How do christians who believe that God created the universe and everything in it by evolution, or a process of billions of years, believe God did it? Like the way were taught in school. Where death, suffering, deceases and pain has always existed? The dying of animals and life up till man and so forth? Or no death or suffering but FAVORABLE mutations where nothing was ever harmed UNTIL Adam's sin?

After all, God says Adam's sin brought death into the world.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), June 02, 2004

Answers

bump

-- (bump@bump.bump), June 02, 2004.

I beelive their are 2 interpretations.

1: That adam and ve are allegorical figrs and not literal.

In this exlanation, they are comnveneinces of mythology used to express a point.

2: That Adam and Eve, though existant, did not brign physical deaht into existance, but only spiritual death and imperfection.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 02, 2004.

I believe it's very CLEAR Adam and Eve were LITERAL people and it seems ridiculous to say their myths. As far as I have seen, alot of the fathers believed in an old age earth and not six literal days yet they never say Adam and Eve were mere myths to show only a point.

This is the problem with science. As it changes with its beliefs of "evolution" alot of christians and churches "change" with it so evolution doesn't shatter their faith. Yet beliefs about evolution from the "professionals" (many athiests) vary on how it all happened and even admit alot of things taught in school are now known to be false and alot of things six day creationists say against evolution causes a great deal of problems to them.

Like I said, I believe God created the universe, wether it was six 24 hour days, or billions of years I do not know, but if it was billions of years through a process then (and I've heard this from a scientist who is a christian as well) I believe no suffering, death, or harm was done because of the curse of SIN that Adam brought, and all the "evolutionary" changes were brought upon FAVORABLE mutations.

There is a great deal of evidence for both sides, but so far what I've learned the evidence for six literal days is enormous. I have many books on both subjects and evolution in general. And I know thje Catholic Church has dogmaticly stated that "Out of nothing, God created the universe." But the Church neither says it was six days or a billion years, just that what ever it was, it was indeed God who created it.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), June 03, 2004.

Jason,

If Adam and Eve were indeed the incestuous origin of the human species, why do we not all share the same cytoplasm? If we are all decended from the same woman, there should be one continuous line of eggs carrying the same cytoplasm that were fertilized and grew into us all. If eve were created from Adam's rib, they would share the same nuleic acid. This would lead to some pretty profound birth defects. Couldn't the God of the Jews come up with a better way to create his chosen people than a long string of incestuous relationships? Adam and Eve's children would have to procreate with one another. This is strictly prohibited under God's Law. Or is this an amalgamation of Sumerian and Babylonian myths?

-- J Biscuits (thefilthohgodthefilth@yahoo.com), June 03, 2004.

Jason,

What does the Law of Gravity say? Does it says that any object in motion will remain in motion. If the "big bang" does happen, why do the planets circle around the sun? Should all the planets be in a straight motion? Furthermore, the planets circle around the sun and spin at the same time.

God made them in that motion to make evolution look stupid!

-- Henri (kxhenri@yahoo.com), June 03, 2004.

Profound birth defects J? In a sin-cursed world maybe, and especialy today, but from the begining everything that God created was GOOD, therefore no "profound" defects would have existed; until SIN entered the world and gradualy mankind along with creation became different. Also, God only forbids incest later on but not from the begining. And it is today even admited (though they date it farther back in history) by athiest evolutionist that ALL human beings including all the different races decended from ONE pair of TRUE human beings.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), June 03, 2004.

Henri, the scientists who try to disprove evolution have the minds of children when it comes to REAL science, ESPECIALLY physics.

What does the Law of Gravity say?

The law of gravity states, more or less: Two object which have mass will exert a force known as gravity on each other.

Does it says that any object in motion will remain in motion.

no, thats one of newtons three laws of motion, but it is the incomplete definition (to be expected of a 'scientist' with an agenda). the proper notation is: any object will maintain its state of being until such time as it is acted on by a force. simply put, an object in motion or at rest will remain at motion or rest until it is acted on by a force.

