrogant. It’s fideism.

 

[goout]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm
Fideism:

In addition to these systematic formulae of fideism, we find throughout the history of philosophy from the time of the sophists to the present day a fideistic attitude of mind, which became more or less conspicuous at different periods. Fideism owes its origin to distrust in human reason, and the logical sequence of such an attitude is scepticism. It is to escape from this conclusion that some philosophers, accepting as a principle the impotency of reason, have emphasized the need of belief on the part of human nature, either asserting the primacy of belief over reason or else affirming a radical separation between reason and belief, that is, between science and philosophy on the one hand and religion on the other. Such is the position taken by Kant, when he distinguishes between pure reason, confined to subjectivity, and practical reason, which alone is able to put us by an act of faith in relation with objective reality. It is also a fideistic attitude which is the occasion of agnosticism, of positivism, of pragmatism and other modern forms of anti-intellectualism. As against these views, it must be noted that authority, even the authority of God, cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the primary form of human knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself.

 

[Dan123]

Jesus, as a human, was nailed to the cross as an ape. Ape isn’t a specific species but an entire family of creatures more formally called Hominidae or hominids. So you can say Jesus wasn’t nailed to the cross as a chimpanzee or a bonobo or gorilla but humans certainly fall into the rather broad category of ‘ape’ simply by being large primates without tails, just as we’re primates and mammals and animals higher up the classification tree.

 

[Techno2000]

““God can’t use evolution. God’s not powerful enough or mysterious enough to do that.

God is not necessary for evolution to work anyway… just asking any atheist. But you do need a powerful and mysterious God to create plants and animals without having to use evolution.

 

[goout]

Ah, good point in regard to the language.

 

[goout]

goout:

““God can’t use evolution. God’s not powerful enough or mysterious enough to do that.

God is not necessary for evolution to work anyway… just asking any atheist. But you do need a powerful and mysterious God to create plants and animals without having to use evolution.

God is necessary for anything. And God reveals himself for discovery and relationship. That’s what a brain participates in: discovery.

God can do anything he pleases in any way God wills it,
and at the same time (key Catholic phrase…)
God reveals himself.

Are you familiar with Pope Benedict’s discussion of God’s “logos”? God is not arbitrary, God has “logos”, or reason-ability. What he reveals, through Scripture, in creation, can be reasoned with.

God does not just reveal “any old arbitrary thing”. Science helps man to discover God and himself in a well reasoned way.

 

[Techno2000]

Jesus, as a human, was nailed to the cross as an ape. Ape isn’t a specific species but an entire family of creatures more formally called Hominidae or hominids. So you can say Jesus wasn’t nailed to the cross as a chimpanzee or a bonobo or gorilla but humans certainly fall into the rather broad category of ‘ape’ simply by being large primates without tails, just as we’re primates and mammals and animals higher up the classification tree.

They could have just nailed some algae on the cross, it’s all part of the evolution of man…right ?

 

[KevinK]

Bizarre missing link? You need to educate yourself on biological anthropology.

 

[goout]

Dan123:

Jesus, as a human, was nailed to the cross as an ape. Ape isn’t a specific species but an entire family of creatures more formally called Hominidae or hominids. So you can say Jesus wasn’t nailed to the cross as a chimpanzee or a bonobo or gorilla but humans certainly fall into the rather broad category of ‘ape’ simply by being large primates without tails, just as we’re primates and mammals and animals higher up the classification tree.

They could have just nailed some algae on the cross, it’s all part of the evolution of man…right ?

When did algae become considered “human”.
To be part of evolution does not make something what it’s not.

For starters, algae doesn’t have a human soul.
Right?

 

[goout]

Does everyone accept that the Catholic Church considers a human being as a unity of body and rational soul?
A human being is not just a lump of matter. (again, atheists and fundamentalists are having a lot of breakfast together)

 

[Aloysium]

I am limiting God to what is rational, since He is the Truth and Rationality itself. I don’t see how your dismissive reply can advance the pursuit of personal and collective knowledge. You might consider putting forth a vision of how God has brought about this miracle in which we are here engaging, something that resonates in your gut as true, real and irrefutable at least within yourself because you know it.

 

[goout]

I am limiting God to what is rational, since He is the Truth and Rationality itself. I don’t see how your dismissive reply can advance the pursuit of personal and collective knowledge. You might consider putting forth a vision of how God has brought about this miracle in which we are here engaging, something that resonates in your gut as true, real and irrefutable at least within yourself because you know it.

This is what mainstream, well accepted science does.
You are limiting God to what is less than rational. That tends toward fideism.

 

[Dan123]

Algae is a pretty informal term covering a lot of things but none of them fall even into the Animalia kingdom, which is the highest level classification we use. So algae is part of an entirely different branch of life, and only shares anything in common with human development at the earliest stages of life on Earth. It would be like saying your cousins on your father’s side are ancestors of your cousins on your mothers side, except the family split would be tens of thousands of generations back.

 

[Aloysium]

Bizarre missing link? You need to educate yourself on biological anthropology.

Why do people make these personal comments? We have no idea who among us random internet idiots is in real life, what they know or don’t know, what credentials they may have in the sciences or theology. Because another’s comments do not make sense, does not imply they are lacking in education. Communication involves two people.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

I am limiting God to what is rational, since He is the Truth and Rationality itself. I don’t see how your dismissive reply can advance the pursuit of personal and collective knowledge. You might consider putting forth a vision of how God has brought about this miracle in which we are here engaging, something that resonates in your gut as true, real and irrefutable at least within yourself because you know it.

This is what mainstream, well accepted science does.
You are limiting God to what is less than rational. That tends toward fideism.

Is it less rational to speak about the wholeness of a person as being our essential nature? That the material is simply that aspect of that physicalpsychospiritual totality we can observe through the senses and intellectually disect into its components? Is it less rational to look at the world and see the destructive effects of random chemical change? How irrational is it to observe that in the Galapagos we find a plethora of living creatures who fit into their environment and are now being destroyed by ‘natural selection’? Evolutionary theories constitute belief systems, utilizing the science, which taking a step back one finds more and more reveals the direct hand of God in every aspect of His creation, from the complexity of cellular mechanisms that include infinitely complex genetic molecules, to the over-riding structure that is the kind of being that forms any particular organism itself.

You may wish to contemplate if http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm may apply to yourself with respect to your belief in evolutionary theory.

 

[KevinK]

Because another’s comments do not make sense, does not imply they are lacking in education

What does it imply?