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.
In order to swallow the absurd fable of natural abiogenesis - which apparently is due to the amazing creative powers of “chemistry” - one must ignore certain fundamentals of science as well as suspend reason and intellectual integrity. Bizarre.
 
Last edited:
17.8k have viewed this thread. That means my words are in the minds of 17.8k people.

Job done…
 
Techno2000 said:
That’s too simplified
Click to expand...
It seemed to me to be an adequate explanation. If you want something more complex then I suggest you read Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish”. Given the limit on the size of posts here, a more fuller explanation would not fit.

rossum
 
Aloysium said:
So the belief goes,
Click to expand...
'Belief" and “fact” are not synonymous terms, and we well know that mutation, natural selection, and (random) genetic drift very much work in conjunction with each other though a process we call “speciation”, which one can google for more information, or even they can check the Wiki article on it that also provides links to scientific studies.

Mutations can be harmful, helpful, or neither, and one that may be “neither” has the potential of becoming either “harmful” or “helpful” if the environment were to change.

If I were to be wrong, geneticists would be all over me on this, but they ain’t. Matter of fact, in physical anthropology we rely heavily on them, and part of my education in that field involved studying genetics. However, that certainly ain’t my field of specialization.
 
Last edited:
The only real obstacle for one to possibly reject the basic ToE is a literalist interpretation of the Creation accounts, which makes no sense whatsoever in today’s world as we know so much more of how our universe got put together. And it’s always important to remember that the ToE does not in any way negate Divine creation, plus some biblical scholars even before we knew anything about evolution believed that it was likely that the Creation accounts were allegorical.
 
Metis1 said:
some biblical scholars even before we knew anything about evolution believed that it was likely that the Creation accounts were allegorical.
Click to expand...
Indeed:
“What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?”

Origen, about 220 AD.
Click to expand...
rossum
 
Vonsalza said:
ood example there of evolution, if true.
I haven’t heard anyone here arguing the reality of what is termed micro-evolution.
Click to expand...
I’m sure that you have some idea it’s meaning. While obviously bowing to authority, it is ultimately to my reason, like conscience, that I must be true. Informed as it is by the facts of science, to be found in physics, chemistry, biology, and the human sciences, freed from the order that they’ve been placed by evolutionary theories, I’ve come to believe that each organism is an expression of a kind of living being originally created, with the potential to diversify. A kind of thing is not limited to having a specific phenotypic or genetic morphology, nor must it be able to successfully mate with other members of its kind, as does the modern concept of species.

A person is a manifestation of humanity, irrespective of the overall appearance, genetic make up or capacity to express its human nature. As far as I can discern, there is nothing more complicated in bringing a first person, the progenitor of all humanity, fully formed, into being, than there is in maintaining each of us in existence in every moment of our lives since the past is gone and cannot be the cause of our presence here and now.

I would refer to myself as an existentialist, reality to be the “in-formed” being of any individual thing, which constitutes the “in-formation” of an encompassing unity, which in turn is a participant in a greater whole, all subsumed ultimately in one Beatific Vision. The existential reality of each of us is as a person created as an individual being in relation to what is other to our selves, and thereby one in the mystical body of Christ, which having been divided in sin, is united by love. The truth of who we are goes way beyond what the natural sciences tell us. Focussing in merely the material and trying to fill in the huge gaps with assumptions of how matter would work, when modern science goes beyond its boundaries and attempts to tell us of our creation, it cannot but present a distorted view; that illusion is evolution.
Click to expand...
 
That’s a great quote from Origen. Thanks Mr. Rossum.

So an allegorical interpretation of Genesis predates the canonization of the NT. Who would have thought it?
 
Last edited:
Oh, but it is! We just haven’t found it yet.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Just a little Humor)​

 
Last edited:
rossum said:
“What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?”

Origen, about 220 AD.
Click to expand...
The sun and moon might seem big to us, but why would God govern the length of his day by a microscopic moon and star he created? In the scheme of creation, they amount to almost nothing.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
40.png
rossum:
“What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?”

Origen, about 220 AD.
Click to expand...
The sun and moon might seem big to us, but why would God govern the length of his day by a microscopic moon and star he created? In the scheme of creation, they amount to almost nothing.
Click to expand...
Although born in a manger, located on a planet located on one of billions of galaxies, I would hardly think that the place of the Son’s incarnation amounts to “almost nothing”. Given that the heavens are arranged such that they proclaimed the birth and death of our Lord, it would appear that from God’s perspective, they are at the very centre of the cosmos.

And, what is a day but the passage of events, which in an early universe containing far less complexity than what exists in our present time, since the end of creation, would in relative terms be extremely longer periods of “time”. I would think that the length of one day on earth at the time of Jesus, that quantity of cosmic events, is the standard by which the other days are set.

At any rate, a day constitutes a cycle of time which God brought forth into existence from eternity, each of His work-days, representing one level of creation, which utilized what had previously been created in the formation of the new.

I suppose there exists quite a difference in what we believe to be “the grand scheme of things”.
 
Last edited:
Who can understand God?

2 Peter 3:8 = But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
 
Metis1 said:
The only real obstacle for one to possibly reject the basic ToE is a literalist interpretation of the Creation accounts
Click to expand...
The fossil record is an excellent reason to doubt that the “evolutionary” history of life is a natural process, as is the fact that no one has ever witnessed one genus evolving into another genus.
 
Vonsalza said:
That’s a great quote from Origen. Thanks Mr. Rossum.
Click to expand...
Origen makes a fair point, but it should be remembered that he had a reputation for allegorizing just about everything in Scripture - a technique which was critized by Saints Epiphanius, Methodius, Eustathius of Antioch and Alexander of Alexandria.
St. John of Damascus referred to some of Origen exegesis as “the ravings of Origen”.
Referring to Origen, the Catholic Encyclopaedia states, “it must be confessed that he allows too many cases in which the Scripture is not to be understood according to the letter”.
 
Edgar said:
The fossil record is an excellent reason to doubt that the “evolutionary” history of life is a natural process, as is the fact that no one has ever witnessed one genus evolving into another genus.
Click to expand...
It i s pretty much impossible to “witness” such a large change as that’s because the gap is wide enough whereas it would take a great deal of time. However, the effects of such a change will leave tell-tale signs such as what we see with the fossil record and the genome testing. Again, if you were to be correct, the geneticists would be on your side thus against mine, but that simply isn’t at all the case.

Also, the fossil record in no way is compatible with a literal interpretation of the Creation accounts.
 
Edgar said:
Origen makes a fair point, but it should be remembered that he had a reputation for allegorizing just about everything in Scripture - a technique which was critized by Saints Epiphanius, Methodius, Eustathius of Antioch and Alexander of Alexandria.
Click to expand...
And yet the irony is that it was especially Origen that felt that it was important for the Church to more closely use the scriptures as an “anchor” so as to keep the Church from straying off course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top