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.
Metis1 said:
ad hominem attack,
Click to expand...
It’s not an ad hominem attack to tell you that are making things up.

Read what I said and then what you think I said.

I will help you. Among much more you will find, at the beginning of this line of discussion:
Aloysium said:
What has happened over time and following the fall is the onset of random mutations. The molecular structures that make up an organism and its genome can be understood as information in action, matter being the tip of the iceberg that is the organism’s being, that which we can perceive and measure. That order has been corrupted by a brokenness that has occurred where all this is brought into existence, here and now, and always. Atoms doing their random thing cause a distortion of the information that constitutes genetic and epigenetic processes. As a result we have genetic mutations, which cannot explain evolution, but most certainly do congential disorders.

Sickle cell anemia, for example, which shortens life spans cannot be held as an example of evolution; it’s simply an illness that harms the Plasmodium parasite moreso than the affected person.
Click to expand...
To which you replied:
Metis1 said:
So, are you essentially saying that God is killing a child
Click to expand...
Since I have answered your question before, I believe you to be disingenuous. I don’t like the game you seem to be playing, and there is no point in my replying. if you truly want to know about why suffering exists, read the Catechism at the very least, if not the countless thoughts of learned people throughout history.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
It’s not an ad hominem attack to tell you that are making things up.

Read what I said and then what you think I said.

I will help you. Among much more you will find, at the beginning of this line of discussion:
Click to expand...
Well, first of all I didn’t make it up and, secondly, if you’d get over yourself you might learn that there are others out there who have opinions that are well thought out and maybe even correct. As it is, you have avoided answer my most basic question for a second time, so I’m just going to move on.
 
The Bible does not need to discuss the mechanics of creation, … It’s just not important to the question of God’s sovereignty and human salvation.

Actually it’s absolutely vital for human salvation. Jesus’ death on the cross was His substitutionary sacrifice to satisfy the curse of death under which all of Adam’s descendants were born because of his Original Sin. There was no death and therefore there were no fossils before Adam’s sin. To believe so, takes away from who Jesus is and what He did for us and therefore unbelief in Him as Saviour restoring our life. Sin is the cause of death. God created Adam and Eve as adults in a perfect Paradise of pleasure not in a land of survival of the fittest and death to the faulty creatures created by a faulty god.
 
vsackett said:
The Bible does not need to discuss the mechanics of creation, … It’s just not important to the question of God’s sovereignty and human salvation.

Actually it’s absolutely vital for human salvation. Jesus’ death on the cross was His substitutionary sacrifice to satisfy the curse of death under which all of Adam’s descendants were born because of his Original Sin. There was no death and therefore there were no fossils before Adam’s sin. To believe so, takes away from who Jesus is and what He did for us and therefore unbelief in Him as Saviour restoring our life. Sin is the cause of death. God created Adam and Eve as adults in a perfect Paradise of pleasure not in a land of survival of the fittest and death to the faulty creatures created by a faulty god.
Click to expand...
The curse of death that Jesus took away is not the physical death of the body. That is obvious because people continue to die physically, even if they are faithful followers of Jesus. The salvation brought through Jesus is the promise of the resurrection. Likewise, the statement “Sin is the cause of death” is causal in God’s reckoning, which is from outside of time. This sort of cause and effect relationship need not follow our time-constrained view where the cause must happen before the effect. It is possible that God, through His omniscience, saw the failure of Adam, and therefore allowed death to occur millions of year before Adam.

If you really want to prove that all fossils are post-human, here is what to do: Find me as fossil of a T-Rex with the fossilized remains of a human in its belly.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
The curse of death that Jesus took away is not the physical death of the body. That is obvious because people continue to die physically, even if they are faithful followers of Jesus
Click to expand...
There’ve been opinions expressed that Mary did not die, that she was assumed into heaven. The Magisterial teaching is that although born without sin, she chose to die, as did Jesus, for the salvation of the world.

There are two people who evidently never died:
2 Kings 2:11 - Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
Click to expand...
Genesis 5:23–24: Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that being taken by God is synonymous with death, but Enoch is said to have never died.

