Creation vs Evolution


#1

I am very frustrated:

I don’t discount the possibility that we have somehow evolved. I don’t believe there is enough scientific evidence to prove we evolved from any other form of life other than Homo sapiens (and I believe we all came from an original set of parents). I have googled this but the noise is too loud and I am having trouble getting a true separation opinion from demonstrable fact.

HELP


#2

You could review this thread - http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=23628&page=7&pp=100


#3

[quote=roymckenzie]I am very frustrated:

I don’t discount the possibility that we have somehow evolved. I don’t believe there is enough scientific evidence to prove we evolved from any other form of life other than Homo sapiens (and I believe we all came from an original set of parents). I have googled this but the noise is too loud and I am having trouble getting a true separation opinion from demonstrable fact.

HELP
[/quote]

It is unfortunate that the creationist/evolutionist thing ever got going so that you would still appear to have doubts on this topic .Most geologists recognise that Nicolas Steno,a Protestant converted to Catholicism,applied exquisite reasoning to sedimentary stratification and basically began the field of geology -

ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/steno.html

You use the term ‘demonstrable fact’ which comes from the empirical tradition.This tradition is a particular way of approaching the investigation of natural phenomena and goes back to Newton and further back to Bacon.It is an extremely ineffective way to approach evolution insofar as with geology,it requires only common sense to figure out that geological or biological evolution takes place over large timescales.Even in broad outlines these geological/biological topics can be comprehended and if someone is opposed to large timescales then it is not worth explaining further .


#4

Dear Roymckenzie,

Yes, frustrated is the likely response to anyone who begins looking at this question.
My advice (FWIW):
If you are considering this question with regards to your own faith, remember that the true science of origin of species does not indicate in one way or another if God exists, was active in the process, or directed the whole thing. Nor does it indicate how life began. For Catholics the bible is infallable but not to be taken literaly. The church does not say that God literally created the world in 6 - 24 hr days etc. There is no conflict between the true science and the core beliefs of the Catholic faith. IOW it is not going to help you with regards to faith in God.
If you are trying to find the truth for the purposes of debate or apologetics and want to agrue the strengths weeknesses, definciancies, what is true science, what is philosophical extensions of evolution etc. Don’t bother trying unless you have a great deal of time to devote to this study.

Determining the catholic position with regards to Catholic faith and Evolution, that is significantly easier.
FWIW, I myself have been watching the several threads regarding this question and have learned some things that were not taught to me about evolution. I have decided, for personal interest as well as friendly debate to take time to study evolution science. It is daunting and time consuming. And I have a nontrivial scientific background (physics).
God bless,
Jim


#5

The purpose for my post is not to further my faith. The purpose for my post is that I am having a disagreement with a religious atheist. I love my Church and my God, if I were to be proven wrong on the evolution point I would not disavow my God.

  I have a discerning nature I don’t believe that just because my monitor shows what my computer is doing that the monitor is the computer.  I don’t believe that just because a chimp looks like and old man it is one.  I don’t believe that just because some men act like dogs in heat they are dogs.

  My point is simply if we are claiming that evolution is science let’s use scientific method.  If the claim is true that life began in a pool of water and ammonia that lightning struck can we duplicate it, can we even come close to duplicating it?  If we evolved from positive mutations show me somewhere in the animal kingdom where there is a positive mutation (one that has benefited the animal and it was able to pass on to it’s offspring)?  I want to know the scientific method to prove it or disprove evolution, t hyperbole just makes crazy.

#6

[quote=roymckenzie]The purpose for my post is not to further my faith. The purpose for my post is that I am having a disagreement with a religious atheist. I love my Church and my God, if I were to be proven wrong on the evolution point I would not disavow my God.

I have a discerning nature I don’t believe that just because my monitor shows what my computer is doing that the monitor is the computer. I don’t believe that just because a chimp looks like and old man it is one. I don’t believe that just because some men act like dogs in heat they are dogs.

My point is simply if we are claiming that evolution is science let’s use scientific method. If the claim is true that life began in a pool of water and ammonia that lightning struck can we duplicate it, can we even come close to duplicating it? If we evolved from positive mutations show me somewhere in the animal kingdom where there is a positive mutation (one that has benefited the animal and it was able to pass on to it’s offspring)? I want to know the scientific method to prove it or disprove evolution, t hyperbole just makes crazy.
[/quote]

You’ll probably need to get very specific to what portions of evolution theory you disagree with. If you want to have a meaningful discussion.

