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.
IWantGod said:
The reason they argue against evolution is because it conflicts with their understanding of the bible, and it conflicts with what they perceive as evidence, even scientific evidence, of God’s existence; something they value. And they will even go as far as to imply that the pope is a heretic if he stands in there way. That’s the bottom line.
Click to expand...
Faith in the Word of God is indeed the bottom line to the christian and catholic religion.
 
Richca said:
Strictly speaking and theologically, creation is God’s direct and supernatural activity in the production of the creation or the universe out of nothing (and its formation according to creationists such as the works in the Genesis seven day creation narrative) and it is distinguished from the work of divine providence which has to do with God guiding and preserving creation. Accordingly, divine providence presupposes creation.
Click to expand...
True. The point I meant to make is that our changing understanding of the universe and how it works does not change the ultimate Author of all that exists in any way. We don’t have to fear that some advance or some wrong turn in our understanding and knowledge of the physical world is going to change that.
 
Last edited:
The issue has always been the “science only” approach which is incomplete. It is being heavily promoted. It recognizes nothing supernatural. Finally, it cannot give people critical information about who human beings actually are.
 
Richca said:
Faith in the Word of God is indeed the bottom line to the christian and catholic religion.
Click to expand...
So according to you those Catholics who accept the theory of evolution don’t have faith? That is indeed what you intended to imply correct? Otherwise i see no point in your post.

Like i said, they will even go as far as to imply that the pope is a heretic if he stands in there way.

Perhaps there is even a danger of making a false idol of some interpretation of scripture, which is what i believe some Christians do when they take a fundamentalist approach…

Then again, as misguided as i think they are, at the very least it might be in the end a sign of great love for the creator even though they are wrong.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
40.png
Richca:
Faith in the Word of God is indeed the bottom line to the christian and catholic religion.
Click to expand...
So according to you those Catholics who accept the theory of evolution don’t have faith? That is indeed what you intended to imply correct? Otherwise i see no point in your post.
Click to expand...
Is that what I said? No and No. I responded to a reply you made to me in which it appears that in your view, the problem or bottom line for creationists is the word of God for which reason I responded as I said that ‘faith in the Word of God is indeed the bottom line to the christian and catholic religion’.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
i have yet to see an argument that proves that the theory of evolution lacks the requirements of a legitimate scientific theory.
Click to expand...
… a “legitimate scientific theory” that is contradicted by evidence - such as the Cambrian Explosion, innumeralbe gaps and missing-links, sudden appearance of fully-formed creatures (all of which can easily be explained by a creation model, btw). I think what you mean is a scientific theory that is seriously flawed and is seriously overrated, but is accepted nevertheless because it’s the best theory humans can come up. For science-worshippers and atheists, I guess a shaky theory is better than no theory at all.
 
rossum said:
Which parts of the physical body of a human being cannot be formed by adjusting the equivalent parts of the physical body of a chimpanzee using methods available to empiricism?
Click to expand...
Which methods available to empiricism demonstate that the major anatomical and cerebral changes needed to transform a chimp into a human are possilbe?
Which methods available to empiricism demonstrate how mammals could have evolved from dinosaurs?
Which methods available to empiricsim can explain how feathers could have evolved from dinosaur skin?
 
rossum said:
Not always. It might be due to a new predator, a new competitor or a new disease. Red squirrels find it difficult to survive in areas where grey squirrels are prevalent.
Click to expand...
Squirrel racism.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
He sounds exactly like Bradskii.
Click to expand...
I used to spend a lot of time debating atheists on various online sites, and one thing I noticed was how remarkablely similar they all think and argue. It reminded me of the cultish, fundamentalist, herd mentality of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Apparently, “free thinkers” all share the same brain. Interesting.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
Not so with atheists; they are all in. Why?
Click to expand...
As Dawkins said, evolution makes atheists feel “intellectually fulfilled”. And with “science” on their side, the certainty of their philosophy is reinforced - hence evolutionary pseudo-science takes on quasi-religious significance.
I think that atheists (wrongly) think that the macro evolution idea gives them some hope at a coherent worldview. They are like the tower of babel builders who, like all of us in their desire to find perfection, thought if they could just build this thing high enough then they could reach the transcendent by their own wits and efforts. In their pride and hubris, they babble on.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
One positive thing about atheism is, human reasoning can’t get any lower and human error can’t get any worse. You can only go up from there.
 
Richca said:
Is that what I said? No and No. I responded to a reply you made to me in which it appears that in your view, the problem or bottom line for creationists is the word of God for which reason I responded as I said that ‘faith in the Word of God is indeed the bottom line to the christian and catholic religion’.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we are confusing each other. But so there is no further confusion in the future, ill make my position clear.

Catholics whom accept the theory of evolution believe in the inerrant word of God, and the Catholic Church supports us.

So there can be no confusion as to whether or not Catholics whom believe in evolution are faithful to the word of God.

Catholics are also free to retain a literalistic interpretation of genesis as representing actual history (i say literalistic instead of literal since the word literal seems to confuse some people here.)

I have given my reasons as to why i think it’s erroneous to continue holding a literalistic view of the bible because of the age of the universe and the fact that creatures today are very different from creatures existing billions of years ago, and i think evolution is the best explanation for that fact.

Now if one wants to say God is behind evoltion, which i believe God is, That’s fine. What i find to be problematic is this panic around the idea that natural events played a part in the development of species, and that because science doesn’t say anything about God it is therefore a product of an atheistic conspiracy. At this point i don’t really care whether or not you believe in evolution, but i do care if people are led in to the false belief that by accepting the natural theory of evolution you are in some way shape or form rejecting God’s creative sovereignty over his creation. In fact i think when people say that it couldn’t of happened naturally i think they are rejecting God’s sovereignty, because i don’t see any reason in principle why God couldn’t have created a universe that naturally formed into organisms and then formed into to different species.

We both agree that God is required for the existence and potentiality of physical reality so whats the problem!!! .

And you can’t tell me this isn’t a fundamentalist gig because if the word kinds hadn’t been used in the bible we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

The bottom line for me is that Christian fundamentalists are not in an intellectually reliable position since they are in danger of placing their interpretation of scripture before reason and science. Science requires an unbiased position, it needs someone who isn’t scared of having their beliefs challenged or changed.

A strong faith is in knowing that no matter what science discovers, God is the ultimate cause…At least thats a philosophically valid premise.
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
40.png
Techno2000:
That has to do with the encroachment of their habitat by Man, which is not a true natural environmental change.
Click to expand...
Maybe Adam and Eve’s mob extincted all those soul-less humans who used to wander about.
Click to expand...
Actually… I’m wrong, since man is product of evolution :roll_eyes: if he chooses to wipeout thousands of earthly habitats it would be a nature environmental change. The problem is evolution has no answers for this, so evolution can create something that can destroy evolution,which is contradiction …right ?
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
40.png
Techno2000:
e. The problem is evolution has no answers for this, so evolution can create something that can destroy evolution,which is contradiction …right ?
Click to expand...
I’m not qualified to answer that question.
Click to expand...
If Man destroyed the earth with nuclear weapons, and nothing survived, that would just be a part of nature evolution,since man is a part of evolution too. But that would be a contradiction for evolution, because evolution is all about things surviving.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top