If the "big bang" does happen, why do the planets circle around the sun? Should all the planets be in a straight motion?

first, the planets were not created in the big bang... nor were the stars, although some of them likely sprang to life almost immediately. The big bang simply created the matter that was used in planetary creation. the big bang is also fact. due to a phenomenon known as red shift by using telescopes we can in effect look backwards in time. there is a point, however, where that backwards ceases to exist, not just for the world, which is much younger than the rest of the universe, but for everything that exists in this universe. that is where the big bang occured.

now, for planetary motion. this is where that law of gravity takes effect. you have a bunch of objects with an initial impulse directly out from a central point (which has been verified). HOWEVER, masseous objects will attract on another... so the whole system begins to slow its expansion. to this very day the universe is still expanding. the galaxies may eventually stop expanding, at which point the universe will reverse the process and will collapse back in on itself. planets form in a state of relativistic motion, that is, they ARE moving when they are created, but again, that law of gravity makes it so that as they move they are curbed into an orbit around the sun. not all planets rotate, that happens to be due to fluxes in the fact that it is a chaotic system.

Furthermore, the planets circle around the sun and spin at the same time.

as said, not all planets spin, that is due to random differences in the complex system that can set about large changes

God made them in that motion to make evolution look stupid!

actually, God made that motion because its the only one that makes physical sense, it verifies all the laws of physics, not harming them in any way. in effect, to a trained scientist, all it does is make the claiment look like an idiot. i suggest whatever person is telling you this arguement should go back to school.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2004.

I might be wrong on my Physics law, but the bible says God created the heaven and the earth. If big ban really exist, there must be other planets with life, aliens?

-- Henri (kxhenri@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004.

well, henri, the probability shows that there may be other multicellular organisms which exist on other planets. none that we are ever going to be likely to see though, and all of them would be created by God anyway. my bible also says God created the world and the universe, and science says He used the big bang to do it.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2004.

The Bible does say that God created the universe. It does not say how. If the "Big Bang" happened, then it was a means God used. What's the problem? Did God create the Rocky Mountains? Of course He did! But we understand the geophysical processes He used in creating them.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 04, 2004.

If evolution exists, then we came from ape. Don't tell me Catholics believe too. Things do not just happen by itself. Are we going to be evolve into mutants like the X-men movie?

-- Henri (kxhenri@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004.

Nonsense! If evolution exists, then it is a work of God, like all the natural laws which govern the physical/biological universe. The absurd notion that we "came from apes" has its origins in fundamentalist Christian literature, not scientific literature. No scientist would ever suggest such a ludicrous idea. Apes are still here, so apparently they didn't change into us. But they have most certainly changed a great deal over the several million years since primates first appeared on earth. That's evolution - the study of change. Change which no honest person can deny. Obviously things do not "just happen by themselves". As believers in God, we know the essential force behind everything that happens in the universe - the One in Whom all natural forces have their origins. But it makes no sense to deny what can be so easily observed, on nothing more than some misguided fundamentalist notion.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 04, 2004.

well stated, paul m.

henri, you asked if we might one day become mutants like in the movie X-men. the answer is that that is a slight possibility, although the probability of that ocurring is so low that it is negligable. the evolutionary mutation that would have to occur to produce such a mutated form would be so drastic that it would likely also contain mutations which were lethal in the genetic structure, producing a being which was unable to breed, if not even unable to survive. MAYBE far down the road humans will possess something of a higher intellect, like a psychic ability, or a telekinetic, although that is a LONG way away and probably won't be seen in our time.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2004.

First off I want to say can anybody please answer my ORIGINAL question? If God created us by using an evolutionary process, was there favorable mutations without any harm being done, as in suffering, sickness, sadness or death, or was there always all that as athiests teach. Because God says SIN brought DEATH into the world and Paul says the Whole creation GROANS because of SIN!

