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.
I don’t have time to get back into this discussion, but I felt that this deserved attention.

You cannot have a partially-rational soul. The soul is not inherited from the parents as with genetic traits, it is a wholly unique creation, created and given by God. If there were offspring between the rationally-souled humans and irrationally-souled proto-humans, they would either have a rational soul, or an irrational soul. I am inclined to believe they would have had rational souls, but I’m not God, so I can’t say.

The soul is not genetics, it doesn’t get split up like this, otherwise we would all have 1/2 male and 1/2 female souls, given that our parents are male and female.
guanophore said:
Sometimes I miss not having a tail…
Click to expand...
I would love to have a cat tail, might help improve my balance.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
The soul is not genetics, it doesn’t get split up like this, otherwise we would all have 1/2 male and 1/2 female souls, given that our parents are male and female.
Click to expand...
This is certainly the position of Carl Jung, and his concepts of the anima and animus.

God created humans to reflect Himself. “Male and female created He them”, which would seem to imply that He has (non-physical) traits that are both. Our concepts of male and female “soul” are very culturally influenced.
 
Gee, @wozza you better set these folks straight.

Did a mysterious extinction event precede Adam and Eve?​

Many religious commentators misunderstand this study to mean that species abruptly came into being only recently. To be clear: according to evolutionary biologists, species developed gradually over many millions of years. Stoeckle and Thaler’s discovery is that something happened roughly 100,000 years ago that created entirely new populations from long-existing species.

That said, Stoeckle and Thaler’s study does line up with the Bible in at least two notable ways. First, it affirms that we and our fellow creatures on Earth arose from a recent and profound creation event, orchestrated by some unknown mechanism. And second, the DNA bar codes reveal that species are quantized. Instead of there being a continuum of animal varieties, as one might expect from millions of years of gradual evolution, creatures fall into very distinct, widely separated populations – what the Bible describes as “kinds,” from the Hebrew word min. Did a mysterious extinction event precede Adam and Eve? | Fox News
 
guanophore said:
40.png
ProdglArchitect:
The soul is not genetics, it doesn’t get split up like this, otherwise we would all have 1/2 male and 1/2 female souls, given that our parents are male and female.
Click to expand...
Our concepts of male and female “soul” are very culturally influenced.
Click to expand...
I disagree. While the cultural representation of what is “feminine” and what is “masculine” may be different, the underlying realities of what it is to be male and female are not. No matter what “feminine” looks like in a given culture, the female soul is always female, and the male soul is always male, and those realities carry with them specific inclinations and natures. (Such as the fact that only women are able to conceive and bear children).

As for
guanophore said:
God created humans to reflect Himself. “Male and female created He them”, which would seem to imply that He has (non-physical) traits that are both.
Click to expand...
This is true. We believe that God is the perfection of all positive qualities. God is the perfection of the feminine nature, and the perfection of the male nature. He is neither male nor female, but rather the perfection of those positive qualities in both men and women. We use he when referencing God because He has always chosen to come to us as a masculine presence. He has appeared as Father and Son, and so we honor that reality by using male pronouns.

Carl Jung may be a renowned psychologist, but little in his history would indicate that he is a competent theologian. The man was apparently a pantheist, so it’s not surprising his views do not mesh with Catholicism.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Many religious commentators misunderstand this study to mean that species abruptly came into being only recently. To be clear: according to evolutionary biologists, species developed gradually over many millions of years.
Click to expand...
You posted this. You actually posted this. I can’t believe you did. But you did. Why did you post it? It makes no sense. This must be an alternative existence into which I have slipped. There can be no other answer.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Juvenal:
I can recall an article from many years ago written by a Thomist explaining why he didn’t accept ID. It was in the Dover time-frame in response to requests for support from Christian ID supporters. I wish I’d archived it.
Click to expand...
The issue most anti ID’ers have is they think that God would have to be a tinkerer. If God front-loaded life with the information for the kinds to proliferate then it is a fruitless objection.

BTW - over and over Scripture does say God keeps everything in existnece, aka Providence. It is not that God made any mistakes, the mistakes are due to the universe being in decay since the fall.
Click to expand...
Michael W. Tkacz clearly doesn’t care to see his God portrayed as a divine tinkerer, but his objections go further into the form of the argument as well.
"God of the Gaps"

In light of this sketch of the Thomistic account of creation and natural cause, one can perhaps understand the reluctance of contemporary Thomists to rush to the defense of ID theorists. It would seem that ID theory is grounded on the Cosmogonical Fallacy. Many who oppose the standard Darwinian account of biological evolution identify creation with divine intervention into nature. This is why many are so concerned with discontinuities in nature, such as discontinuities in the fossil record. They see in them evidence of divine action in the world, on the grounds that such discontinuities could only be explained by direct divine action. This insistence that creation must mean that God has periodically produced new and distinct forms of life is to confuse the fact of creation with the manner or mode of the development of natural beings in the universe. This is the Cosmogonical Fallacy.
Click to expand...
Whatever God, gods, or immutable principle or principles may have front-loaded our planet for life, I can’t imagine a better front-loading than the evolutionary processes we’ve investigated over the past century and a half. Evolution works. Good job if your God was responsible for it.

Je n’ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse. - Pierre-Simon Laplace
 
Evolution works? I think the ‘promoting atheist origins’ is the part currently working. God created everything. He didn’t just wind up evolution like a toy and let it do whatever “it” wanted. Evolution has no intelligence.
 
And just a heads up. If you post something and edit it, it is still visible if you click the edit icon.

