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.
Yes, and it was the beginning of the great attack on the Church and Western society.
 
God help me when I have to muster up sympathy for the atheist point of view, but in light of the poor representations of Catholic thought, it’s hard to avoid. If Christianity was really that way, I would definitely choose atheism.
Thankfully, there’s Christianity, and there’s the caricatures of Christianity.

Some of you make the objections to Christianity way to easy.
 
Nelka said:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Catechism:

355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
Click to expand...
You shouldn’t be at all astonished! The CCC is the sure norm of the Catholic faith in regard to creation.
And the faith is open to evolution at the same time. Fundamentalist interpretations don’t work with the CCC anymore than scripture.

How can it be!!!
Both?
And?
Can God really do that?
Can Jesus be divine, and fully human?

Is it really possible?
Or is God limited by your brain…
 
Last edited:
goout said:
If Christianity was really that way, I would definitely choose atheism.

Thankfully, there’s Christianity, and there’s the caricatures of Christianity.
Click to expand...
Your words are a tonic to those of us still striving to save Christianty.
 
My favorite part is that you quoted @qoout’s entire context and the post above yours quote-mined it.
 
Dan123 said:
My favorite part is that you quoted @qoout’s entire context and the post above yours quote-mined it.
Click to expand...
Well thank you, sir. The quintessence of the difference between Evolutionists and Creationists!
 
Michael Behe gets dragonfly named after him.

Chrismooreia michaelbehei gen. et sp. nov.
(Insecta: Odonata: Asiopteridae), a new fossil
damsel-dragonfly from the Early Jurassic of England

In any case the high degree of homoplasy shows that the
overall pattern of similarity is very incongruent and does not
readily align with a hierarchical system required by evolutionary
classification. While surprising from the perspective of common
ancestry, such incongruences would not be surprising
from the perspective of common design. To avoid a dilemma
here, I recommend basing classification on maximum similarity
rather than assumed common descent. Also on this basis I
here tentatively retain Sphenophlebiidae as a distinct family and
attribute the new taxon to Asiopteridae, with which it shares
most features of the wing venation (the only known character
complex in the other genera of Asiopteridae).

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.1/BIO-C.2018.1
 
Last edited:
“The Biologic Institute conducts biological research with the aim of producing experimental evidence of intelligent design, funded by the Discovery Institute”

Weren’t you saying before how people who’s paycheck relies on producing the results their employers/funders want can’t be trusted? Or is that just people who don’t already agree with you?

Do you accept the author’s assertion that the fossils were uncovered in 191 million year old mudstone?

Also I really have never understood what common design actually predicts? I mean if the common designer was a person or any non-omnipotent being sure, such a being would work to be efficient and adapt previous work. But does that still make sense when it’s God doing the creating? Was he trying to save time? Maybe trying to meet that Saturday deadline? Doesn’t really fit right? If he has infinite power then any act is essentially effortless, intelligent design by an omnipotent being would be far more strongly supported by things on Earth NOT sharing so much of their dna and biological structures. Using mammal limbs to make bats fly when you already made bird wings seems irrational when you can make every creature exactly as you want. What part of making bananas got him halfway to making humans?
 
Dan123 said:
“The Biologic Institute conducts biological research with the aim of producing experimental evidence of intelligent design, funded by the Discovery Institute”

Weren’t you saying before how people who’s paycheck relies on producing the results their employers/funders want can’t be trusted? Or is that just people who don’t already agree with you?
Click to expand...
After a hundred papers he dared to try to publish this one. He was unfriended and this journal published it. Remember, you have to stick with the Darwin club, or else. The cracks are getting bigger.
 
Last edited:
He provides no actual research or evidence to support the common design claim it’s added as a single opinion paragraph without citation or even reason. That’s his recommendation and ‘tentative’ classification informed by his opinion that common design fits better.

I’m sure the fact that he works for the organization that publishes the journal in no way affected why he was published. Your assumption that other journals wouldn’t publish it because of bias should be backed up not just asserted. No credible science journal is going to publish an article on blood letting for curing disease or alchemy or witchcraft but that doesn’t mean they’re locked into their ideologies, it just means the research quality isn’t there.
 
How would chemicals recognise they love each other? Did they have feeling? Did they have heart ot mind?
 
IWantGod said:
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...
It still begs the question: Why should anyone believe in Evolution? And that has not been answered. Even before we proceed it to be true or not. The question still underlies, why? Why should anyone believe it to be true?

Not to answer the question and not making the argument insults the intelligence, mind, and will of the person.

I don’t think people have to believe in Evolution. To know that it is true, or not, is in itself not a fatality, if it is believed or not.

But let me give some reason why people want to try to argue evolution is true. Because, they want to fight silly superstitions. As they believe Christianity is one of them. They want to de-mystify the story of Creation. And thus, they believe evolution helps with this.

Yet, Christianity, which has spanned the centuries, has not done any silly superstitious things.

Witch doctors are silly and superstitious. Even a very near unorthodox publication as the Catholic Reporter attests to this, in one of their articles, in Africa. New Agism has been more prevalent in a world of atheism than it ever has been. In fact, the brutality of New Agists like Adolf, the Japanese Emperor, Stalin, Nietzche, and Sanger all delved in new age places of belief. And it has been more brutal and worse than classic paganism. The beast, as in Revelation, re-awakens, and is given life through atheism, not Christianity.

When Christianity made it’s departure through the Protestant revolt, it then brought forth and opened the Avenue to Enlightenment. Which then gave rise and cause to atheism. The thread of atheism that spontaneously spread through the world as Our Lady said in Fatima. Wherefore the errors of Russia would spread. And thus asked for their consecration.