And Paul h, your statments about " the scientists who who try to disprove evolution have the minds of CHILDREN when it comes to REAL science" and "they should go back to school" are ABSOLUTLEY RIDICULOUS! What kind of sense do you have to say such a thing? To put them down when they at least have RECONIZED what ATHIESTIC evolution has done to mankind and our world. I would like to see you go up against a creationist because if you don't know this, there are hundereds and thousands of them with master degrees from colledge. In all catergories of science. And there are thousands of evolutionist WHO HAVE AS WELL GONE TO SCHOOL that have discarded evolution. Some even discard it while not turning to God, but believe that some kind of force must have created us.

No Henri, not all Catholics believe in evolution. I although believe that God created the universe, but really I don't know how because as the book of Job says, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the worls?" But Whatever way I don't believe death entered the world until SIN entered it.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), June 07, 2004.

Yes paul h, I agree with you on physics and the big bang believe, I think it is as well "phenomenonal" and AWESOME! Space is AWESOME! But even still there are arguments for the big bang theory. Science of the past is funny, the beliefs known as "fact" change as time goes on. The fossil record HIGHLY does favor the creationist six day belief and space highly favors billions of years of process. You know, if evolution was highly noticable in it's early years but christians who were scientists, I believe we would not have such a problem today with COUNTLESS people who say "God is dead" or has been "Disproven."

It is also very interesting how evolutionist admit that alot of information that got in to the text books of school was put in "AS IF IT WERE TRUE" when they knew it wasn't or was not proven yet. It's also strange to hear alot of famous evolutionist give credit toward creationist and admit evolution faces MANY MANY problems today.

I don't really want to bedate all this and I think this is a magority reason why the Catholic church doesn't usually get too deep in it because we are to focus on the Gospel. And that's why the Church has dogmaticly stated "God created the universe out of nothing."

But so many people are taken in by evolution "proving" God wrong when in fact it should be told that (understood in the right way) it does not go against God, and it should not be considered a fact especialy with so many problems with Macro-evolution today it's almost pitiful.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), June 07, 2004.

"The fossil record HIGHLY does favor the creationist six day belief '

What? Could I please see some sources for this? I find it hard to beleive that all fossils show that they were created within six days of each other. Seems a bit of a stretch to me...

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 08, 2004.

I agree with Paul H and Anti-Bush on this, the Fossil record is pretty convencing in terms of evolutionary theory.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 08, 2004.

J Biscuits,

If Adam and Eve were indeed the incestuous origin of the human species, why do we not all share the same cytoplasm? If we are all decended from the same woman, there should be one continuous line of eggs carrying the same cytoplasm that were fertilized and grew into us all. If eve were created from Adam's rib, they would share the same nuleic acid. This would lead to some pretty profound birth defects.

It's kind of funny you bring this up, a few years ago some secular scientist said that we all came from one African woman X number of years ago, so the concept is by no means unique to religion. BTW, the reason there are birth defects when people inbreed is that any errors in their dna have a greater chance of being expressed. Since you have two copies of each gene, if you have one nonfunctional copy, you usually don't know it, the other produces enough of whatever its product is to provide for you. However, if you've got TWO nonfunctional copies of the gene, you end up with some defect.

If you are "inbred" and both your parents have the same defects, you now end up with a 25% chance that both your parents will pass you a bad copy of a specific gene, and given the number of genes, your chance of getting *something* bad happening is pretty good.

The problem with creationism is that one could say that Adam and Eve had NO genetic errors, and so could inbreed to their hearts' content without passing on mutations, because they didn't HAVE any mutations to pass on. Only with the passage of time and errors being introduced into their genetic code through repeated imperfect replication would they then have to worry about inbreeding.

Frank

P.S. Yeah, the fossil record favors evolution. Of course a Creationist could always say this was made that way deliberately as a test of one's faith...

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 08, 2004.

"Innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finery graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

"Why if species have decended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional links, between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great."

These are quotes from Charles Darwin himself, and I'll be back.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), June 08, 2004.