The two issues I have are a belief in “abiogenisis” - That living matter sprang from non-living matter all by it’s lonesome and that the belief that there was not first common ancestor (who was also human.)

You’ll be bombarded with lots of statistics that seem to me to have some underlying assumptions that lead to drawing the desired conclusions.

Unless you plan on getting a degree in biology don’t expect to make much head way.

Chuck


#7

if you open up any college level biology textbook there are references to test tube studies performed in which a liquid of ammonia mixed with some other basic elements was charged with high voltage electricity. the result was not life, but it was observed that some rudiment forms of amino acids had formed that were not in the solution prior to the voltage charge. it is assumed that if this can be reproduced in a test tube, then if the earth’s macroscopic envrionment was faced with a constantly chaging climate and eletrical conditions over millions of years that eventually amino acids would form proteins, proteins would form rudimentary organnelles and so on.

macroscopic biological theory is very difficult to prove, mostly becuase it is virtually impossible to reproduce the conditions and variables present in a macroscopic system. to prove the origination of life from basic elements you would need a planet roughly the same size of earth, with roughly the same distance from a star the same size as our sun, both roughly 2 billion years younger. only then could you see if the primordial ooze was placed in the right conditions to form life. you get the idea …

all of this can be very head-spinning, :confused: but it only goes to show how beautful and awseome our creator is. scientific theory can do a great job at explaining the miraculous “chance” that went into creating our present world . only faith in God as a creator with a divine plan can explain how that multitude of chance came together to create you and me. :thumbsup:

God bless-


#8

This whole thing makes me dizzy. Mainly because people can’t agree on simple uses of a term and over interpret each other. It’s like we’ve reached the summit of the Tower of Babble.

One person says that they believe that it is possible that God used evolution to create man. Another person comes along and condemns them for believing in some totally Godless heathen theory!

I have some questions I would love answered. But can’t get it by reading these lengthy threads.

  1. Would it be contrary to Catholic faith to believe that all human life decended from Adam and Eve, however they did not make up the entire gene pool? It’s possible that everyone on earth has inhereted Original Sin, but Adam & Eve’s offspring did not need to commit incest to accomplish this.

  2. If those who subscribe to the possibility that a monkey could accidentally type Shakespearian plays, then how is it that they assume the only possible explanation for dinosaur fossil to form is from a dinosaur? It would seem like the odds are better for mineral deposits to accidentally form fossil-looking shapes than for a monkey to type MacBeth. Of course, if fossils are accidents, where does that leave the theory of evolution?


#9

if you open up any college level biology textbook there are references to test tube studies performed in which a liquid of ammonia mixed with some other basic elements was charged with high voltage electricity. the result was not life, but it was observed that some rudiment forms of amino acids had formed that were not in the solution prior to the voltage charge. it is assumed that if this can be reproduced in a test tube, then if the earth’s macroscopic envrionment was faced with a constantly chaging climate and eletrical conditions over millions of years that eventually amino acids would form proteins, proteins would form rudimentary organnelles and so on

Hmm, liquid and mineral, stir, you have mud! Man was made of mud! That’s it! Oh, rat’s, I’m not the first to think of that one.


#10

[quote=roymckenzie]I am very frustrated:

I don’t discount the possibility that we have somehow evolved. I don’t believe there is enough scientific evidence to prove we evolved from any other form of life other than Homo sapiens (and I believe we all came from an original set of parents). I have googled this but the noise is too loud and I am having trouble getting a true separation opinion from demonstrable fact.

HELP
[/quote]

Try this

faith.org.uk/Publications/CurrentMag/edSeOc04.htm

The theory of evolution is not an article of faith, of course. We may accept it or not, while still remaining good Catholics, a fact which creationists too often seem to forget. You do not need to be a ‘creationist’ in order to defend the truth that the world is created. In fact this position should more properly be called ‘special-creationism’, for what it really teaches is that every life form is made by a discrete act of special creation. This actually undermines the original Judeo-Christian insight that formed the seedbed of modern science in the first place. That insight was that creation has an integrity, consistency and potency of its own under God. Far from this detracting from God’s glory, it manifests more powerfully than ever the power and majesty of his creative Mind.