Be careful…
 
Wozza said:
You posted this. You actually posted this. I can’t believe you did. But you did. Why did you post it? It makes no sense. This must be an alternative existence into which I have slipped. There can be no other answer.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. The standard hat tip to evolution. Once again you are ignoring the main points. Let’s give this a little time to settle in.
 
edwest said:
Evolution works? I think the ‘promoting atheist origins’ is the part currently working. God created everything. He didn’t just wind up evolution like a toy and let it do whatever “it” wanted. Evolution has no intelligence.
Click to expand...
Nobody is promoting what you described. Even the atheists here. If you are referring to this thread then you know you are posting something is not true.

Are you referring to this thread alone? If you are, then you are probably breaking forum rules.
 
buffalo said:
That said, Stoeckle and Thaler’s study does line up with the Bible in at least two notable ways. First, it affirms that we and our fellow creatures on Earth arose from a recent and profound creation event, orchestrated by some unknown mechanism. And second, the DNA bar codes reveal that species are quantized. Instead of there being a continuum of animal varieties, as one might expect from millions of years of gradual evolution, creatures fall into very distinct, widely separated populations – what the Bible describes as “kinds,” from the Hebrew word min.
Click to expand...
"That said, Stoeckle and Thaler’s study does line up with the Bible in at least two notable ways. First, it affirms that we and our fellow creatures on Earth arose from a recent and profound creation event, orchestrated by some unknown mechanism. And second, the DNA bar codes reveal that species are quantized. Instead of there being a continuum of animal varieties, as one might expect from millions of years of gradual evolution, creatures fall into very distinct, widely separated populations – what the Bible describes as “kinds,” from the Hebrew word min."
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
You posted this. You actually posted this. I can’t believe you did. But you did. Why did you post it? It makes no sense. This must be an alternative existence into which I have slipped. There can be no other answer.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. The standard hat tip to evolution. Once again you are ignoring the main points. Let’s give this a little time to settle in.
Click to expand...
So when you post something that DIRECTLY contradicts your views, it’s a ‘hat tip’. You are beyond satire. No-one can be taking you seriously any more. Surely.
 
Wozza said:
So when you post something that DIRECTLY contradicts your views, it’s a ‘hat tip’. You are beyond satire. No-one can be taking you seriously any more. Surely.
Click to expand...
Still ignoring the main points. Stoeckle and Thaler’s study does line up with the Bible in at least two notable ways.

First, it affirms that we and our fellow creatures on Earth arose from a recent and profound creation event ,

creatures fall into very distinct, widely separated populations – what the Bible describes as “kinds,” from the Hebrew word min."
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
First, it affirms that we and our fellow creatures on Earth arose from a recent and profound creation event.
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t.
The congruence of these fields supports the view that modern human mitochondria and Y chromosome originated from conditions that imposed a single sequence on these genetic elements between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago [145-147]. Contemporary sequence data cannot tell whether mitochondrial and Y chromosomes clonality occurred at the same time, i.e., consistent with the extreme bottleneck of a founding pair, or via sorting within a founding population of thousands that was stable for tens of thousands of years [116]. As Kuhn points out unresolvable arguments tend toward rhetoric
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
"That said, Stoeckle and Thaler’s study does line up with the Bible in at least two notable ways. First, it affirms that we and our fellow creatures on Earth arose from a recent and profound creation event, orchestrated by some unknown mechanism. And second, the DNA bar codes reveal that species are quantized. Instead of there being a continuum of animal varieties, as one might expect from millions of years of gradual evolution, creatures fall into very distinct, widely separated populations – what the Bible describes as “kinds,” from the Hebrew word min."
Click to expand...
I read that study, or at least their conclusions from it. It’s going to be very interesting to see what implications it has on evolutionary theory. Mainly, if niches are filled as quickly as the study would seem to indicate, it may contradict the assumption that evolution is a slow process, and instead indicate that it is a very rapid process, with large blocks of consistency between period of rapid developments.
 
Last edited:
edwest said:
Evolution has no intelligence.
Click to expand...
The word, “intelligence,” has been adopted with many inflections over the years, but in its origins it designated an ability to “choose between” options.

History and Etymology for intelligent​

Latin intelligent-, intelligens , present participle of intelligere, intellegere to understand, from inter- + legere to gather, select — more at LEGEND
Click to expand...
Contrary to the claim evolution has no intelligence, evolution is intelligent by definition.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
buffalo:
That said, Stoeckle and Thaler’s study does line up with the Bible in at least two notable ways. First, it affirms that we and our fellow creatures on Earth arose from a recent and profound creation event, orchestrated by some unknown mechanism. And second, the DNA bar codes reveal that species are quantized. Instead of there being a continuum of animal varieties, as one might expect from millions of years of gradual evolution, creatures fall into very distinct, widely separated populations – what the Bible describes as “kinds,” from the Hebrew word min.
Click to expand...
"That said, Stoeckle and Thaler’s study does line up with the Bible in at least two notable ways. First, it affirms that we and our fellow creatures on Earth arose from a recent and profound creation event, orchestrated by some unknown mechanism. And second, the DNA bar codes reveal that species are quantized. Instead of there being a continuum of animal varieties, as one might expect from millions of years of gradual evolution, creatures fall into very distinct, widely separated populations – what the Bible describes as “kinds,” from the Hebrew word min."
Click to expand...
I’m giving you a break. It stops being fun after a while and becomes embarrassing. Not for you. For me. I’m leading you on and I shouldn’t be doing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top