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.
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I have answered that question already.
Click to expand...
Was He supernaturally created without any parents?
Click to expand...
You can believe that if you want to. I do not. And the Catholic faith does not compel me to believe that, except for the creation of his soul.
 
Last edited:
mVitus said:
Can you explain to me how man was designed? And by that, I want detailed step by step instructions.
Click to expand...
Evo’s sidestep this question all the time. They are the one’s that have to show each and every evo pathway.

God creates instantaneously according to his plan.
 
mVitus said:
40.png
buffalo:
God creates instantaneously according to his plan.
Click to expand...
So one day a human popped into existence from nothing? And would that be the case for every species ever?
Click to expand...
It’s always been the case that people have believed this. But when it’s written so baldly, it’s like…wha?!
 
mVitus said:
40.png
buffalo:
God creates instantaneously according to his plan.
Click to expand...
So one day a human popped into existence from nothing? And would that be the case for every species ever?
Click to expand...
Every human pops into existence from nothing. What were you before you were you?

From our two parents, two gamets are brought together to form an embryo, which takes in and transforms matter external to itself, giving shape to a baby within its placental sac. All the information to bring about a human body with its trillions of cells and gagagazillion atoms, is contained in that first rendition of who we are. Within the spiritual/metaphysical/existential/ontological reality that is the cosmos, containing both the physical and psychological, what we perceive through the extensions (microscope) of our senses is like the tip of the iceberg.

Where all is information actualized, that information that we categorize as material is held within the organizing reality, the information that is oneself. Body and mind are one in the spirit that we are. And, what we are is human, as each atom is matter. There are no part-humans; it is all or nothing regardless of our physical capacity to express our human nature.

And, we are here and now, the entire structure of ourselves-in-the-world existing where nothing should be. Change is maintained, and what changes had a beginning. As each of us individually had a beginning, so too did the humanity of which we are all manifestations. Given the complexity of the final product, you and I, it hardly matters whether the first human being came into existence whole, as we will in the resurrection and as Jeus did to His apostles, or as an embryo - both require the same information.

I understand the evolutionary thinking that this would have to take a long time if it happened in accordance with the slow speed of the presumed chemical changes. But, the reality is that this is all is the creation of God’s mind, which brings every moment, every event in time and space into existence, whole. It is all instantaneous within His eternal Now, that includes everything that has, does and will exist, relative to this particular moment in our lives. He is not restricted by the processes He brings into existence, especially not so at the beginnning of time.

More to say, but this wall of words appears daunting. Later.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Every human pops into existence from nothing. What were you before you were you?
Click to expand...
You answered.
Aloysium said:
From our two parents, two gamets are brought together to form an embryo, which takes in and transforms matter external to itself, giving shape to a baby within its placental sac.
Click to expand...
There’s a big differences in terms of explanation of being able to point out the eggs and sperm and follow that trail down the line all the way to abiogenesis and “poof.” And in regards to the soul, evolution doesn’t touch on the soul. It’s only touching on the body. So the instantaneous creation of the soul is apart from this discussion.
Aloysium said:
It is all instantaneous within His eternal Now
Click to expand...
When we go into philosophy, that may be correct, but when attempting to understand the world around us, it’s near useless to say that. Imagine the following conversation.
Tom: How long should I bake the pies?
Jared: It’s instantaneous in His eternal now.
Jared may be right philosophically speaking, but it’s useless for answering Tom’s question. A much better response would have been, “Set a timer for thirty minutes.”
 
mVitus said:
There’s a big differences in terms of explanation of being able to point out the eggs and sperm and follow that trail down the line all the way to abiogenesis and “poof.”
Click to expand...
I was as much a sperm and egg as I was the countless burgers I’ve eaten in my life. The spirit can be said to contain the body. It is the form of the body, I believe it is said. The information that is matter comes together, along with its correlated psychology, as a relational self - a knower knowing the known.

The world as revealed in the Beatutudes and elsewhere in scripture and in life, is upside down. If one goes by what one understands about matter, the image is as distorted as that which sees the earth at the centre of the heavens. It is God as Existence itself that is the Ground, the Central Axis from which all creation springs and revolves.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
From wiki: ‘The most commonly accepted …
Click to expand...
Really? That’s your authoritative source? Not according to an Aussie expert:

“[Wikipedia] has a reputation for being untrustworthy,” says Thomas Shafee, a biochemist at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia.

And, I trust you are kneeling on your stockpile of straw as you beg the question by citing such an article. It’s like a fundamentalist who cites a report summarizing the exegeses of Christian theologians’ on Genesis and writing, “There, that’s proof that God created the universe.”

That some genetic continuity exists in all living things is hardly surprising. What is surprising and remarkable is that the probability that such a limited expression of this continuity could ever exist (without a designer) is highly unlikely.
 
Last edited:
mVitus said:
So one day a human popped into existence from nothing? And would that be the case for every species ever?
Click to expand...
No. Every subspecies adapted from an archetype. Remember, species is a human attempt to classify life. Originally it was the tree of life. That has fallen and is now a tangled bush.
 
Regarding your last two sentences, I agree. But what is usually rejected is design. Consider: I could put a 3D render of an ape skeleton next to a human skeleton. By modifying relatively few parameters, I could shorten this and that and move a few things, and the ape skeleton is changed into a human skeleton. I mean anyone can see the body plans are close and with just a bit of rewriting in the genetic code, one can turn into the other. The problem? Perception. Sure there are certain similarities in the genetic code of each. Of course, the same instructions are needed for the same type of body, but man was a special creation.

“Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”
 
o_mlly said:
That some genetic continuity exists in all living things is hardly surprising. What is surprising and remarkable is that the probability that such a limited expression of this continuity could ever exist (without a designer) is highly unlikely.
Click to expand...
That you are reduced to complaining that ‘Wiki is not authorative’ says a lot about where you find your position in this discussion. It was used as an easy go-to link which is relatively simple to understand. That is, that the general consensus amongst biologists is that the root of life was bacterial. This is not a universally held point of view but is the most prominent.

There are those who believe it to be other single celled life forms such as eukaryotes or even the more basic archaea: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1678/20140329

Either way, the start of life was a single celled organism. Maybe with a nucleus or maybe without. And that doesn’t include anything that came before that but which didn’t posess all tbe requisite properies for that which we define to be life.

So there you have your start point. A single celled organism. And now explain where the potential came about just from that one organism to generate every single.property of every living organism from that point on. Please poi t to something in its make-up where we can see ‘potential flight’ or ‘potential sight’ or ‘potential sexual reproduction’.

And just to head off your misdirection before you get too engrossed in it:

NOBODY is suggesting AT ALL that God isn’t behind all this. Whether He is or isn’t doesn’t detract from the process whereby every living thing that has existed or does exist is a result of evolution. The method, if you will, that God used to get us to this point.

So where is all this potential in a single celled organism?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
mVitus:
So one day a human popped into existence from nothing? And would that be the case for every species ever?
Click to expand...
No. Every subspecies adapted from an archetype. Remember, species is a human attempt to classify life. Originally it was the tree of life. That has fallen and is now a tangled bush.
Click to expand...
So come on mVitus, pay attention. It was all the archetypes that popped into existence. Like a proto elephant who turned into African and Indian versions. And a proto rhino that…well stayed as it was I guess. Or maybe it was a proto mammal that turned into rhinos and elephants. And horses…oh, I don’t know. Bufallo will explain it all. He has the information somewhere and can link to it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top