There has been articles in our day and teachings put into school text books that claim the fossil records "missing links" and "long absent transitional forms" have all been found. Such staments from "National Academy of Sciences," "American Institute of Biological Sciences," etc. Yet ALL these claims are FALSE! Even evolution scientists admit that a magority of material got into the text books "as if it were true." This is either engaging in propaganda or unimformed of information.

Steven Jay Gould of Harvard pointed out, "The fossil record with it's abrupt transitions offers NO support for GRADUAL change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

Geologist professor said, "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil records has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisinly jerky and, ironiclly, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." (Because new evidence discarded many of the "supposed" transitional forms)

And prior to Dr. Goulds time, Dr. George Gaylord Simpson was one of the worlds best-known evolutionists. A professor on vertebrate paleontology. Yet he says, "The regular absence of transitional forms is almost an universal phenomenon," as well as, "It remains true, as EVERY paleontologist knows, that MOST new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly, and ARE NOT LED UP TO BY KNOWN, GRADUAL, COMPLETELY CONTINUOUS SEQUENCES."

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), June 08, 2004.

The fossil record does not show ANY evidence of one creature gradualy evolving into another, period. There are however very little fossils that could "appear" to be a transitional form, yet it can also be explained as it's own special creature. Many like this have been proven false BY EVOLUTIONISTS themselves and discarded.

Evolution has made MANY mistakes and there are problems on EVERY area of there beliefs. Many "supposed" missing links today have been reclassified as either just an ape, a true human, and even a certain type of ape that does not exist anymore but became extinct. This is all said by evolutionists. Text books in the past had written material that was claimed to be "fact," for years too; and later became discarded with some even being very embarissing toward evolutionists, and yet, the media barely reported it.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), June 08, 2004.

"Innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finery graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." "Why if species have decended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional links, between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great." These are quotes from Charles Darwin himself, and I'll be back.

{Darwin also lived in the mid 19th century before we made a lot of interestign discoveries...}-Zarove

There has been articles in our day and teachings put into school text books that claim the fossil records "missing links" and "long absent transitional forms" have all been found. Such staments from "National Academy of Sciences," "American Institute of Biological Sciences," etc. Yet ALL these claims are FALSE! Even evolution scientists admit that a magority of material got into the text books "as if it were true." This is either engaging in propaganda or unimformed of information.

{I say unonformed. Often textbook writers dotn get all the facts stight before publihsing, and soemtimes have a set agenda. However, if the evolutionary Biologists are willign to admit this, then the issue is withhte textbook publishers, not the evolutionsusts in general.}-Zarove

Steven Jay Gould of Harvard pointed out, "The fossil record with it's abrupt transitions offers NO support for GRADUAL change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

{Yeah thats why Gould formulated the hteory of Punctuated Equelibrium, in which speicies remain relatively static for generatiosn only to experience rapid mutations when disaster or illness spreads thinning the numbers and isolating certain groups. The quote you pasted wa sout of context, and shoul be read in the rgeater context of the theory he was actually articulating.}-Zarove

Geologist professor said, "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil records has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisinly jerky and, ironiclly, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." (Because new evidence discarded many of the "supposed" transitional forms)

{Again, are yo even ip to daye on the thery of Punctuated Equalibrium?}-Zarove

And prior to Dr. Goulds time, Dr. George Gaylord Simpson was one of the worlds best-known evolutionists. A professor on vertebrate paleontology. Yet he says, "The regular absence of transitional forms is almost an universal phenomenon," as well as, "It remains true, as EVERY paleontologist knows, that MOST new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly, and ARE NOT LED UP TO BY KNOWN, GRADUAL, COMPLETELY CONTINUOUS SEQUENCES."

{Do you think that evolution means "Slow, gradual change" and if slow gradual chang is disproven, all of evolution automaticlaly collapses? Their are other theoretival modles that do not require, and inf act predict, transition to be much more rapid, and thus one shoudl NOT expect slow, gradual change.

