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.
Jesus taught not to cast pearls before swine; not being abusive at all, rather just exposing you as non-believers who are trying to deny that Jesus is God, our uncreated light
 
edwest211 said:
Nowadays, some people will do whatever they want, including a google search.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. You know nothing about the subject to make a reasoned argument. That is all too painfully obvious.

You have been called out and have failed quite miserably. I’m putting you in the same genetic class as Buffalo. You seem not to be able to experience any shame.

If this was a discussion in a social context you would be a figure of ridicule. People would look forward to you making your next appearance. Someone to keep us amused…
 
Uriel1 said:
Jesus taught not to cast pearls before swine; not being abusive at all, rather just exposing you as non-believers who are trying to deny that Jesus is God, our uncreated light
Click to expand...
Speaking as a representative of ‘the swine’, did you have an answer as to the evolutionary benefits of drinking milk?
 
“Do I amuse you?” “Do you think I’m funny?” 🙂

You’ve discovered the ‘shame gene’???
 
Last edited:
there are none my friend; it causes shorter life and hip fractures because the calcium is not absorbed in a net gain. I’ve given you the Japan v USA data, so check it out if you want to but don’t pretend you don’t know
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Two human beings were created by God. Evolution cannot explain their appearance or the gifts they received.
Click to expand...
A human being is a body-soul composite, as the Church teaches it. The human soul is created immediately by God, as the Church teaches it.

Evolution can explain the existence of a being with a physical body. God can create a soul in order to create a human person, from a pre-existing body.
 
What pre-existing body? And what about Eve? She was not born in any conventional way.
 
Something tells me that if i was looking for funding to write a book on the theory of natural evolution, and how it doesn’t necessarily conflict with Catholic teaching, you would be the wrong person to go to.
 
edwest211 said:
What pre-existing body? And what about Eve? She was not born in any conventional way.
Click to expand...
Perfect! So, if a Scriptural literalist can assent to God creating Eve from pre-existing living physical hominid material, then why can he not assent to God creating both first humans in that way?
 
Last edited:
I haven’t met many people who actually believe a literal 6 day account of creation, and most people I have personally known who believe in God see evolution as a part of the process God uses to create or a process God set in motion. I suppose it’s a way to rationalize religious belief with current knowledge about the world around us.Which is not to say that there aren’t perhaps people on the forum who do believe a literal 6 day narrative. I have no argument with them since I have never met anyone of that sort. But with regard to the people I do know, and specifically the ones who believe in intelligent design, I don’t see how the idea that creatures should retain their initial permutations as offsetting the intelligent design position which allows for evolution. The religiously inclined people I know have simply assimilated evolution into their beliefs. In short, I don’t think the idea settles the argument, but I’m happy to hear more.
 
Last edited:
There are no hominids.

“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”

Arcanum, Pope Leo XIII
 
Bradskii said:
Fair enough. You know nothing about the subject to make a reasoned argument. That is all too painfully obvious.

You have been called out and have failed quite miserably. I’m putting you in the same genetic class as Buffalo. You seem not to be able to experience any shame.

If this was a discussion in a social context you would be a figure of ridicule. People would look forward to you making your next appearance. Someone to keep us amused…
Click to expand...
When out of arguments always attack the poster. You seem nervous about your upcoming paradigm shift.
 
Gorgias said:
Perfect! So, if a Scriptural literalist can assent to God creating Eve from pre-existing living physical hominid material, then why can he not assent to God creating both first humans in that way?
Click to expand...
Read Genesis again. See if you can spot the reason.
 
edwest211 said:
“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
It just says that if there is purpose, it is not scientifically observable.
Click to expand...
You got a source for this claim?
Click to expand...
The part you quoted is just my interpretation. But my claim was:
That theory [of evolution] is not based on the existence of foresight or purpose. Neither does it deny the existence of such.
Click to expand...
That claim is a negative based on the absence of any statement about purpose one way or the other. If you think evolution does make a statement about purpose one way or the other, there is an easy way for you to demonstrate it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top