Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[rossum]

Genesis 1 says that God created animals indirectly: “Let the waters bring forth…” “Let the earth bring forth…” Evolution is just such an indirect process. In Genesis light is different, that is directly created: “Let there be light…” Light (photons) were produced in Big Bang.

Biological evolution is a different process from the various cosmological processes in the Big Bang, inflation and the subsequent condensing out of the four forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity.

As you say, such an interpretation is allowed by the Church and is followed by Theistic Evolutionists.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Do you mean like half cow half duck?

Yes, I do mean that, so-called 4 billion years has passed by already, and cow are still producing more cows and duck are still producing more ducks.And the same goes for the other 10 million different species out there.

 

[IWantGod]

Yes, I do mean that, so-called 4 billion years has passed by already, and cow are still producing more cows

So the evidence should at least show one cow existing billions of years ago.

 

[edwest]

From wikipedia:

“Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups…”

 

[IWantGod]

“Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups…”

You can’t quote something out of context and expect me to agree.

 

[edwest]

Then read the whole thing. It’s from the link you posted. I just highlighted the key disclaimer.

 

[IWantGod]

Then read the whole thing. It’s from the link you posted. I just highlighted the key disclaimer.

And what do you think that so called disclaimer means. Because you obviously thought it had some merit for your position, otherwise you would not have posted it.

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.[2]

I was asked for evidence of transitional fossils. Even if an organism does not live to day that is a direct decedent of that organism, it doesn’t follow that it is not a transitional fossil.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Yes, I do mean that, so-called 4 billion years has passed by already, and cow are still producing more cows

So the evidence should at least show one cow existing billions of years ago.

No, because I don’t trust the dating method and the fossil record interpretation from atheist scientist.I want to see real life dramatic evolution happening right before my very eyes.

PS I know ,I know I’m gonna have to wait millions more years to actually see it happen.

 

[IWantGod]

No, because I don’t trust the dating method and the fossil record interpretation from atheist scientist.

And now we get to the real issue. You don’t trust Atheists. Well if i was you i would find every scientific theory supported by or produced by a non-Christian and reject those theories as well. And while your at it reject the theory of relativity because poor old Albert was not a Christian either, unless you think the God of spinoza passes as a valid reference.

 

[Richca]

It is obvious that the waters and earth is of a different nature than the animals which is why both verse 20 and verse 24 begin with the creative word of God, namely, 'And God said, “Let the…”. Did you read what follows verse 20 in verse 21? It seems to remove any doubt who created the marine animals and birds, Moses continues in verse 21:

‘So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.’

And the same concerning the land animals in verse 25 following verse 24:

‘And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good’.

Gen. 2:19 also says that from ‘out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air’. And all the other creation texts of the bible concerning the animals say the same thing, namely, that God created them. It’s one of God’s works or handiworks.

 

[IWantGod]

PS I know ,I know I’m gonna have to wait millions more years to actually see it happen.

The fossil record would support your position if Evolution was not true. Like i said before, all the creatures that are alive to day should have existed 4 billion years ago. It’s simple logic. And since that is not the case, your beliefs about the matter are built on sand, being neither supported by the Church or Science…

 

[edwest]

Techno2000,

You’re not missing a thing. There are those who see no merit in the theory and they are not affected in the slightest.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000,

You’re not missing a thing. There are those who see no merit in the theory and they are not affected in the slightest.

But, we’re all affected by false ideas that get spread around the world.

 

[edwest]

I saw Richard Dawkins on TV and as he was quoted the verse that god breathed life into the nostrils of man, he denied it with force. You’re right. This is not about science but about promoting the idea that God did nothing, especially as far as the first man and woman are concerned. God gave them preternatural gifts, including bodily immortality. But they broke one commandment and so made the Original Sin. For which God sent His Son to be born and live among us.

This wisdom must never be forgotten.

 

[IWantGod]

I saw Richard Dawkins on TV and as he was quoted the verse that god breathed life into the nostrils of man, he denied it with force. You’re right. This is not about science but about promoting the idea that God did nothing,

So a scientist expresses his understanding (and don’t forget the Catholic Authority allows for the human body to be the result of human evolution) and therefore science is wrong because it’s not consistent with Christian fundamentalism?

I suspect that Richard Dawkins was denying the view that the human body is not the biological result of evolution, but again you describe things out of context, so who really knows what he meant. And if you think that the biological evolution of man is doctrinally inconsistent with the Catholic faith your wrong again because it has been explicitly stated that it is okay to inquire into the evolution of the human body so long as the soul is understood to be created directly by God.

