Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[guanophore]

I never said the text is not true, i said that someones interpretation of that text is not true and is inconsistant with actual reality.

You have created a false dichotomy between “actual reality” and the truth revealed in the text. The text is also “actual reality”. Theological Truth is literal, real truth.

So please, stop accusing me of things that are not true and just admit that you got it wrong.

I have not accused you of anything. I have quoted what you wrote, and responded to it. If you don’t wish to believe that Genesis is literally true, that is your perogative. There is no “accusation” needed. You are a free person, and can choose your own beliefs and perspectives. You have the freedom to take a position that is different than Catholics have, or what the Church teaches.

We disagree, it does not mean that one person has to be right, and the other wrong. That is fundamentalist thinking!

 

[IWantGod]

No, because for me, there are things that are real/true (literal) that can be expressed theologically and symbolically.

I never said anything to the contrary.

 

[IWantGod]

You have created a false dichotomy between “actual reality” and the truth revealed in the text. The text is also “actual reality”. Theological Truth is literal, real truth.

No, you are twisting what i said to serve whatever agenda you have. Conflating concepts to make it seem that i am saying something that i am not. I don’t care how you interpret the word actual reality. I have explained what i meant, and if you cannot accept that it would be best that we no-longer discuss it.

 

[IWantGod]

I have not accused you of anything.

Yes you did.

 

[guanophore]

I have explained what i meant, and if you cannot accept that it would be best that we no-longer discuss it.

I hope you find whatever you came here to get. Peace be with you.

 

[IWantGod]

I wish the same for you. God bless you in Jesus name.

 

[mVitus]

@guanophore After reading the exchange between you and IWG and personally reading your posts I’ve still been saying to myself, “Why is guanophore correcting what IWG said? The correction he’s making is the exact thing IWG just said.” So while I know that you and IWG have agreed to disagree, I’d be interested in carrying on some of the conversation.

But prior to discussion I want to see if we’re on the same page. From your posts, I’ve gathered that you don’t see a conflict between evolution and Genesis. Would that be correct?

For myself, I accept evolution as scientifically true. I will try to denote truths learned by the study if natural processes as scientific truths/facts. I also accept Genesis as literally true. In this case I define the literal truth of Scripture as the intended meaning. So for example the literal truth of “It’s raining cats and dogs.” would be that there’s a lot of rain coming down. On the converse I’d define the literalistic truth as the on-the-surface meaning. Going back to the previous phrase, its literalistic meaning wouod be that cats and dogs were falling out of the sky.

To oversimplify things for this brief intro, I would call Genesis scientifically false due to the inconsitencies of its literalistic meaning. At the same time I would hold that it is literally true as there are a great deal of theological truths to be known from it.

And as one last note, it is my thoughts that IWG was saying to you essentially what I just said in the above paragraph, just without the pedantic definitions of his terms.

 

[Edgar]

God said creation was good

Your interpretation of “good” might be different to God’s. God thought it “good” to send His Son to earth to suffer hours of horrific torture followed by an equally-horrific crucifixion.

 

[Edgar]

BL Rembordt (18th century). "God will punish the world when men have devised marvelous inventions that will lead them to forgetting God. They will have horseless carriages, and they will fly like the birds. But they will laugh at the idea of God, thinking that they are ‘very clever.’

“although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things” - Romans 1

 

[Edgar]

The Theory is based upon mutation/adaptation. I think it is quite clear from the plethora of drug resistant bugs and mutated infections that mutation in life forms affects their preservation (especially when it comes to resistance to antibacterial drugs).

The theory of evolution is based on facts like mutation/adaption, but the theory also includes a conclusion based on these facts - that all life on earth evolved from a microbe. It is this conclusion that has practical use in applied science, not the facts that precede it.

 

[guanophore]

And as one last note, it is my thoughts that IWG was saying to you essentially what I just said in the above paragraph, just without the pedantic definitions of his terms.

Perhaps definition of the terms is just too important for me.

I do agree with you about the difference between literal and literalistic. Perhaps that would be a better term than fundamentalist, which clearly has not been conducive to the dialogue.

 

[Edgar]

I only posted it as a response to something quoted by Edgar (since mysteriously removed)

Sorry, I suffered a temporary bout of insanity, but I feel better now.

 

[Edgar]

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.

I don’t think a soul-ed human would mate with a soul-less human anyway, for that would amount to bestiality.

 

[Aloysium]

the scientific facts are true in a sense that genesis is not.

Genesis reveals the truth operating at many levels of meaning. It is the Word of God, it establishes a dialogue between God and mankind, telling us of who we are, why we are, how we got into this state and leads us to the cure, who is Jersus Christ. It is written in a language understandable by anyone in any time who has been given the grace to hear. It might be termed “metahistorical”, using the word to mean that it speaks of the intersect of time and eternity - the very beginning of things, before history, the voyage of mankind to reconciliation with its Maker began.

The facts revealed by science: organic chemistry, genetics and the fossil record, are more coherently framed within a creationist view. Evolution excludes creation; it is what people imagine would have happened were God not bringing everything into existence. It is consistent with deistic, atheistic and pantheistic understandings of the world, and not with the view that God, transcendent while intimately involved in His creation, is the Source of all that exists.

the process by which potential kinds have come to be is not a reflection of how things have actually happened.

I believe it does just that, but one has to listen within one’s relationship with God.

Is God the creator of physical reality and the laws that govern it’s behavior?

