Will there ever be an answer? Ive been thinking about both of them. Theistic evolution was also in my mind too. But Adam and Eve had souls, because people who believe in evolution show that bacteria was the first living thing to ever exist, but bacteria and animals don’t have souls and don’t go to heaven. But creationism, bones are weird and they confuse me. DNA too. Many common species have similar DNA. Kangaroos are not in Asia, well the big ones. There are tree kangaroos in New Guinea, but they’re a different species. They have similar bone structures and DNA, but without evolution, how did they came to be. I don’t know. I hope a great apologist will find something, or God will give us an insight.
God breathed life and soul into Adam and then Eve. How does this negate the fact God created bacteria before He created Adam?
It is very creative to pick on Kangaroos for an evolution debate, would it not be better to discuss they are marsupials?
There’re quite a few threads already on the topic of evolutionism and creationism.
But, other living beings do have souls, though they aren’t rational souls.
Here’s a link:
That’s makes lot of sense. Thanks for the info!
Well, I thought kangaroos were easier. Kangaroo bones around found in south East Asia. Well the giant kangaroos from Australia. They can’t find their bones in anywhere else. I want to see your insight.
I suggest reading a book by a very learned man who worked in USA and in Oceania. The book is called The Future Eaters. There are a few books in this collection by Tim Flannery.
The Church does not oppose the theory of evolution. I do have my personal doubts about it, because it presupposes only survival of the fittest and best fit to the environment. But then, how to explain that something as simple as the wheel is only human while something as complex as electricity generation and storage is a feature of some animal species?
It is quite confusing. Evolution is not only 1 theory like Darwin’s theory of evolution. There are others too, but they’re similar too each other, Darwin’s theory is the most widely accepted and has the most “evidence”. Theistic evolutionists is a weird possibility.
Survival of the fittest is weird. The strongest will mate. There so many problems with humanity. The monarchies(I will keep using the term mate because I don’t to make this weird) kept mating with their siblings and cousins. The weak, and (excuse me) dumb are still here. People with many genetic defects. If evolution occurred. Why is it so common? But it really is a weird concept. Ken ham got obliterated against Bill Nye, no theologian can go against a evolutionist. Ken ham said all the animals were in Noah’s ark, yada yada. I don’t get that. Because then animals wouldn’t be where they are now. Unless, evolution occurred in a shorter time, but humans weren’t really effected. Unless, their skin colors changed, which yeah, everyone believes. What if everything evolved after Noah’s Ark? Now I just sound Like a conspiracy theorist.
Not exactly. Natural selection, which is what you are talking about, is not necessarily about being strong or fit. It is about having more grandchildren. That is, spreading more copies of your genes into future generations by having fertile offspring.
A good point. If the Ark was less than 6,000 years ago then a lot of super-fast evolution has happened since the flood receded. And how did the sloths get to South America from Turkey?
Evolution of species one from another is a fact. We know that because all living things share genetic material. Genetic material is passed on by descent. Therefore all living things are related one to another by descent. Therefore all have evolved from earlier forms of life.
Arguing that evolution is not a fact is like arguing that light, or gravity, or mass are not facts.
There are a number of theories about how evolution has occurred. The ‘theory of evolution’ is not a ‘theory’ that there ‘is’ evolution. It is a theory, or theories about how it occurs. There is lots we don’t know.
There is no ‘scientific’ debate about the fact of evolution. There are only people who reject the idea on religious grounds who frame arguments in scientific-sounding ways.
One of Catholicism’s great strengths is that after a faltering start it came to accept that there was nothing in revelation as it sees it to contradict the science of evolution. Most Christians are like this. Only in the US are there huge numbers of Christians who adhere to the idea of ‘independent creation of species’. (That incidentally is the (minority) Christian view opposed to evolution, not ‘creationism’. The fact and theory of evolution sys nothing at all about where life comes from or whether is had a supernatural cause.
Young Earth Creationism is a dead end for anybody who has respect for science. But religious truth needn’t be a dead end as well. There are good reasons for thinking that God exists, and there are good reasons for being a Christian. There are zero reasons for thinking that Christian truth and scientific truth cannot be reconciled.
Finding Design in Nature
By Christoph Schönborn
July 7, 2005
Vienna - EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was “more than just a hypothesis,” defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance – or at least acquiescence – of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
Why do you keep posting quotes that you don’t believe?
I trust the Church only. The exact words are “might be true.” Might. The Church considers all of the possibilities. I only trust the Church.
But you don’t think it might be true. You think it’s false. The church doesn’t teach that.
You didn’t read what I wrote. Might be true is not the same thing as it is true, which is consistent with what I’ve been writing.
So your answer to the question: ‘Might it be true?’ must be ‘Yes’. Good to have that cleared up. I’ll keep that post for future reference.
NO. The answer is might, not yes. Big difference. I can quote Pope Benedict again to clarify.
Correct. It might be true. But you don’t believe it might be true. You believe it’s false.
I am constantly bemused by your reticense on this matter. Anyone who has read your posts knows that you believe that the world is only thousands of years old and therefore evolution is not ‘might be true’ but as far as you are concerned is definitely false.
It’s strange that someone can hold to a position as strongly as you do but will not admit to it.
In passing, I checked to see how many times you have quoted him over the last few months (‘cannot haul 10,000 generations…’ etc). I stopped counting when I got to forty. So, no. No need to quote him again.