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.
Aloysium said:
Natural-Evolution” … whatever that means
Click to expand...
I think Natural Evolution is evolution that proceeds without any (name removed by moderator)ut from the Creator, which is a very strange thing for any Catholic to believe it. Creator-less creation :roll_eyes:… sounds like some strange hybrid of Catholicism and atheism (Catheism?). A new religion?

And there’s at least one poster here who claims to be Catholic but believes in Natural Abiogenesis - he won’t give God the glory of even creating the first alleged life-form; rather, he attributes its formation to some imaginary laws of chemistry (chance, in other words). Bizarre.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately for them, the Divine Foot might give them what they want - forever.
 
Unfortunately, Creator-less creation is being heavily promoted. Why do you need God when you have chemistry and physics? Just make sure your planet is the right distance from its sun, has the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids) and water. Then ------ life. I don’t think so.
 
Glark said:
And there’s at least one poster here who claims to be Catholic but believes in Natural Abiogenesis - he won’t give God the glory of even creating the first alleged life-form; rather, he attributes its formation to some imaginary laws of chemistry (chance, in other words). Bizarre.
Click to expand...
If I am not he, then I am proud to stand beside him. But as usual, you commit yet another of the classic Creationist confuscations. The first few words are true, but then follows a garbled explication of complete misunderstanding. I course I give God the glory of creating the first life form, as I give God the glory of creating every atom and every event. The laws of Chemistry are indeed imaginary, if you like, but they are part of God’s imagination, not man’s, and operate according to his will.
edwest211 said:
Unfortunately, Creator-less creation is being heavily promoted. Why do you need God when you have chemistry and physics?
Click to expand...
And here’s edwest making exactly the same clumsy mistake.

Life would be so much simpler for you both if all evolutionists were atheists, wouldn’t it? But they’re not. And those who triumph the glories of God in evolution do not creep around the edges of their faith, they trumpet it. God is mocked by the puny rejection of his craft displayed by those who hide their faces from the blinding light of his reason, and God is exalted by the discovery of every fossil tooth and strand of DNA. That’s why evolutionists, atheist or not, are full of joy and exhilaration, while Creationists hide in the shadows of bitterness, spitting bitterness in the form of sour jokes and snide misrepresentation.
 
Glark said:
40.png
Aloysium:
Natural-Evolution” … whatever that means
Click to expand...
I think Natural Evolution is evolution that proceeds without any (name removed by moderator)ut from the Creator, which is a very strange thing for any Catholic to believe it. Creator-less creation :roll_eyes:… sounds like some strange hybrid of Catholicism and atheism (Catheism?). A new religion?

And there’s at least one poster here who claims to be Catholic but believes in Natural Abiogenesis - he won’t give God the glory of even creating the first alleged life-form; rather, he attributes its formation to some imaginary laws of chemistry (chance, in other words). Bizarre.
Click to expand...
So anything that we can describe as ‘natural’ has zero (name removed by moderator)ut from God. That’s quite a corner you have painted yourself into.

Either God has no (name removed by moderator)ut into various aspects of existence (I’ll be keen to find out what those are) or nothing can be described as natural. As He controls everything. Including the evolutionary process.

Want to pick one and run with it? Or would you…how was it put? Ah yes: ‘…hide in the shadows of bitterness, spitting bitterness in the form of sour jokes and snide misrepresentation.’

Me? I’m going option 2.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Unfortunately, Creator-less creation is being heavily promoted. Why do you need God when you have chemistry and physics? Just make sure your planet is the right distance from its sun, has the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids) and water. Then ------ life. I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
They have to maintain that life only comes from life, except the first time and no time after that.
 
