LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Really? You are sounding like an evolutionists more and more.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
You can go back many years and see my arguments are the same. Increasingly though mainstream science is supporting these arguments.
B
buffalo
Guest
You are aware that the fossil record does not support australopithecines to humans? Right?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Well, where does your view, on a strictly scientific basis, differ from the most basic theory of evolution?LeafByNiggle:
You can go back many years and see my arguments are the same. Increasingly though mainstream science is supporting these arguments.
A
Aloysium
Guest
The standard theory of evolution is incompatible with the Church’s teachings, ergo the assumption that would necessarily have to be denied by anyone who claims that it is through evolutionary processes that creation took place. Calling oneself an evolutionary-creationist might avoid such confusion.
I’m not sure anyone disagrees with that; I most certainly don’t. They were the template from which the human physical form was constructed. And, we would be carrying many of their psychological, emotional traits as well.
AKA the creation of the first human being.
They were animals.
No. We cannot baptize a dog. Hominids were an ape kind of animal. Again, the soul is primary, giving life and purpose to matter which on its own does what it is
This suggests that Adam and Eve were going to die regardless of their choice. I’m not sure how the resurrection of the dead fits in with a belief that humans are simply “ensouled”, baptized(?), clerical(?) hominids. Seriously, I am confounded as to how those fixated on evolution imagine it will happen. Why such a “mechanism” could not happen at the beginning as it will at the end, eludes me.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
You really have to ask? Where do you think it is?
E
edwest211
Guest
Keep going, buffalo. You’re doing a fine job.
R
rossum
Guest
I’m sorry. That was not evidence of mammals or trees from the Cambrian.
Where is your evidence of mammals or trees from the Cambrian?
rossum
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
And, if the fossil record were complete, then that would be a critical drawback. However, inasmuch as it is not, then it means that this remains a theory.
How do you define the “standard theory”, then?
Would you equate that with “theistic evolution”? That seems to be the label that’s been bandied about, in these parts (usually as a derisive term).
Agreed. From a theological perspective, that’s certainly true. (Science, however, since it doesn’t truck in discussions about ‘souls’, would define ‘human’ differently. Since we’re talking about theology here, though, the term ‘human’ implies a human soul.)
Agreed. However, we’re talking about an entity that would be human if it had a human soul.
If we’re going to distinguish between ‘hominin’ and ‘hominid’, then yes… and no. Hominids include both Pan and Homo. Hominins only include species of Homo.
Now we’re in the realm of speculative theology, aren’t we?
At the very least, however, we can note that human nature includes physical death, but that Adam and Eve had the gift of (physical) immortality prior to the fall, and lost that preternatural gift as a result of the fall.
That’s precisely the point! In the instant that God gives us an immortal soul, in His image and likeness, we cease being “just hominids” – we’re now humans, and therefore, children of God!
Umm… what will happen?
U
Uriel1
Guest
Why were there no humans in the Origin?Uriel1:
Why on earth are you spending time arguing the minutae of the evolutionary process if you have no interest in accepting the answers? As I said, the matter at hand had nothing to do with speciation. It appears that you feel the need to dispute all facets of the subject without understanding it. But hey, don’t worry, you are not alone on this thread.
And ‘races’ in the title doesn’t refer to the human races. It refers to varieties. See the following:
In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies. It has been used as a higher rank than strain, with several strains making up one race. Various definitions exist. Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically. Genetic isolation between races is not complete, but genetic differences may have accumulated.
If you knew even a little about the subject you would know that. Which only goes to confirm your lack of knowledge. Which, yet again, prompts the question: How can someone who knows so little about a subject consider him or herself to be capable of denying its validity?
Answers on a postcard to:
Bradskii
Bondi Beach
Sydney.
The elephant in the living room in the Origin of Species was its absence of discussion of human evolution. Specifically Darwin felt that his theory would make the realization of shared common human ancestry unavoidable. He wrote to Alfred Russell Wallace:
I think I shall avoid [the] whole subject’, as it was too ‘surrounded with prejudices’ even if humans do pose ‘the highest & most interesting problem for the naturalist7.’
However, his chapter on hybrids was partially directed at the polygenist claims of Nott and Gliddon, but not explicitly so. In the conclusion he states that:
“In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history"
No, Darwin used “races” to signal the above area which he was to afraid to deal with. He thought that the Fuegeans were inferior
B
buffalo
Guest
I wonder how exactly evolutionists deal with America’s declaration “all men are created equal”? Do they just give it lip service? What do they really think about other humans and races?