Evolution, rightly understood, confirms this truth and deploys it in a depth and detail that St. Basil and St. Augustine could barely have imagined, and which they would have greeted with delight. Of course we must answer the likes of Dawkins and the Darwinists. And we can do so now without retreating into a pre-scientific huddle. Those who reject the basic truth of evolution, apart from anything else, are missing a beautiful opportunity to present God again to the world through the majesty of his Logos: transcendent, perfect intellect which decrees all creation in one Law of Wisdom and providential Love that leads ultimately to communion with himself incarnate in Christ Jesus.


#11

RoyMckenzie,

Crazy is right. Have you seen what is going on in the other evolution/creationism threads in these forums? These threads have led me to the following personal evolution: :whacky: :confused: :ehh: :banghead:

Look, in highschool I took it for granted that science had discovered, and with due dilegence determined with near certainty the correctness of evolution and abiogenisis. My excelerated science biology class had a debate. We could choose to be on the evolution or creationist side. When we got together with those who chose our side I was astonished! These were the smartest kids in my class and they were almost all on the creationist side! This was in the Milwaukee suburbs not the bible belt! I could not believe that there were so many yahoos that believed in this literal creationism bunk!!
They did not change my mind! I don’t think anyone could have.
You will not be able to change the mind of an atheist by discounting evolution. Even if you can convince that science has not shown that abiogenisis is realistic, the atheist will simply determine: OK fine, they haven’t proven it yet but it is only a matter of time. For how many years did christians think mental illness was demons, that the univers revolved around the earth etc…
What you can do (besides the obvious: prayer):

  1. Show the atheist reasons other than creation that proves God (I know this is not easy, but I believe it is easier than trying to refute evolution). There are many other things that point to the reality of God but what to use depends on you and the atheist. I rely on prayer and wait for an opening opportunity.
  2. Provide examples of people with respected credentials who have changed their minds from abiogenisis or evolution or atheism. I have not done this but I know that when I was buying into the abiogenisis line that it could have influenced me. I don’t know of any examples myself other than Anthony Flew biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm. Anthony Flew is a new revelation however. There are folks saying its a hoax, mistake etc. I am sure there are better examples.

Anyone else have some good examples of turned atheists? Other sugestions for Roy?


#12

[quote=Black Jaque]I have some questions I would love answered. But can’t get it by reading these lengthy threads.

  1. Would it be contrary to Catholic faith to believe that all human life decended from Adam and Eve, however they did not make up the entire gene pool? It’s possible that everyone on earth has inhereted Original Sin, but Adam & Eve’s offspring did not need to commit incest to accomplish this.
    [/quote]

Per Catholic faith we are all decended from Adam and Eve. I do believe that scientists favor the theory that we all are decendents of a single female so we see no contradiction. There is no need for additional genes from another gene pool source. Per most of the evelutionary models a species with internal diversities such as ours can start from a single pair. Adam & Eve’s offspring had incestual relations. They did not commit a sin in this regard. Incest was forbiden only later.

[quote=Black Jaque]2) If those who subscribe to the possibility that a monkey could accidentally type Shakespearian plays, then how is it that they assume the only possible explanation for dinosaur fossil to form is from a dinosaur? It would seem like the odds are better for mineral deposits to accidentally form fossil-looking shapes than for a monkey to type MacBeth. Of course, if fossils are accidents, where does that leave the theory of evolution?
[/quote]

This is were you will get into the bang your head against the wall craziness! Don’t go there. If you take one position or the other you will get hammered unless you are an expert in this area.
Consider the time periods, the complexity of what is created by chance, and the more likely possabilities. I agree that it is unrealisitc to have anything as complexe as the DNA molecule and replication process spontaneously come together by chance given even beginning of the univers time frames. But there is a whole lot of assumption and speculation (based on “expert” opinion) that goes into these calculations. It then becomes almost meaningless and will just cause you more virtigo.


