I
IWantGod
Guest
An abundance of evidence has been shown in support of evolution on this thread. But personally, and this is my big-headedness speaking, the very first post has put this debate to rest.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
E
Edgar
Guest
It’s probably not doctrine, but that’s the traditional interpretation. Consider Numbers 13:33 - “and we even saw giants there, the descendants of Anak. We felt as small as grasshoppers, and that is how we must have looked to them.” Then there is the length of the bed of Og, king of Bashan recorded in Deut 3:11- why would the Bible bother to record the length of someone’s bed? - because it was about 15 feet long and belonged to one of the Nephilim.
I
IWantGod
Guest
It’s a story.
E
edwest
Guest
That’s 100% unlikely.
E
edwest
Guest
No, it’s not.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Would it be a problem for you if it is just a story?
E
Edgar
Guest
The French scientist, Pierre-Paul Grasse, considered the mechanism responsible for evolution to probably be beyond the power of science to explain. The last sentence in his book, Evolution of Living Organisms says, “It is possible that in this domain biology, impotent, yields the floor to metaphysics.”
E
Edgar
Guest
If one asked God for His opinion of the theory of evolution, I think He would say “Infantile nonsense!”
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
I don’t know, but when Adam and Eve received their souls it must have caused a lot of stress in their families. Adam and Eve came to realise that the were superior to their relatives and then moved down the road to a very exclusive, gated community down Eden way. But it didn’t last long and Adam and Eve got booted out. Did their families take them back? What a drama.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
There is no confusion - the genealogy in Luke 3 lists Adam’s father as “God”.
E
Edgar
Guest
There are adults who believe humans evolved from some kind of monkey and there are adults who don’t believe in Santa Claus - what a strange world.
E
Edgar
Guest
So they say. But why can’t a theory be proven? Isn’t it so that some of Einstein’s theories were confirmed by experiments?
E
Edgar
Guest
Sorry, but it is a false dilemma - I don’t believe in a literal interpretation of creation and I reject evolution. Therefore your “either/or” argument fails and qualifies as a fallacy of the false dilemma.
R
Richca
Guest
The possible error I believe concerning the theory of the evolution of species is in a certain sense metaphysical. From a Thomistic metaphysical point of view, I think the proponents of the evolutionary theory of species essentially argue from a principle of substances, namely the material principle, that is not in itself the principle of why a thing is the kind or species of thing it is. The body of things and bodily parts such as cells, DNA, and atoms are all reduced to the material principle of substances, the body of a thing is as the matter of a material substance which matter is completed by the form, specifically, the substantial form. The material principle is an indeterminate principle, essentially potentiality, inactive, and does not even exist without form. Form is the determining principle of things and it is the principle why a thing is the kind of thing it is and why a thing has the kind of matter or organization of matter ( such as the DNA) it has. This is why St Thomas Aquinas argues in various places of his works that matter is not the first or primary cause of the distinction of things. Matter is essentially potentiality, entirely formless, entirely indeterminate.
Accordingly, it appears to me in light of Thomistic metaphysics that the proponents of the evolutionary theory of species argue from a principle of substances, namely the material principle which DNA is reduced too as a part of the body, that is in itself pure potentiality, indeterminate, inactive, does not even exist without form, and which is not the determining principle of why things are the kinds of things they are which principle is the substantial form. In other words, you can’t evolve some determinate thing from a principle that is in itself and essentially indeterminate.
Accordingly, it appears to me in light of Thomistic metaphysics that the proponents of the evolutionary theory of species argue from a principle of substances, namely the material principle which DNA is reduced too as a part of the body, that is in itself pure potentiality, indeterminate, inactive, does not even exist without form, and which is not the determining principle of why things are the kinds of things they are which principle is the substantial form. In other words, you can’t evolve some determinate thing from a principle that is in itself and essentially indeterminate.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
How do these “natural laws” explain the Cambrian Explosion?
I take your point: God is responsible for bringing all creation into being. But God’s involvement in that creation varies:
Does God get involved in determining the outcome of sporting events? I don’t think so.
Does God get involved in determining what colour someone paints their house? I don’t think so.
Does God get involved in forming sand dunes in the desert or determining where butterflies venture? I don’t think so.
Did God get involved in creating life out of dust? Very much so.
Did God get involved in creating all the life-forms on earth? Very much so.
E
Edgar
Guest
Accept evolution … coz it’s sooooo important to biology … but don’t ask anyone to explain why.
E
Edgar
Guest
From the first post:
“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 claim.”
Biological evolution is not the only possible explanation for what is observed in the fossil record.
How does evolution explain the Cambrian Explosion?
How does evolution explain all those gaps and sudden appearances in the fossil record?
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
From Communion and Stewardship:
According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).
According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).
E
Edgar
Guest
How do you determine which parts of the Bible are myth and real history? Hey, maybe the NT is “a story” as well.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Yes, Adam and Eve caused scandal in their creature in law families, but what do you expect they were raised by animals.Techno2000:
I don’t know, but when Adam and Eve received their souls it must have caused a lot of stress in their families. Adam and Eve came to realise that the were superior to their relatives and then moved down the road to a very exclusive, gated community down Eden way. But it didn’t last long and Adam and Eve got booted out. Did their families take them back? What a drama.
Last edited:
- Status