FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Evolution - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Evolution (/showthread.php?tid=39628)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24


Re: Evolution - faith3faith - 12-29-2010

Catholic Tradition and Holy Scripture has always taught that Adam was created directly from the dust of the Earth.

If you believe in theistic evolution, then you would either have to claim there was no Adam and Eve, or you would have to claim that Adam's parents were apes.  Therefore you would have to believe a human being with a "soul" was born from a "Beast". This is a totally pagan, diabolical and demonic belief. Plus, if you claim the "soul" didn't enter at conception, but instead after that human being was born from that "Beast", then you contradict the teaching of the Church that life begins at conception and that this is when the soul is created along with the body. If you deny this, then you are making the case for pro-abortionists who claim the soul does NOT enter the person at the moment of conception.

So, which explanation seems "Catholic" and which seems "looney"?  :pazzo:


Re: Evolution - Grasshopper - 12-29-2010

(12-29-2010, 01:55 PM)faith3faith Wrote: Catholic Tradition and Holy Scripture has always taught that Adam was created directly from the dust of the Earth.

If you believe in theistic evolution, then you would either have to claim there was no Adam and Eve, or you would have to claim that Adam's parents were apes.  Therefore you would have to believe a human being with a "soul" was born from a "Beast". This is a totally pagan, diabolical and demonic belief. Plus, if you claim the "soul" didn't enter at conception, but instead after that human being was born from that "Beast", then you contradict the teaching of the Church that life begins at conception and that this is when the soul is created along with the body. If you deny this, then you are making the case for pro-abortionists who claim the soul does NOT enter the person at the moment of conception.

So, which explanation seems "Catholic" and which seems "looney"?  :pazzo:

The whole concept of the soul entering at conception has to do with humans born to other humans. No matter how Adam came to be, it was not the same as how the rest of us came to be, so you're comparing apples to oranges. God did something unique when He created Adam -- do the details really matter? The first chapter of Genesis doesn't even give details -- it just says God created man and woman.


Re: Evolution - Cambrensis - 12-29-2010



steph_86 Wrote:But a more serious problem, resides with the issue of Original Sin. It is said that, death entered the world through the sin of the First Parents. Literally, their sin threw the whole order of creation into disarray and disturbed the natural equilibrium thus introducing death and discord in natural creation. If evolution did occur as stipulated, there is a serious problem involved. Indeed, evolution is as defined, an unguided process which through the concourse of chance produced the different forms of life out of non-living water. Because the process is unguided, there is enormous trial and error involved in the process. This of course, is Darwinian evolution as defined in current thinking. If we speak of theistic evolution, there still remains the issue of explaining how it is that death could have existed in a perfect universe before the appearance of man. Evolution, requires that the different forms of life go through successive forms which are always more adapted to their natural environment. For this reason, it puts into question the whole edifice of God's benevolence and perfection in his creation of the world. If evolution did occur, it involves that, the world as it came into being was not perfect. And this, seriously refutes the idea that imperfection entered creation through the Sin of the Origins.


There was a thread a while back that touched on this  ...  I think the consensus was that, prior to the Fall, non-human life like animal and plants did not share in the immortality enjoyed by Adam and Eve.  So death entering the world with Original Sin refers to the consequences for our first parents and their descendants rather than nature as a whole.  If this is right, it might not be impossible to reconcile a succession of pre-human life-forms with divine providence.

What I find hard to swallow about evolution is how natural selection can produce very complex biological structures.  In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins attempts to account for the evolution of the eye by arguing that any complex organ can evolve provided there is sufficient time for a sufficient number of sufficiently small mutational changes to occur.

Dawkins' logic seems watertight but I have a hard time grasping how this abstract theoretical model works in practice. Dawkins emphasizes that the mutational changes must each be infinitesimal. They would presumably have to be if the emergence of the biological structure in question is not to be derailed, if it is to continuously develop as a fully-functioning complex organ. But how can such infinitesimal mutations provide a significant advantage in terms of natural selection?  Obviously eye x 0.5 is better than eye x 0. And I can accept that eye x 0.75 could provide a significant evolutionary advantage over eye x 0.5. What I don't see is how eye x 0.500000000000000000000000000001 provides a significant advantage over eye x 0.5.