#13

At the risk of adding another reason to tear one’s hair out regarding this discussion, I came across this article on an Objectivist website and wondered what those of you whose brains can handle this stuff think of this person’s arguments:

Intelligent Design, the Unknowable and Probability
Bradley J. Eisenhauer

The October 2004 issue of Wired magazine features a cover story on the resurgence of creationism in the form of a doctrine called intelligent design. The proponents of this argument seek equal footing, or better, with evolution in the public school classrooms and curricula of the United States. Their stated goal is not to use intelligent design to explain anything, because it doesn’t, as several experts the article cites attest. What they do is use a “wedge” to exploit any weakness they can find in the theory of evolution. Having latched on to such a weakness, they seek to supplant all of evolution, and perhaps much of the rest of materialist science, with their notion of an intelligent creator. In an attempt to appear scientific, they have left behind mention of the Bible, and in fact spend little focus on the merits of their own case at all, preferring instead to hammer away at that wedge, driving it further into the supposed weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Despite this non-Biblical spin, their argument suffers, as it must, from the same weaknesses and logical impossibilities that have doomed previous attempts at defending creationism.

The one central feature of all “arguments from design” is the insertion of a supernatural cause for an unexplained event or fact. (In formal logic this is called the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, literally “argument according to ignorance.”) In the current incarnation, this unexplained fact is called “irreducible complexity” and refers to complex (i.e. multi-part) biological structures whose individual parts serve no independent function. From this observation, the creationists leap, as they always do, to the conclusion that biological life must have some supernatural, or perhaps extra-terrestrial, creator.

The fundamental errors of this approach are well-documented, not least of which is the question of the creator’s creator and the impossibility of an infinite regress of such creators, each more “irreducibly complex” than that which they create. One that is not frequently mentioned, though it is perhaps the most intellectually dangerous aspect of the creationists’ argument, is the substitution of an unknowable cause for one which is merely unknown. One possible reason this is rarely mentioned is that it is the popular view that reality is, in principle, unknowable. This is just the sort of mentality that is ripe for the creationists’ picking. Immanuel Kant, the father of this worldview, said that he “found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”

continued…


#14

continued:

Let us assume, for the moment, that the theory of evolution, or at least our understanding of it, is somehow incomplete, that it does not adequately and causally explain the beginning and development of life on earth. That life did in fact come to be on earth is indisputable. (Even if you tend toward the extra-terrestrial origin of life, that merely transposes the location of its beginnings.) There are two alternatives in seeking answers to how life began: either it came about by natural processes, or in some supernatural manner.

Natural processes are causal processes. Everything that exists in the natural, material world has a specific identity and behaves according to that identity. Supernatural entities, if they exist, are not subject to causality. That is their nature, or rather, their lack of a specific nature. Since natural entities have a specific nature, that nature can be discovered. Supernatural entities, having no specific nature, are unknowable in principle. To posit a supernatural origin or cause for life on earth, or for any unexplained phenomenon, is to substitute the unknowable for the unknown. In doing so, one abandons any hope of discovering the true cause. One has rejected knowledge, or at least the expansion of knowledge, in principle.

One of the creationists’ favorite methods of lending scientific credence to their views is to quote some astronomically high probability against the formation of life, given our current understanding of science. Regardless of their assumptions, methods or the numbers they come up with, these results are always misleading, and are based on an erroneous view of what probability is, why it arises and what it means. The fundamental mistake is to reify probability, that is, to make it something real, a property or attribute of reality. Probability, in fact, is not real.

What is probability? When we flip a coin, we say that it has a 50% probability of coming down heads versus tails. What do we mean by that? That it will come down both heads and tails? Clearly not, the coin will come down either heads or tails; always one, never both. We mean, of course, that in a series of such flips, one result will occur about the same number of times as the other. But why is this so? Is any given toss truly a random, probabilistic event, or is the outcome the result of external factors acting on the coin? In fact, we could construct a mathematical model of the coin toss, accounting for such things as the initial orientation of the coin, the spin rate and the amount of time the coin spends in the air, and predict with some accuracy the result of any toss if these factors were known ahead of time. When the flipping of the coin is performed by a human being, these factors may vary greatly relative to the small changes necessary to alter the outcome. We could, however, construct a “coin-tossing machine” which could reproduce these factors consistently and thus produce a consistent result. We could then toss a coin with 100% probability, or very close to it depending on the quality of our machine and the completeness of our model, of coming down on whatever side we would choose.

We see then that what we refer to as probability in the outcome of an event can be reduced to unknown or uncontrolled causal factors in the context in which that event occurs. We observe different outcomes in what we consider similar events, and so we say that the possible outcomes of that event have certain corresponding probabilities. But since no two events occur in precisely the same context (if they did they wouldn’t be distinct events) those differences can be attributed to the context in which the event occurs. Probability is a stand-in for what we don’t know about an event’s context.