Darwwinian evolution was alreayd abandoned by most Evolutionary Biologists, who now use Goulds punctuated equlibrium, or another similar contemporary theory.}-Zarove

The fossil record does not show ANY evidence of one creature gradualy evolving into another, period. There are however very little fossils that could "appear" to be a transitional form, yet it can also be explained as it's own special creature. Many like this have been proven false BY EVOLUTIONISTS themselves and discarded.

{Again , evolution does nto require as a mandadte gradual change over time, and the modern thinkign is that change happens more spontaeously within small, isolated groups, rather than slowly over a prolonged period of time.}-Zarove

Evolution has made MANY mistakes and there are problems on EVERY area of there beliefs.

{Evolution has made no mistakes as it is a theory. Science in princple is self correcting.}-Zarove

Many "supposed" missing links today have been reclassified as either just an ape, a true human, and even a certain type of ape that does not exist anymore but became extinct. This is all said by evolutionists. Text books in the past had written material that was claimed to be "fact," for years too; and later became discarded with some even being very embarissing toward evolutionists, and yet, the media barely reported it.

{ Then theirs also things that are seen as true transitional, or primative forms, such as Australopithicus, which tend to suppoert evlutionary claims.

Not to insult you, but do you even know about evolutionary theirt?}- Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 08, 2004.

Listen, I don't want to debate about this, at least with the other Catholics in here such as paul h. But paul, was it nessasary to attack henri with your evolution beliefs? He believes in God and a six day creation, so what. He's at least in here asking questions recently about the Catholic Faith and he has showed respect as well. Two people who believe in God should not debate over something silly as that, and you should not take everything evolutionists say as fact regardless of how smart they may sound or we think we are.

As well, I do not believe in a six day literal creation, nor a billion year process. But I believe God created the universe and everything in it. And I also AGREE that for the creationists there exist many problems that contradict their theory of six literal days.

I have studied a majority amount of science and I have quite a bit of science books on evolution, creationists, and crea-evolutionists.

In one book I have called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder, he seems to suggest that evolution does not prove the non- existense of God, but PROVES the existense of God! Interesting.

The Bible is amazing. Archeology confirms it, Science before it's time and science in general confirms it. And to just look around at nature we can see God. It's so amazing and beautiful. Christianity is no myth, and for the Athiests who claim that, they are blinded by their pride and hatered. There's not much time left so I sugestyou all look into Catholicism, because when we stand before God, there will be NO excuse.

P.S. I am finished with this debate, no more on this forum. God bless!

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), June 08, 2004.

"The fossil record does not show ANY evidence of one creature gradualy evolving into another, period."

A: Nonsense! There are innumerable examples of transitional forms, in some cases series spanning millions of years of change. In fact, every fossil species whose line did not become extinct was a transitional form.

"There are however very little fossils that could "appear" to be a transitional form, yet it can also be explained as it's own special creature."

A: You seem to have a por understanding of what a transitional form is. A transitional form IS "its own special creature". A transitional form is a distinct species or form unto itself. What makes it transitional is that it differs in specific ways from both its ancestors and its descendents, both of which are likewise distinct species. A transitional form does not exist simply to bradge a gap between two species. It is merely one step in a continuum. Form B is transitional between form A and form C. Form C is transitional between form B and form D. Form D between C and E, and so on. Which is why I said above that every past species whose line did not die out is transitional - as are all living species, unlesas they become extinct.

"Evolution has made MANY mistakes"

A: Yes, and ...?? So have astronomy, microbiology, epidemiology, physics, chemistry, or any science you can name. Not to mention medicine (remember those leeches?) This is the nature of science. Hypothesize, test, reject false theories.

"Many "supposed" missing links today have been reclassified as either just an ape, a true human, and even a certain type of ape that does not exist anymore but became extinct."

A: Right. And we no longer apply leeches to suck the "bad blood" out of sick people, or treat mental illness with electic shocks and frontal lobotomy. Hypothesize ... test ... learn.

