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.
It seems to me that you repeatedly assume the worst of certain positions.

Believing in science does not equal lack of faith in God, does it?

Do I claim to exhale myself before God? I certainly hope to never do such a thing.

Believing something that might offend your personal sense of religious comfort doesn’t make it sacrilegious. There are aspects of our faith that are supposed to challenge us, make us think critically, make us evaluate what we truly believe, and understand the world and its relation to God. Science does not diminish God (the “God of the gaps”), it illuminates the creative genius of the divine creator. So to claim that anybody who disagrees with you worships “the god of science” is very presumptuous and hardly charitable.
 
buss0042 said:
we can only live 100ish years. To challenge the status quo, you would need to provide proof that this isn’t the way it naturally is.

Another way of putting it – would anybody believe humans lived 900 years if it weren’t written in the Bible?
Click to expand...
Because its in the Bible which is a revelation of the Word of God, it must be taken seriously.

I believe in the resurrection of Jesus after His death on the cross and of our body at the end of time, that He performed miracles, such as making the blind see, the deaf hear, and the lame walk, that he quelled the tempest, and that the Eucharist as the body and blood of our Lord. These actual events that have a physical aspect, also convey a spiritual meaning that speaks to our eternal soul.

The way things are naturally in a fallen world is not necessarily how they were created and meant to be.

Believing in God makes Genesis possible; that it is a better explanation of our existence than is evolution, clinches it for me.

From reflections on my readings on the subject, I see there being no way to empirically discover the life expectancy of our first ancestors. Fortunately, we will all ultimately know the truths that are important for us. I’m thinking it will be obvious that things are the way our origins are described in Genesis, the meanings of the words revealed by the actuality of the Beatific Vision.
 
Last edited:
buss0042 said:
The only source I’ve been able to find (and only 1) referencing “genome decay” is a devout young earth creationist (the earth is 6000 years old), so no, it’s pseudo creationist “science.”
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought. I don’t trust anything scientific when presented by devout young earth creationists.
 
Hope1960 said:
40.png
buss0042:
The only source I’ve been able to find (and only 1) referencing “genome decay” is a devout young earth creationist (the earth is 6000 years old), so no, it’s pseudo creationist “science.”
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought. I don’t trust anything scientific when presented by devout young earth creationists.
Click to expand...
You are looking at the things in the Bible through the lens of Human Reason the Bible is all about the Supernatural, which the carnal mind can’t understand.
 
Last edited:
Oh this is good - I completely agree with everything you say. Great place to start.

First segment,
Aloysium said:
Because its in the Bible which is a revelation of the Word of God, it must be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
It must be taken seriously, correct. We agree.

We digress in the fact that the writings of Genesis and the writings of the Gospels are completely different literature. The Gospels are historical documentaries, whereas Genesis is poetry, genealogy, myth (although not how you would interpret “myth”), saga. Very different genres are interpreted very differently, can we agree?

I wouldn’t read Sirach of Job the same way I would read the Acts of the Apostles or the Gospel of Matthew, simply because they’re different genres of literature, and different genres are meant to be read differently.

Now, we still out to take them seriously. While a poem might say something in one manner, and a historical narrative in another, they each convey an something that ought to be taken very seriously. In the historical narratives, we can take it to be the historical details (as those are what are intended to be conveyed, no?). But in different literature, reading words as historical truth will not hold true, because they are not historical literature.
 
Techno2000 said:
If God can bring a dead corpse back to life… then he can also sustain the flesh and prevent it from ageing.
Click to expand...
The point isn’t If God COULD do this, but if He DID. Prove scientifically that He created humans to live to 1000 years old. If they ever did live that long, it should be fairly easy to do.
 
Aloysium said:
I’ve never read an explanation of God’s role in evolution.
Click to expand...
I know you have read what I consider to be such an explanation. I can only assume that you are all set to dispute whatever quotes are given to you as being sufficient. So I suggest no one should take the bait and try to convince you that supporters of evolution have said that God has a role in evolution, for that will be a frustrating attempt that you will deny no matter what.
 
Last edited:
edwest said:
As science advances, man begins to exalt himself above God.
Click to expand...
At the dawn of the age of flight, some people used this very same argument to say that trying to fly would be exalting oneself above God.
Techno2000 said:
You are looking at the things in the Bible through the lens of Human Reason the Bible is all about the Supernatural, which the carnal mind can’t understand.
Click to expand...
Which is as good an argument as any for not trying to apply the Bible to things that are not supernatural, like evolution.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
edwest:
As science advances, man begins to exalt himself above God.
Click to expand...
At the dawn of the age of flight, some people used this very same argument to say that trying to fly would be exalting oneself above God.
Techno2000 said:
You are looking at the things in the Bible through the lens of Human Reason the Bible is all about the Supernatural, which the carnal mind can’t understand.
Click to expand...
Which is as good an argument as any for not trying to apply the Bible to things that are not supernatural, like evolution.
Click to expand...
God didn’t use evolution, he created everything using the supernatural .
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hope1960:
I don’t trust anything scientific when presented by devout young earth creationists.
Click to expand...
Only believe secular materialistic sources. That is much better 😀
Click to expand...
False dichotomy. You don’t have to go all the way to young earth creationists to avoid secular materialism. In the middle between those two extremes can be found the Catholic Church.
 
Hope1960 said:
No. Just sources that have been well educated, particularly in a reputable institution.
Click to expand...
Dogmas of the Catholic Church

Do you agree with all of them? If not which ones…

The Divine Work of Creation​

The Doctrine of Revelation Regarding Man or “Christian Anthropology”​

  1. The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
  2. The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
  3. Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
  4. The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
  5. Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
  6. Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
  7. A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
  8. The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
  9. God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
  10. Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
  11. The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
  12. The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
  13. The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
  14. The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
  15. Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
  16. Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
  17. Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
  18. Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
  19. Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
  20. Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
  21. Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
  22. In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
  23. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top