The critical sleight-of-hand that is frequently made is to switch the concept of probability from being an expression of the unknown context of the event to an attribute of the event itself. The reason this is critical is that it switches probability from being an epistemological tool to a metaphysical existent. It becomes an attribute of reality with independent existence apart from any observed events.

Since probability is not an intrinsic, metaphysical attribute of an event, it cannot be applied to past events whose outcome is known. It is therefore logically improper, and utterly nonsensical, to discuss the probability of life coming to exist on Earth. It does exist. The only task remaining is to seek a cause.

continued (just a wee bit more!):


#15

continued:

"It is no accident that the creationists seek to reify probability in order to justify their position. Metaphysical probability, in which a particular event may have a multitude of outcomes in a particular context, renders the nature of the event and the entities involved unknowable. It deprives the event and its cause of their respective identities. This unknowable, indeterminate universe is precisely what their belief depends on. Since knowledge is made impossible, they must necessarily give up the notion of ever expanding that knowledge. They quite literally seek “to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”

This is the intellectual danger of creationism. By turning the universe into an unknowable chaos, they throw up an impenetrable barrier to knowledge. Left to the mystics who substitute God for that which humanity has yet to discover, human knowledge would never advance at all. It is only those who ask, “What is it?” and believe they can find an answer that make such advances. The alternative is an abandonment of the power of the human mind."

So, if any of you had the patience to read that through—how would you answer?


#16

<< This is the intellectual danger of creationism… So, if any of you had the patience to read that through—how would you answer? >>

I read through it, and I mostly agree. Except the author doesn’t seem to believe in God with the “creator of a creator” idea.

On the contrary, one can believe in God, and still think intelligent design is not science, and that evolution is the best explanation of the data and evidence we have today. Why? Because science by definition deals with the natural, the study of nature, not anything supernatural. To say “God did it” is a “science-stopper.” God could intervene anytime he likes, but miracles cannot be tested or verified or detected by science. Science deals with the study of nature, theology deals with God.

Intelligent design simply says that “design can be detected” and the rest of the time it attacks biological evolution (or what it calls “Darwinism”) for the most part as inherently materialistic which isn’t necessarily so. Depends on which evolutionist you are talking about. Look up Kenneth Miller, Keith Miller, Denis Lamoureux, Glenn Morton, Darrel R. Falk, for starters.

Another problem with the current intelligent design movement, is that it attract everyone from young-earthers (the classic “Creationists” of the 1970s/80s) to folks like Mike Behe who explicitly accept common descent including human evolution. So there doesn’t seem to be much unity there, except perhaps “evolution bad and God good.” And that was the old creationist strategy which was shot down in the courts, see the Arkansas Creationist Trial from 1981-82. And duh, many scientists accept God already and have no problem with evolution.

Phil P


#17

roym << My point is simply if we are claiming that evolution is science let’s use scientific method. If the claim is true that life began in a pool of water and ammonia that lightning struck can we duplicate it, can we even come close to duplicating it? >>

That’s not evolution. And if the atheist guy is trying to suggest that, you can challenge him. But that’s not part of evolutionary theory. Origin of life is a separate topic. The only way you’re going to learn this stuff is getting good books on the subject, aside from a degree in biology or geology, etc books are the only way. Just like folks who are wondering about Catholicism, books. :thumbsup:

And avoid creationist or intelligent design web sites like the plague and just read what the evolutionists themselves (which are basically all professional scientists) are saying. Of course I like TalkOrigins myself. :stuck_out_tongue:

One new book I highly recommend is Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology by Darrel Falk, an evangelical with a Ph.D. in biology who teaches at a Nazarene college. A little less complex than some of the TalkOrigins stuff, but still a lot of detail.

Phil P


#18

Sir

You are fortunate that not many can comment on the ‘scientific method’ and why that method is in direct opposition to Christian faith,is a totally ineffective way to investigate natural phenomena,.why people like Pascal,Kepler,Copernicus, Steno ect and their intuitive insights did not emerge from the scientific method and many other elements that should set Catholics hopping mad with the contemporary situation.

To pare back the ‘scientific method’ back to its basics,it begins as such -

"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties."
Francis Bacon

bacon.thefreelibrary.com/

Presently,this method which was later adopted by Newton has morphed into so-called ‘Falsification’ where it is only possible to prove things false but never true.