In principle this applies to the evolution of any organ (although presumably the more complex the organ, the more miniscule the mutations must be that lead up to it.)  Take the textbook example familiar to every schoolboy -- the giraffe's neck. The current scientific consensus is that modern giraffes evolved from animals with much shorter necks.  What degree of neck elongation can reasonably be expected from a single chance mutation? A few millimetres? Centimetres? If it s no more than that, what immediate survival benefit would it provide?


Re: Evolution - Thomist7735 - 12-29-2010

(12-29-2010, 01:55 PM)faith3faith Wrote: Catholic Tradition and Holy Scripture has always taught that Adam was created directly from the dust of the Earth.

If you believe in theistic evolution, then you would either have to claim there was no Adam and Eve, or you would have to claim that Adam's parents were apes.  Therefore you would have to believe a human being with a "soul" was born from a "Beast". This is a totally pagan, diabolical and demonic belief. Plus, if you claim the "soul" didn't enter at conception, but instead after that human being was born from that "Beast", then you contradict the teaching of the Church that life begins at conception and that this is when the soul is created along with the body. If you deny this, then you are making the case for pro-abortionists who claim the soul does NOT enter the person at the moment of conception.

So, which explanation seems "Catholic" and which seems "looney"?  :pazzo:

Saint Thomas Aquinas didn't believe that the soul entered at conception.

Some liberals have tried to use this to suggest Aquinas was okay with abortion (He most certainly was not), but in this context it is interesting.


Re: Evolution - James02 - 12-29-2010

Good intro into intelligent design.  Starts to get good around 6 minutes.




Re: Evolution - James02 - 12-30-2010

[Image: atp_synthase2-png.jpg]

Here is a nano-machine.  Contains an ion-drive motor, shaft, mount, tool, and governor.  Evolution is utterly and completely dead as a theory.  Let me explain.  30 years ago, we didn't know much about a cell.  We knew energy was transported by the chemical ATP, and we knew an "enzyme" created it, and named this "enzyme" ATP synthase.  So we had this simplistic view that ATP was formed by a simple chemical reaction, without knowing any details.

Now we can look into the cell, and we find God-made machines.  If you look at the picture fresh, you would never name this "ATP-synthase".  You would name it "ATP Fabrication Unit" with "Ion drive motor sub asembly", and "motor mount", etc....    Now it gets even more amazing.  These parts are made by proteins, very complex molecules that are so precise, they start as long straight strings that then fold into the proper shape.  This fabrication is fueled by -- ATP.  And...., there is a control system and a file/plan system.  And.... all of this replicates itself.  And this is the most ancient, basic form of life.  Evolution is gone as a theory.

In fact, it leads to another definition of life, which is also recursive:  Life is something created by that which was alive.


Re: Evolution - James02 - 12-30-2010

Science proved that the first man was about 6500 years ago:
Quote: …our observation of the substitution rate is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans. .... it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years

So this was dropped, since it proved the age of Adam in the bible.


Re: Evolution - Nic - 12-30-2010

(12-29-2010, 01:32 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-29-2010, 07:19 AM)Nic Wrote: Catholic "Thinker" - holding to evolutionism while trying to maintain Catholicism is what is truly "intellectually dishonest" when we have all the proof necessary from Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium - not to mention TRUE science backing it up.

I'm extremely suspicious of any "TRUE science" that starts out with the assumption that the book of Genesis is literal truth, and then picks and chooses its data to support that assumption. That's not how science works. A real scientist starts with an open mind, looks at all the data and goes wherever it leads him or her. There is a bunch of real scientific evidence (from many branches of science, not just the theory of evolution) supporting the fact that the universe and the earth are billions of years old, that life on earth has existed for millions of years, and that man has existed for much longer than the 6000-10,000 years given by those who interpret Genesis literally. This has nothing to do with evolution -- that's a separate question, and the scientific evidence for it is more speculative. But the notion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old is just laughable. If that's true, God went to a whole lot of trouble to plant evidence to the contrary, and why would He do that? Even the Church (and not just the modern Church -- this goes all the way back to St. Augustine) admits that we need to adjust our interpretation of Scripture to match observed reality, lest we become laughingstocks for the rest of the world.