Bradskii said:
That’s quite a corner you have painted yourself into.
Click to expand...
Speaking of corners painted into:

The materialist belief is one that does not allow the possibilities of the supernatural. Materialistic science has painted itself into a corner, for it cannot let the Divine foot in the door. It lives in a box that is cannot see outside of even if light is streaming in from the outside. Strange that intelligent people would adhere to that self limiting position.
 
buffalo said:
They have to maintain that life only comes from life, except the first time and no time after that.
Click to expand...
And how does creationism differ from that? All life (except God) is derived from God, and God is already alive. Hence life only comes from life, except the first time and no time after that.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

rossum
 
rossum said:
And how does creationism differ from that? All life (except God) is derived from God, and God is already alive. Hence life only comes from life, except the first time and no time after that.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

rossum
Click to expand...
Bingo! …
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
That’s quite a corner you have painted yourself into.
Click to expand...
Speaking of corners painted into:

The materialist belief is one that does not allow the possibilities of the supernatural. Materialistic science has painted itself into a corner, for it cannot let the Divine foot in the door. It lives in a box that is cannot see outside of even if light is streaming in from the outside. Strange that intelligent people would adhere to that self limiting position.
Click to expand...
As I told you in another thread - you just don’t get it.

A materialist will show you a cloud of gas and explain how it will condense, under natural laws, to stars and planets. She will show you basic life and explain how it will evolve, under natural laws, to more complex forms. A materialist has explanations for physical changes as they occur under natural laws.

If you want to say that God is behind all this, then unless the person knows 100% that gods do not exist, then they will allow for that possibility. This atheist certainly does. But with the rider that if indeed God exists, then this is the manner in which He interacts with the material world.

But you think you know better. Because you are a fundamentalist and all this nonsense of natural processes runs counter to your beliefs. You DEMAND that God could not have acted in a way to which all evidence points. You DEMAND that ancient words are to be taken literally. You DEMAND that we reject science and embrace literalism and treat the word of God as only you can be allowed to interpret it.

As does ‘natural’ mean no (name removed by moderator)ut from God? You implied as such. Try painting yourself out of that corner. I’m so keen to watch.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
But you think you know better. Because you are a fundamentalist and all this nonsense of natural processes runs counter to your beliefs. You DEMAND that God could not have acted in a way to which all evidence points. You DEMAND that ancient words are to be taken literally. You DEMAND that we reject science and embrace literalism and treat the word of God as only you can be allowed to interpret it.

As does ‘natural’ mean no (name removed by moderator)ut from God? You implied as such. Try painting yourself out of that corner. I’m so keen to watch.
Click to expand...
Let’s start here:

This is Catholic Dogma: (not fundamentalist)

The Continuous Preservation and Governing of the World

God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
God through His providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De fide.)

The Divine Work of Creation

The Doctrine of Revelation Regarding Man or “Christian Anthropology”

The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
 
Last edited:
But it was said specifically that a natural process has no (name removed by moderator)ut from God. How can that be in light of what you have posted? That He controls and guides everything. He must control and guide even what we descibe as natural processes.

So the comment was obviously completely in error.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Read it slowly. It is evo faith in a nutshell.
Click to expand...
OK. “They have to maintain that life only comes from life …”. Yes, I think I’ve got that. All living things are descended from other living things …
“except the first time …”. Right. The first living thing did not descend from a living thing, but appeared via abiogenesis. So far, so good.
“and no time after that.” What on earth does this mean? Living things did not descend from living things at any time after abiogenesis? No, that can’t be it. What is it that occurred “at no time after that”? Let’s try again:
“life only comes from life, except … no time after [the first living thing].”
“life only comes from life … and no time after [the first living thing].”
Nope, neither of these makes any sense at all.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
means life never arose again spontaneously after the very first time.
Click to expand...
Does it? My word. Not in the English I grew up with. However, if that’s what you mean, then broadly speaking I agree with it. All living things are descended from a single abiogenetic form of about three or four billion years ago. Absolutely correct. That’s what all the evidence tells us so far. Do you have a problem with it?
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
All living things are descended from a single abiogenetic form of about three or four billion years ago. Absolutely correct. That’s what all the evidence tells us so far. Do you have a problem with it?
Click to expand...
Really? Of course I have a problem with it. It is not true. UCD is dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top