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

[IWantGod]

This is a silly analogy

No it isn’t. It makes my point perfectly clear and your position untenable. God gave us a brain to reason after all.

 

[Rubee]

visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.

Could you define “alien” and “hostile” to man in your own language? Or perhaps biological organisms are excluded from visible creation in your world view?

I also did not say the virus changed. My argument was actually that WE did. We became capable of being hurt by them, i.e. capable of death.

 

[IWantGod]

Could you define “alien” and “hostile” to man in your own language? Or perhaps biological organisms are excluded from visible creation in your world view?

This is specious. It’s clear that the intention is to say that something that was not hostile to man has become hostile to man, but that doesn’t mean that nature is not as it always has been. It just means that we are now subject to the effects of nature.

And since the Catholic church theologically allows for the possibility that the human body evolved from another primate, and not only that, it also allows for the possibility that the evolution of species is true, it follows necessarily that your interpretation is theologically incorrect.

Animals have always eaten other animals, has always been red in tooth and claw, and the possibility of disease has always existed for as long as animals have lived.

 

[Rubee]

No it isn’t. It makes my point perfectly clear and your position untenable. God gave us a brain to reason after all.

You cannot cite impossibilities (according to the faith) as justification for you to judge God’s actual choices. You haven’t the wisdom to determine that what God has done is irrational or unloving. Perhaps you need to read the book of Job and see God’s responses to him when he told God about his irrational choices. It’s actually apt since he suffered disease and all manner of things directly allowed by God.

 

[Rubee]

This is specious. It’s clear that the intention is to say that something that was not hostile to man has become hostile to man, but that doesn’t mean that nature is not as it always has been. It just means that we are now subject to the effects of nature.

Nah. THIS^^^ is specious. I argued we became capable of death and vulnerable to the virus. Why make up an argument? That’s just dishonest.

And in any case, the interpretation is still false. Clearly something changed if the “whole world” is now “corrupt.” On top of that, scriptutre says the very ground was cursed and that creation is groaning awaiting to be created anew.

Why a “new creation” if according to you, nothing changed?

 

[IWantGod]

You cannot cite impossibilities (according to the faith) as justification for you to judge God’s actual choices.

So are you suggesting that God doing evil is a possibility? Reason would suggest that this is impossible. In fact we know it is and not just by faith alone.

God has the power to design anything, but does it make rational sense for God to design an ebola virus to kill primates? It might make sense to you, but it doesn’t make rational sense to me., In fact, i think the only reason you would suggest that it was reasonable or plead ignorance to the possibility is because it’s necessary in order for your position to make any sense at all. If you wasn’t so desperate to push intelligent design i think you would agree that it is unreasonable to think that God would do that because it serves no intelligible purpose given what God has revealed about his nature.

 

[Rubee]

So are you suggesting that God doing evil is a possibility?

God “doing evil” is your incredibly bold judgment of the divine. Sorry, but you’re alone in that assertion. God choosing a world in which Ebolah kills people or even KILLING PEOPLE HIMSELF is not in any way, shape or form “God doing evil”. That’s just creaturely arrogance. I understand. I nearly left the church over the problem of evil. So I’m not saying this with any moral superiority.

And more from the Church about God designing a world capable of suffering deliberately:

[310] But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. 174 But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.175

 

[IWantGod]

And in any case, the interpretation is still false. Clearly something changed if the “whole world” is now “corrupt.” On top of that, scriptutre says the very ground was cursed and that creation is groaning awaiting to be created anew.

Why a “new creation” if according to you, nothing changed?

That doesn’t mean that God literally cursed the universe. You can interpret it however you want, that doesn’t change the fact that you are theologically incorrect. The Catholic Church doesn’t actually teach what you intend to convey. Organisms have always eaten other organisms, disease and viruses have always existed for as long as there have been organisms, and the church is not against that point of view. So you are theologically incorrect.

Are you are Yec?

 

[Rubee]

God has the power to design anything, but does it make rational sense for God to design an ebola virus to kill primates?

You’re just now being dishonest. I said very well, our vulnerability to the virus came due to the fall. Are you denying the fall, or the fact that yes, one of God’s creatures called a virus, does in fact kill man? Does it make rational sense to deny that a virus exists that can kill man and both are created by God? You can fight reality all you want. It just seems a strange use of time.

 

[Rubee]

I never said that it is unreasonable that disease and viruses exist. I said it makes more sense to think that these things occur naturally, rather than by design ( design meaning that God constructed each and every species of creature )

But you are dishonestly and persistently pretending I made an argument I didn’t. When people feel the need to resort to that in a debate, it’s very revealing about their position.

 

[IWantGod]

You’re just now being dishonest. I said very well, our vulnerability to the virus came due to the fall. Are you denying the fall, or the fact that yes, one of God’s creatures called a virus, does in fact kill man. Does it make rational sense to deny that a virus exists that can kill man and both are created by God?

I never said that it is unreasonable that disease and viruses exist. I said it makes more sense to think that these things occur naturally, rather than by design (design meaning that God constructed each and every species of creature)

 

[IWantGod]

The Church and the Bible both teach the COSMOS, not just man, was affected by the fall.

For the sake of argument lets say this is true (i could be wrong), what do you think that means? What do you think nature was like before the fall?

 

[Rubee]

For the sake of argument lets say this is true ( i could be wrong ), what do you think that means? What do you think nature was like before the fall?

Nah. No “could bes” allowed. You just pretended to authoritatively tell me that the clear teaching in the catechism and the Bible are theologically wrong. I asked for citations, not thought experiments. Please refer to that definitive church teaching you just referred to above.

 

[IWantGod]

You just pretended to authoritatively tell me that the clear teaching in the catechism and the Bible are theologically wrong

Now who is being dishonest.

 

[Rubee]

That doesn’t mean that God literally cursed the universe. You can interpret it however you want, that doesn’t change the fact that you are theologically incorrect. The Catholic Church doesn’t actually teach what you intend to convey. Organisms have always eaten other organisms, disease and viruses have always existed for as long as there have been organisms, and the church is not against that point of view. So you are theologically incorrect.

Please prove this.^ In addition, I said the COSMOS was affected.

 

[Rubee]

For the sake of argument lets say this is true ( i could be wrong ), what do you think that means? What do you think nature was like before the fall?

And I’ve answered it a million times!

 

[IWantGod]

Please refer to that definitive church teaching you just referred to above.

You don’t know that Catholics are allowed to agree with the natural evolution of species?

I have quoted it here many times. Sorry, but i’m not going to do it again.

 

[Rubee]

You don’t know that Catholics are allowed to believe in the natural evolution of species?

Nah. I never referred to TOE. So stop changing the topic. Prove what you ACTUALLY asserted.

 

[IWantGod]

Nah. I never referred to TOE. So stop changing the topic. Prove what you ACTUALLY asserted.

And what was that?

 

[Rubee]

Are you struck with sudden blindness?