And then there’s Melchizedek:
Hebrews 7:1-3: This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham apportioned to him a tenth of everything. First, his name means “king of righteousness.” Then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace. Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
Click to expand...
And, there’s John, where we can’t be sure:
John 21:20-23: Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper and had said, “Master, who is the one who will betray you?”
When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?”
Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.”
So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours?”
Click to expand...
Also, about the last days, we are told:
1Thessalonians 4:13-18: For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
Click to expand...
Maybe this thread will never die.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
No, it will just be reborn under a different name. 😃
Click to expand...
Actually, what I think happens is that the overall desire to discuss evolution is its own entity which reproduces by spores. That would explain why 5 new threads in the genre appear at the same time with similar characteristics. That also means this thread might die, but that the spores could continue the species, with varying adaptations determining which threads thrive and which ones die.
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree with this extract from your Ratzinger source and it doesn’t seem to contradict my view that Genesis describes literal history once Adam and Eve enter the picture.
Ratzinger here is referring to how fundamentists tend to interpret the Genesis “six days” of creation literally - he isn’t referring to what Genesis describes after Adam.

Furthermore, since the theme of the Scriptures is the relationship between God and man, it doesn’t matter that the writer of Genesis used an “out-of-date cosmology” to describe what happened leading up to Adam . What matters is what happened from Adam on … which is why from Adam on, Genesis describes literal history.
 
Until the athesit fairy tale of evolution came along, almost every believer in the several thousand years since Genesis was written interpreted it as literal history. The Martyrology of the Catholic Church (written in much saner times) certainly considers Genesis to be literal history.

Science suggests the “six days” of creation are not literal, but I see no reason to suspect the remainder of Genesis is not literal history.
 
Last edited:
Evolution is the atheist delusion which has managed to contaminate, not merely the malleable minds of the masses, but many of the Church hiearchy as well.
 
Edgar said:
Evolution is the atheist delusion which has managed to contaminate, not merely the malleable minds of the masses, but many of the Church hiearchy as well.
Click to expand...
Luckily we have those like yourself who have the knowledge and intelligence to lead the masses, and the church, out of these deluded times.
 
I don’t see a reason to keep bringing evolution into the conversation, these are entirely separate entities.

You may not see any reason to believe Genesis isn’t real, literal history, but I have many very good reasons for believing that is not the case. It’s the place where the modern academic community has settled, and it’s where i’ll Settle as well.

If you’d like to know why I believe what I do, I’m more than happy to share, because I have a lot of ammo in that regard, but I won’t waste your time if you don’t want to or aren’t in a place to hear and grapple with it. Which is fine with me, I believe myself and modern scholars to be correct, and I’m content knowing how confident I am, I don’t need to have it reaffirmed. Hopefully you’ll consider and we can have a good scholarly conversation
 
Last edited:
I don’t get what you are saying about bringing evolution into the conversation since that’s what this thread is about. I’m thinking you may have meant to say Genesis.

Genesis is brought up because it speaks to the creation of everything leading up to the creation of man, all from nothing by God. It is written in a language understandable, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, by anyone who can understand the words in any generation. The picture it reveals does fit the raw data that we find in science, much better than evolutionary theory.

Clearly you want to share your view on the matter, as do most people here. Hopefully a discussion that leads to a mutual understanding will be a greater benefit to those who come with an open mind and want to learn.

Evolution is a huge subject, and the word itself is vague, varying in meaning here from post to post. Maybe you’d like to focus on a specific point, such as random mutation, natural selection, species, the evolution of mankind, the evolution of mind from matter. Whatever you want. Unfortunately, most of this involves lengthy posts, which most people, from my experience tend not to read.

Sounds interesting.
 
I’m afraid you’re mistaken, I did mean to say evolution. The gent and I were conversing about the nature of Genesis as a literary text, apart from any other science. And I believe we’ve discussed about this as well, but that you aren’t inclined to listen or really ruminate on the things I present. So if you find yourself in a mental state where you may be able to, I’d love to have a conversation about it. Otherwise, I won’t waste either of our times
 
Edgar said:
Science suggests the “six days” of creation are not literal, but I see no reason to suspect the remainder of Genesis is not literal history.
Click to expand...
Do you believe human beings were created before the animals then?
Was there a literal tree of knowledge of good and evil?
A literal snake?
Were Adam and Eve blind until they ate the fruit?
 
No. Adam and Eve were not obedient robots. They had free will. God will not force anyone to love Him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top