This continuous attempt to cry wolf is not worthy of any serious consideration.

 

[Wozza]

edwest:

This is not about science but about promoting the idea that God did nothing,

This continuous attempt to cry wolf is not worthy of any serious consideration.

But this whole thread is just an example of crying wolf. In a post just a day or so ago, I made clear that nothing in this threads excessive lengthand no-one who has ever posted in it, even atheists as myself, have even attempted to use science in any way whatsoever to suggest that either God does not exist or that God had nothing to do with any scientific process at all.

It was, as I knew then, a complete and utter waste of my time writing it as far as these science-deniers we have on line are concerned. It’s been fingers in ears and lets all sing lah lah lah until the bad man goes away. And then back to the same old tired posts repeated ad nauseum.

That said, edwest has a point in that there is an argument from atheists that suggests that God does not exist. Why, gee. Who would have thought! And that some of those atheists are scientists. So we have this nonsensical thought process going on in some people’s head:

This is a scientist.
He is denying God’s existence.
Science therefore denies God’s existence.

That is as laughable as saying that if a musician denies God then therefore music denies God’s existence.

So here’s a test. Planetary accretion shows that the world was not created in seven days. It removes the need for God. It denies the existence of God. Planets exist (and yes, we can’t see it happening and we can’t replicate it in the laboratory) so therefore God doesn’t. How about we start a thread on that and see who denies science there.

Feel free to join in, Ed. Let’s see where it goes.

 

[o_mlly]

An insight as to the probable fanatical atheism of any poster in this thread can be first judged by that poster’s effort to make this discussion on Catholicism vs. scientism rather than discuss the OP which merely requires one to judge the quality of the science underpinning the theory of natural evolution of species. If that quality is good then we should believe, if not then we should not believe.

The second clue disclosing a fanatical atheist can be judged when a poster does not engage the issues but resorts to knee-jerk ad hominems as a response to anyone who reasonably sees the quality in this historiographical science as suspect calling them either fundamentalists or science deniers or whatever other negative label allows them to avoid debate.

The forum I believe welcomes inquiring and contributing atheists as guests. But proselytizing atheists must remember that Catholics know that atheism is a sin against religion.

 

[Aloysium]

who really knows what he meant

If one listens, one can know what he means.

science is wrong because it’s not consistent with Christian fundamentalism?

That evolution is wrong does not mean science is wrong. It is a corruption of the reality empirical research reveals. Ultimately, the truth is one and visible only by the Light that is Jesus Christ.

And:

as the first man and woman are concerned. God gave them preternatural gifts, including bodily immortality. But they broke one commandment and so made the Original Sin. For which God sent His Son to be born and live among us.

Is hardly fundamentalism.

I have to say that both perspectives that you imagine are poor understandings of how we came to be.

Matter does not have the properties required to collect itself into the physical forms required for life. Additionally, there is more to the source of diversity see in living forms than just the DNA. Epigenetic factors that are not acdequately accounted for by the simplistic notions of evolution are essential to the relationship that exists between the individual organism and the environment in which it participates.

Your literalist reading of Genesis is not the only interpretation, albeit far closer to the truth than evolution.

The reality is that living being is created whole and can be deconstructed into the components necessary for its existence. Because it is one unity of being, when living things die, so too does their individual existence.

Since we are created possessing the spirit of God, we are eternal. We cannot exist but ever here and now, even when our bodies succumb to the natural processes of this world. To be ourselves, as we were meant to be, we do need a body and we will assume it in the general resurrection of the dead. While the information in the subsumed parts of of the unity which we are, includes the structures of atoms, cells, perceptions, feelings, thoughts and behaviour, it is not that we emerged from those more basic forms of being; rather the person was brought into existence from nothing, whole, comprised of elements that had earlier been created. Persons beget persons as the various kinds of life reproduce their own kind, in all their diverse physical and psychological manifestations.

 

[IWantGod]

Matter does not have the properties required to collect itself into the physical forms required for life.

By what standard do you know this to be true? You can’t just assert things. You don’t know what you are talking about.

If you don’t believe that God gave physical reality the power and nature to produce organisms or organic structures, then that’s just your belief. But it’s not a statement that can be backed by the Catholic faith and it is certainly not a statement that is backed up by any philosophy or science.

 

[Techno2000]

Sometimes I feel like I’ve walked into a building with a sign outside that reads: “Ministry of No Straight Answers.”

Exactly…here’s a question I can never get an straight answer for:

If evolution is there to make a creature fit for a new environment, how is the creature going to become fit if it takes evolution millions of years to do anything ?