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
Bradskii:
Nelka thinks that ‘in His own image’ means that we look like God. I’m afraid that that is the standard of debate in this thread.
Click to expand...
Uhhhhh, did you forget Jesus was God?
Click to expand...
Ah yes. Jesus looks like God. My bad.
 
buffalo said:
What’s also interesting is how often theistic evolutionists drop the theism but keep the evolution."
Click to expand...
I don’t understand your point. Firstly the article simply redefines Theistic Evolution as Atheistic Evolution, which doesn’t seem sensible or helpful, and then it leaps upon a single example of a Theistic Evolutionist becoming an Atheistic Evolutionist as if that somehow confirms your statement above.

Do you in fact have any specific ideas of your own, or is your philosophy just a pile of other people’s books and papers that need no more scrutiny than their headlines? It is not clear to me that you have actually read any of these quotebombs.
 
Techno2000 said:
Just like how you glom onto Charles Darwin’s ideas.
Click to expand...
You miss my point, deliberately, no doubt. If I wished to reference Darwin, I wouldn’t just plonk a reference to the Origin of Species in front of you and say ‘read that’, I’d tell you which bit of his work I was referring to, and comment on it. Buffalo’s random grabbing of stuff off internet library shelves and piling it up in front of him like a defensive wall is less than convincing that he has actually any idea what they say, or, indeed, really cares, as if mere bulk will somehow prove his point.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
Techno2000:
Just like how you glom onto Charles Darwin’s ideas.
Click to expand...
You miss my point, deliberately, no doubt. If I wished to reference Darwin, I wouldn’t just plonk a reference to the Origin of Species in front of you and say ‘read that’, I’d tell you which bit of his work I was referring to, and comment on it. Buffalo’s random grabbing of stuff off internet library shelves and piling it up in front of him like a defensive wall is less than convincing that he has actually any idea what they say, or, indeed, really cares, as if mere bulk will somehow prove his point.
Click to expand...
True, but maybe the dude doesn’t like typing out a bunch of stuff. 🙂
 
I’m pretty sure that “made in God’s image” refers to that we have the ability to think and choose and love and practice virtue, rather than referring to physical appearance?

Peace
 
Here’s one, to save people the trouble.


What these scientific results point to is the great complexity that comprises the material tip of the iceberg that is a living organism, one being in itself, in relation to the world and for us, our Creator. This is not the result of mere random chemical activity, nor do the utilitarian and ultimately destructive activities associated with natural selection begin to explain the diversity we find in nature.
 
My living room chairs, like the table they surround are both made out of wood. While constructed of a similar material, they have different forms and different functions. One did not emerge from the other. And having sat there and eaten for many decades, incorporating organic material that was other and now is me, I am by no means descended from the myriad of plants and animals that I have consumed. The ultimate reality of a living being is its existence in itself as a participant in all existence. The structure of that being is wholistic, including simpler forms of being that we understand as matter. That structure is organized in accordance to the kind of being that it is, in our case human. That is the organizing principle that subsumes the psychological and physiological structures which may be separated but become one in the formation of the particular life form. The reality of who we are is known here and now, and it was created first in Adam, by the Spirit, which maintains us, and the wondrous earth from which all life springs.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
My living room chairs, like the table they surround are both made out of wood. While constructed of a similar material, they have different forms and different functions. One did not emerge from the other. And having sat there and eaten for many decades, incorporating organic material that was other and now is me, I am by no means descended from the myriad of plants and animals that I have consumed. The ultimate reality of a living being is its existence in itself as a participant in all existence. The structure of that being is wholistic, including simpler forms of being that we understand as matter. That structure is organized in accordance to the kind of being that it is, in our case human. That is the organizing principle that subsumes the psychological and physiological structures which may be separated but become one in the formation of the particular life form. The reality of who we are is known here and now, and it was created first in Adam, by the Spirit, which maintains us, and the wondrous earth from which all life springs.
Click to expand...
These statements are not scientific or based on observation. It is a fact that humans and all other living things, present or extinct, share genetic material passed on by descent. To deny this on the basis of faith brings scandal on the Church.
 
Last edited:
Nelka said:
God made man in His own image, God doesn’t look like a monkey.
Click to expand...
Such confusion.

Monkeys are not human beings, so no, God does not look like a monkey. Who claimed God looks like a monkey?

God doesn’t look like a human being either. (Christ’s human nature is…fully human. And at the same time God in his essence does not look like a human being.)

“Made in God’s image” does not mean that God and man have physical conformity with each other. It’s a much deeper identification than material substance.
(And here we see that fundamentalism and materialism are strange bedfellows. )
 
Jesus was scandalous. That is not how we determine truth, but how we cave in to be part of the crowd, to protect us from the harm others can do to us.

Unfortunately, we are fed a vision of reality which serves the pursuit of earthly goods, those which are transient, illusory and can never fulfill. It is important to be reflective of how such views as that of common descent can impact on what we understand to be human and ultimately the actions that will determine who we are for all eternity.

There can be no proof of common descent, but reason would dictate that it is not the case. There is no proof, and there can be none since it is absurd, that merely random chemical activity is the cause of diversity in the genome. To throw in a God-of-the-gaps explanation, which might actually save the theory, is insufficient to get to the truth that is the reality of living being, since it is far greater than the matter that shapes it.

Now, you may believe that the first placental creature, created with a uterus to house the placenta of its offspring, hatched from an egg. I don’t know. Although for me it has a certain aesthetic lure, it is equally probable imho that it was created fully formed physically, utilizing the same information necessary for its survival as other less complex forms, but with a different capacity. It does not matter either way; the main point is creation.
 
Aloysium said:
Here’s one, to save people the trouble.

What these scientific results point to is the great complexity that comprises the material tip of the iceberg that is a living organism, one being in itself, in relation to the world and for us, our Creator. This is not the result of mere random chemical activity, nor do the utilitarian and ultimately destructive activities associated with natural selection begin to explain the diversity we find in nature.
Click to expand...
Are you limiting God to processes you can understand and agree with?
Yes, you are.
Are you conflating science with faith?
Yes you are.
In doing so you fall into the same trap that the utilitarians and materialists fall into: conflating science with faith. They are not conflations, they mutually inform one another.
 
This is what these objections boil down to:
““God can’t use evolution. God’s not powerful enough or mysterious enough to do that. He must restrain himself to my understanding. Anything else is to difficult and to threatening to contemplate.””

Yea? Well science is difficult and challenging. Get over it. God gave you a brain for a reason (pun intended…)
 
Last edited:
Nelka said:
40.png
Hugh_Farey:
What does God look like? Red hair? Hooked nose? Six-pack? Blue eyes? Your familiarity with his appearance is awesome.
Click to expand...
Thanks, you see Jesus came to us as a man and not a monkey.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that Jesus is a divine person with two natures?
Do you know what the Trinity is?
Do you know what the Church teaches about God in relation to matter?
No. you don’t
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top