Evolutionists are now using the study of science as a ploy to undermine morality. And that is why people have a right to give caution and bear silence on the matter. Because they are waiting for the argument as to why Evolution must be believed. And so far it has shown how destructive it’s cause has been: eugenics, sexual dysphoria, and euthanasia. The fatal blow to Christendom was not the Muslim, but the high princes and stately authority in the Christian realm who gave into their lustful hearts as Henry the VIII did. And so the age of enlightenment came forth. And yeah, in Revelation, a light was seen as a sign. And the people inherited the mark of the beast. Man’s tyranny without God. Man worships himself. New agism quite bluntly. Which is silly and superstitious. And all that evolution does is allow for it to happen. And doesn’t combat silly superstitions at all. Just as evolution didn’t combat Adolf Hitler nor his brutality of the German public killing Jewish people, men, women, and children. And neither does evolution stop nor counter the affects of the sexual revolution, and its’ repercussions made into sexual abuse of the children. No less an attack on the holy innocence of children. .
 
Last edited:
Some people value believing true things that comport with observations of reality, you seem to ‘arguing from consequence’, essentially we should believe whatever gives the best outcome. I value the former and so when so many disparate fields of science point to the same conclusion I feel warranted in accepting those conclusions and I feel I understand the world around me better for it. I also appreciate that people studying diseases believe it as it’s a pretty strong backbone of the development of next generation treatments for genetic disorders and other catastrophic conditions.

The rest of your post just tries to pin atrocities on a group of people you disagree with. Hitler was a Catholic but was of course not acting as one during his reign. Likewise there’s no tenet of atheism or evolution that he was carrying out. Fascism is the word you’re after, fascism actually involves dictatorial power and systematic oppression of dissent. Hitler’s speeches were full of rhetoric citing Christian causes and their uniforms emblazoned with creeds such as ‘God with us’, but that doesn’t make his acts Christian acts.
 
Dan123 said:
I also appreciate that people studying diseases believe it as it’s a pretty strong backbone of the development of next generation treatments for genetic disorders and other catastrophic conditions.
Click to expand...
It’s also doubting science and creation. For if science is perfect alone, then the need to heal people, would otherwise not be required. Science, therefore, is inadequate alone. For a man must decipher and study enough to develop, and to procure a cure. I haven’t seen any Christian fellow who generally in the public, believes in the story of creation turn down an aspirin or penicillin, when needed.

Indeed, Christendom went out forth to the corridors of Asia upon ship, and other travel. Relying on sextants and compass, and the development of other feats. In fact, it was through Christendom, the Latin language taken from Rome. Which we communicated with people of the Asian continent. And translated. No less as the Church was able to create the first translation of Scripture to the Goth’s, and giving them a written language. Her science was there. However, in a world so wrought with war: Muslim’s, Heresies, murderous empires, enlightenment thinkers like Napolean, gave a great distraction from the sciences. Because, these men spent their resources in making wars, and conquering. The Church also had to do with the brilliance of enlightenism which ransacked Churches during something like the Revolution in France. Hard to advance and study even the science of building architecture of Goth structures when the populace through enlightenists come to ransack Church buildings. That would then mean the dark age of humanity: sin.

Evolution can in some degree as an observance of species tell us more. There is not doubt about it. There’s no doubt that creation can and always point to God. Nothing limits the possibility in seeing creation. For even the Seven Days of Creation do account of all the necessities of light, heat, matter, form, and planet, water, and all things biologically evident, for any living creature to exist on this planet. Were all necessary in timely order, thus not spontaneous. Which is a crucial part. Any scientist who says it’s all spontaneous, forgets quickly on the earth he is standing on, which the right inherit atmospheric conditions for him to even breath and make the case/argument. For even someone like Charles Darwin to go down to the Galapagos, would need of necessary forms of creation of matter to exist for him to even be there. And hence, it wasn’t spontaneous.

No man can live in the vacuum of space. He cannot live in the vacuum of himself without God to sustain his existence. For men who believe the contrary would be like the nihilist Nietzche who ended up in a mental clinic. And that is why evolution is dangerous. Because it doesn’t hold to the truth, but a formless existence: a nothing - nihil - absence. And a person who bears a soul and questions things, would lose his own sanity to observe species and world around them, and say it is for not - hence nothing.
 
Dan123 said:
The rest of your post just tries to pin atrocities on a group of people you disagree with. Hitler was a Catholic but was of course not acting as one during his reign. Likewise there’s no tenet of atheism or evolution that he was carrying out. Fascism is the word you’re after,
Click to expand...
Did atheism argue against his statements? Can atheism give refutation? And as well, can evolution give refutation?

What Stalin, Hitler, the Japanese Emperor, and Sanger did happened to be achieved by an atheistic solvency. Even atheists use/say “God.” For even the very word “atheist” still deals with theism (i.e. God’s existence.) Which nonetheless, tyrants like Hitler and the like valued more than Christendom.

Another point in history, tyrants like Henry VIII did as well. Being head of the Church had nothing to do with God, but this own man’s thought process on how he would achieve procuring a son. Now, he could easily read scripture and tried to deduce doing things on his own. Yet, this wasn’t a miracle by God, but a man who served the hand of satan under his kingship. Likewise, the enterprises during the Great War found the rationale among people who had broke from Christian tradition. And rationalized how they felt, and what fervor they placed through it. Thus the sentiments shared among men and the population alike in those corners of the world sought through the course, to unleash their brutality. And yes, it was under atheistic sentiment. People who opposed the Christian moral tradition were therefore atheists. Whether they believed they were really Christians or not, did not really place themselves in the Christian world. But one of like Nietzche who was an atheist. And yes, Hitler, Stalin, and Sanger directly adopted that man’s belief. And alignment of the Japanese also felt the same way. So yes, it was through atheistic fervor. As history absolutely attests to.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top