God is the Creator of everything, all time and all space and everything in it. He brings into being events existing as whole systems, each, reflecting the triune nature of existence, with thier particular set of relationships that define what they are, and we understand as the laws of nature. These expressions of being come together into greater wholes constructed by means of their inherent properties, forming a higher unity. The human body is one example of what happens physically with the subatomic bound into atoms, brought together in the form of complex molecules, as cells, specialized and working together in tissues, necessary to organ systems, all integrated into one being - the person, who is an expression of humanity, all of us one body in Christ. All things are relational and these attributes are what we call the laws of nature, all given existence here and now as they were in their beginnings.

 

[Aloysium]

Each snowflake exists. This universe is pretty huge. Lots going on. We might simplify the whole thing into properties, crystalline structures and such, to lump all these things into something we can imagine. But each fleeting drop of frozen water, existing in four dimensional space time, as defined by physics, is caused, has a reality in its individuality, to be dissolved as it melts and evaporates, in the atmosphere. Those angels would be really busy if they didn’t have all eternity to assist in bringing this all into existence.

 

[Aloysium]

In principle i accept the existence of secondary causes ( natural causes ) and that God has given them the power to produce effects according to their given nature. True, the power of God is required for the existence of physical reality and it is God that sustains physical reality in existence allowing the effects of physical causes to become actual things according to the the given nature of the physical cause. But nonetheless there is such a thing as a naturally caused order of physical events that have real effects.

This excludes the reality of living beings.

Even if we were talking about material substances, anyone who has spent any time in a lab is aware of the difficulty in getting results within a reasonable degree of error under even the most controlled conditions. It just doesn’t happen that stuff aligns itself in the manner that you would have people believe. If we switch the metaphor from objects and processes to one of information, it is clear that meaning does not randomly occur; random changes to information cause a breakdown in what exists.

But, we are not merely a collection of atoms. We are individual beings, expressions of one mankind. And, that had to be created, beginning with one man, from whom we all have arisen in time, and together we fell, to be redeemed and save by one man, who is God.

As to the nature of physical matter and its relationship to the person, I’m going to step back a bit and mention John Wheeler who speculated to his graduate student, Richard Feynman, that there was only one electron, bouncing back and forth in time. This didn’t go far but it speaks to how we understand our world, in particular for the purposes of this discussion, the material. Again, using the metaphor that reality is made up of information, there is a bit of information which we understand to be an electron, and information that is space and time. That information was brought into existence, defining a segment of time at the very beginning of things.

The information that is quarks and electrons in time and space, was created. Later they were brought together forming a unity that has expanded to 81 stable atoms. If not, the universe would have remained a plasma field. Leap forward and we have living things which do not result from the self-arrangement of atoms and molecules.

The inherent properties that belong to that purely material level of being were utilized in the creation of living creatures, which were brought forth from the earth. This requires a creative process, the bringing into existence of living things from nothing utilizing pre-existing matter. As the information that is a subatomic event is brought together in the formation of the new set of information that constitutes the atom, this in turn forms the basis of a new system, a living organism, whose nature includes the capacity to absorb matter into itself and thereby live and grow, and to procreate, features not present in the material substances of which these individual beings are constituted.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think a soul-ed human would mate with a soul-less human anyway, for that would amount to bestiality.

Well, sadly, it still happens today. And if it did happen, then there would occur an admixture of DNA.

 

[mVitus]

Edgar:

I don’t think a soul-ed human would mate with a soul-less human anyway, for that would amount to bestiality.

Well, sadly, it still happens today. And if it did happen, then there would occur an admixture of DNA.

I’m curious what examples you’re thinking of.

 

[guanophore]

I’m curious what examples you’re thinking of.

Of beastiality? This is a PG rated forum, so I would rather not say.

I will say, however, that if hominids could intermingle and bear offspring, it would mean that, genetically, they were similar enough so that offspring could occur. I am not aware of any modern “beasts” where this is possible. Though I think Hitler was trying to breed an army of ape-men at one point.

People used to think of the Neanderthals as “beasts”, yet every non-African human today has from 2-4 % Neanderthal DNA. That means it was possible for Cro Magnon to intermingle with Neanderthals. If this was the case, why would it not be the case between other hominids?

It is a rabbit trail, and nothing but speculation. I am not sure it is germain to this thread.

 

[mVitus]

Of beastiality? This is a PG rated forum, so I would rather not say.

The quote you took from Edgar specifically dealt with souled humans mating with soulless humans. Hence I was wondering what examples of that you were thinking of in the modern day. If you were just referring to beasteality as a whole, I’ll second the no-examples.

Though I think Hitler was trying to breed an army of ape-men at one point.

There was also one project that tried to do so in the USSR. (But even though it had government funding, it wasn’t really a main thing. More like a guy applied for a grant and the requirements were very loose at the time.)

That means it was possible for Cro Magnon to intermingle with Neanderthals. If this was the case, why would it not be the case between other hominids?

It is quite interesting with that overall I have to admit. And two main ways to look at it IMO.

Option 1 would be to hold that Neanderthals, though not homo sapiens, were true humans theologically with body and rational soul. Such would also put the first true humans prior to the Neanderthal-Sapiens split. And it brings up the question of what is a true human?

Option 2 looks at Neanderthals as very similar but lacking a rational soul, but we also know the descendents of those pairs have souls (unless someone wants to argue a quagmire) which would give reason to say the child of a true human and non-true human is a true human.

It’s all quite interesting to me.