How does the Declaration defeat Darwin? If God is out, it goes back to who is more powerful. That is the destiny of Darwin fulfilled.
How does the Declaration defeat Darwin? If God is out, it goes back to who is more powerful. That is the destiny of Darwin fulfilled.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Red. Herring.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is just a question…
E
edwest211
Guest
Well said. This is not about science.
G
Glark
Guest
Whether a Genesis creation “day” is literally 24 hours or not, one thing is certain - the author’s intention was to convey the sense that God created life on earth in a very SHORT period of time (to wit: three “days”). St. Augustine evidently thought so, interpreting the six “days” of creation as an instant in time; and the remainder of the Church Fathers were virtually unanimous in believing life was created over a period of a few days. This is hardly surprising, as there is absolutely nothing - symbolic or otherwise - about six “days” that suggests a long period of time. The Church Fathers would have laughed at the suggestion that “day” could be symbolic of billions of years. The fact of the matter is, if God wanted to convey the information that the creation of life took a very long time, he certainly would not have employed the word “day”.
Yet, bizarrely, theistic evolutionists claim that six creation “days” are symbolic of the very OPPOSITE of a short period of time - BILLIONS OF YEARS, in fact. In other words, the symbolism is the INVERSE of what it is supposed to represent! Who has ever heard of such a thing? It’s like comparing the number of fingers on one’s hand to the number of nerve cells in Einstein’s brain.
Consider how God told Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as “the stars in the heavens”. These words obviously symbolic, meaning a small very large number, since there is a very large number of stars in the sky. Likewise in Revelation 20, where the words, “the sand of the sea” are symbolic of a very large number. Now no sane person would argue that “the stars in the heavens” or “the sand of the sea” are symbolic of a small number - yet, in effect, this is precisely what theistic evolutionists do when they claim a few “days” in Genesis 1 is symbolic of billions of years. It’s profoundly illogical, and therefore wrong.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you canmake words mean so many different things.”
from Alice in Wonderland
Yet, bizarrely, theistic evolutionists claim that six creation “days” are symbolic of the very OPPOSITE of a short period of time - BILLIONS OF YEARS, in fact. In other words, the symbolism is the INVERSE of what it is supposed to represent! Who has ever heard of such a thing? It’s like comparing the number of fingers on one’s hand to the number of nerve cells in Einstein’s brain.
Consider how God told Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as “the stars in the heavens”. These words obviously symbolic, meaning a small very large number, since there is a very large number of stars in the sky. Likewise in Revelation 20, where the words, “the sand of the sea” are symbolic of a very large number. Now no sane person would argue that “the stars in the heavens” or “the sand of the sea” are symbolic of a small number - yet, in effect, this is precisely what theistic evolutionists do when they claim a few “days” in Genesis 1 is symbolic of billions of years. It’s profoundly illogical, and therefore wrong.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you canmake words mean so many different things.”
from Alice in Wonderland
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
You will get the usual, ‘a day can mean this or that.’ That is not the point of threads like this. Genesis must be symbolic. Full compliance must be achieved.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No – what’s certain was that this was the mechanism he utilized to talk about the division of time during creation.
In fact, the Hebrew word that’s used in Genesis 1 - ‘yom’ - is typically translated ‘day’, but can also be translated as an ‘age’ or an ‘epoch’. So, whereas there are plenty of examples where it can be translated ‘day’, there are others in which another interpretation is possible. Therefore, your assertion that it’s “clearly” one rather than the other is merely an interpretative stance, not an absolute necessity.
Yet, they were pretty cool with the idea that a day was symbolic of one thousand years.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Umm… and that’s because yom can mean many things. That’s pretty typical of the Hebrew language – the vocabulary was relatively limited, and therefore, open to interpretation.
Nah. At least, I’m not saying that anyone must believe a non-literalistic interpretation – especially since that’s not what the Church demands! Rather, it’s the creationists who attempt to force a single interpretation on the text.
G
Glark
Guest
Whatever you do, don’t give up your day job to become a theologian.
If you had a proper understanding of that verse you would realize that it refers only to the six days of creation and not to the creation of the earth.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
What “limited education”?
Last edited:
- Status