The evolutionist starts with the assumption that God does NOT exist and the Bible is wrong, and then builds upon that.  Everything that you listed is based on that assumption.  If these scientists would take off their "evolution glasses" for just one moment, they would realize that the evidence actually supports what the Bible states.  Instead, they pick and choose evidence to accept and ignore to support their theory.  Just read that book by Dr. Walt Brown.  He begins his theory with only ONE assumption, which is FAR less than evolutionists begin with.  His main assumption is that the world at one time had massive amounts of water under the crust in interconnected chambers, about ten miles deep.  Everything else is explained scientifically from that one beginning assumption - it all flows in order from it.  THAT is true science, not fabricating evidence and picking and choosing.  Also, true science is observation.  How in the world can one observe so-called macro-evolution?


Re: Evolution - Grasshopper - 12-30-2010

(12-30-2010, 07:26 AM)Nic Wrote:
(12-29-2010, 01:32 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-29-2010, 07:19 AM)Nic Wrote: Catholic "Thinker" - holding to evolutionism while trying to maintain Catholicism is what is truly "intellectually dishonest" when we have all the proof necessary from Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium - not to mention TRUE science backing it up.

I'm extremely suspicious of any "TRUE science" that starts out with the assumption that the book of Genesis is literal truth, and then picks and chooses its data to support that assumption. That's not how science works. A real scientist starts with an open mind, looks at all the data and goes wherever it leads him or her. There is a bunch of real scientific evidence (from many branches of science, not just the theory of evolution) supporting the fact that the universe and the earth are billions of years old, that life on earth has existed for millions of years, and that man has existed for much longer than the 6000-10,000 years given by those who interpret Genesis literally. This has nothing to do with evolution -- that's a separate question, and the scientific evidence for it is more speculative. But the notion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old is just laughable. If that's true, God went to a whole lot of trouble to plant evidence to the contrary, and why would He do that? Even the Church (and not just the modern Church -- this goes all the way back to St. Augustine) admits that we need to adjust our interpretation of Scripture to match observed reality, lest we become laughingstocks for the rest of the world.

The evolutionist starts with the assumption that God does NOT exist and the Bible is wrong, and then builds upon that.  Everything that you listed is based on that assumption.  If these scientists would take off their "evolution glasses" for just one moment, they would realize that the evidence actually supports what the Bible states.  Instead, they pick and choose evidence to accept and ignore to support their theory.  Just read that book by Dr. Walt Brown.  He begins his theory with only ONE assumption, which is FAR less than evolutionists begin with.  His main assumption is that the world at one time had massive amounts of water under the crust in interconnected chambers, about ten miles deep.  Everything else is explained scientifically from that one beginning assumption - it all flows in order from it.  THAT is true science, not fabricating evidence and picking and choosing.  Also, true science is observation.  How in the world can one observe so-called macro-evolution?

Good scientists do NOT start with the assumption that God does not exist and the Bible is wrong. They make no assumptions one way or the other about God and the Bible, because God and the Bible are outside the domain of science. Science deals with nature; God is supernatural. Therefore, science can say nothing meaningful about God -- and it doesn't try to. Ideally, it assumes nothing, except for the basic laws of physics and such -- things that have previously been tested and shown to be true.

Proposing, on the other hand, that the earth once had massive amounts of water in underground chambers is a HUGE assumption, and there is no reason to make it -- unless you are already convinced of the literal truth of Genesis, and you need a pre-existing condition to make things work out that way. And again, that's not how science works. You look at the data and draw conclusions from it. You don't just make things up. If the rest of the book depends on that silly assumption, I'm even more convinced that reading it would be a waste of time.


Re: Evolution - devotedknuckles - 12-30-2010

Grasshopper how do u woodpecker lip sacred scripture and choose what literal truth to belive literally and what literal truth to dismiss? U don't take genesis literally do u take the gospels literally? Did Christ really raise from the dead on the third day or is that jut an allegory to you?
Just trying to get how ucan dismiss the word of God in genisis and not dismiss the word of God in rhe Gospels