No wonder the scientific/empirical guys now make no pretense with associating all religious belief with creationism/fundamentalism and who can blame them when I have not seen one good,responsible or exciting response from Catholics.

The only sin today is intellectual laziness for men praise people like Newton and the early 20th century theoretical freaks without cause.


#19

[quote=Sherlock]The one central feature of all “arguments from design” is the insertion of a supernatural cause for an unexplained event or fact. (In formal logic this is called the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, literally “argument according to ignorance.”) In the current incarnation, this unexplained fact is called “irreducible complexity” and refers to complex (i.e. multi-part) biological structures whose individual parts serve no independent function. From this observation, the creationists leap, as they always do, to the conclusion that biological life must have some supernatural, or perhaps extra-terrestrial, creator.
[/quote]

This is a gross mischaracterization of the works of people like Michael Behe and William Dembski. I’ve read a bit of the leading intelligent design theorists, and none of them ever go from “irreducible complexity” directly to “God did it!”

What they do is much more modest. They make a cogent observation, such as, “Current models of evolutionary theory cannot explain how an irreducibly complex system could evolve incrementally” or “The degree of specified complexity in this protein chain is too great to have ever arisen randomly within the parameters of current evolutionary theory.”

They then start asking questions, such as: *If the universe, or some aspect of it, is intelligently designed, how could we know it? Do reliable methods for detecting design exist? What are they? Are such methods employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis? Could they conceivably detect design in biological systems? *They then try to answer these questions as scientists.

Dembski in particular has made good use of irreducible complexity and specified complexity to show that such structures, regardless of whether they are biological, mechanical, linguistic, et cetera, scream for a designer. What he does, in short, is set up a series of criteria that can reliably detect design in information systems of any type. Since DNA is an information system, it is, in principle, sound that DNA could be tested with his “design filter.” Accordingly, when DNA is so tested, it demonstrates all of the characteristics of being a designed information system.

Note that Dembski is not simply saying, “Current evolutionary theory can’t explain this; therefore, there is a Creator.” Instead, what he is saying is this:

  • Current evolutionary theory can’t explain the specified complexity of DNA.

  • I have a testable model that can be used to demonstrate whether or not a particular thing has the qualities of a specifically complex information system (such as this sentence).

  • According to my model, DNA is specifically complex.

  • Since a specifically complex information system requires a designer, it follows that DNA, at least at its point of origin, required a designer.

  • Who or what this designer is may be a question science cannot answer, but science is not the end all and be all method of discovering truth.

As happens too often on both sides of the creation vs. evolution debate, one group mischaracterizes what the other group is saying. Strawmen are terribly easy to knock down, after all.

– Mark L. Chance.


#20

JamesD,

I am having difficulty describing what it is I’m thinking of, with respect to how all humans could be decendents of Adam and Eve, but Adam and Eve don’t have to be the sole ancestors.

For example, You have a great grandmother and great grandfather (Ester and Horace, just to be cute). From those two people there are quite probably dozens of decendents by now. Imagine those dozens of decendents become the sole survivors of all humanity. Generations from that point, it would be correct to say that all humanity decended from Ester & Horace. BUT if it is not incestual for 3rd cousins to marry, you don’t have to assume that any incest occured. This is possible because, for a time, there were other humans around.

Now, my question would be, is there anything about THAT construct that would go against Church teaching? The reason I ask is because I’ve only heard the “permitted incest” explanation given by any Catholic authority. I’m wondering if the ‘permitted incest’ is central to the faith, or if it’s possible that they haven’t thought of this explanation yet. Both explanations would cover the doctrine that All Humanity inherited Orginal Sin. And my explanation even explains what Cain meant by “other’s would kill me” if he bore the mark of killing his brother Able.

On my second question, it seems perfectly valid to me to question why an atheist would use random chance to support his theory that life was accidental, yet in the same arguement totally deny that random chance could have made a skeleton-shaped rock. Of course the odds are much better that a fossil originated from some living creature, but likewise couldn’t we say that the odds of life happening are much better if it originated from a living being? Of course it’s possible that an infinite number of monkeys banging on keyboards for an infinite amount of time will accidentally type “Julius Ceasar”. If their imagination can grasp that, why is it so difficult for them to imagine that an Infinite amount of Power, with an Infinite amount of Wisdom, with an Infinite amount of Love, could have created what ultimately became you and me?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.