"Text books in the past had written material that was claimed to be "fact," for years too; and later became discarded with some even being very embarissing toward evolutionists"

A: Blame textbook publishers. Scientists don't control what goes into textbooks. Incidentally, textbooks in the past also included spontaneous generation as an explanation for the appearance of maggots; told us that "bad air" was the cause of malaria (that's what the word "malaria" means); and explained why members of non-white races were of inferior intelligence. Research ... test ... learn. The fact that a given science got some of its facts wrong in its early days of discovery - or is still getting some things wrong today - is not an indictment of that particular science. It is simply the nature of science itself.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 08, 2004.

Yes, I am aware of "Punctuated Equilibrum." And I know that's also what Gould believed,(you have to come up with a second theory when the first one fails) yet there is still problems with that as well.

But my point on the fossil record was it doesn't show a species evolving into another by transitional forms as what was ORIGINALY claimed. Even articles in Science magazines from the 80's and 90's have tried to claim the fossils show gradual change. And when you find a typical kid on the street who goes to science class he usualy believes the fossil record contains transitional forms.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), June 08, 2004.

No Paul M, YOU are the one who does not understand what a transitional form is. One into another by gradual change SHOWING one creature step-by-step evolving into another! Paul M, did you NOT hear or read what Darwin said, or Professor Gould, plus NUMEROUS evolutionist? They all ADMIT the fossil record FAILED to show gradual change from what was AT FIRST expected. That's why the theory of Punctuated Equilibrum came about, which as well has problems.

And yes Paul M, science makes many mistakes. THIS IS MY WHOLE POINT ON EVOLUTION! EVERY decade more and more problems arise and much information is tossed away with new theories added, the "experts" argue amongst themselves. Is it possible that Macro-evolution is FALSE? Micro-evolution is true, no problem there.

And it's interesting if you see Creationist vs. Evolutionists debates. Both good scientists, both with degrees in science, yet the creationists always gets the last word and counters the evolutionist with him not being able to respond. There's more to this than you all think, SERIOUSLY!

You know, WHY are you so countering me with your bekiefs on evolution and not even saying anything about God. You believe God created the universes, right. I do and guess what, I do not believe he did it in six days. Where was I when he laid the foundations of the earth? Huh? This is not a good example on how CATHOLICS should be giving because obviously athiests have entered here. And evolution is a favorite subject for them. Yet, as the book "The Science of God" I mentioned earlier says, (by the way he explains it) evolution may just PROVE God's exsistense and harmonize with the Bible.

So do not continue to attack me because I don't share all of the six day creationists beliefs, but I reconize FACTS and MISTAKES when I see them and move on.

P.S. I was not "blaming" it on the text books either, but the bias of evolutionist (mainly the athiests who try to claim "God is dead) Like I said, there's alot more to this than you probaly all no. God bless and this time (to avoid these ridiculous arguments) I will not return. God bless!

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), June 08, 2004.

Jason I do hope you arent leavign th whole forum due to this.

Paul may have ppsted his at the same itme you where psotign yours, for instance, and thus accedentlaly generated more of a debate than you where willing to engauge in.

However your preasence is a welcomes on on here.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 08, 2004.

Jason, I agree with Zarove. I hope you are not leaving the whole forum for good. I appreciate your presence in our forum.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 08, 2004.

It's a no-brainer that if microevolution occurs in a given period of time, macroevolution MUST occur, given a sufficiently long period of time. One is simply the logical extension of the other. Draw a picture of a bird. Or a snail. Or any living thing you wish. Now, once a year, make a small change in the drawing. By the end of your lifetime, your drawing will probably still be recognizable as a bird or whatever it originally represented, but with a number of accumulated minor changes. An ornithologist might determine whether the changes accumulated to that point are sufficient to regard the end product as distinct from the original on a species level. But if you were able to make such microchanges yearly for a few hundred years, the resulting image would clearly not represent the same species of bird it originally represented. Two members of a single species cannot differ from each other in several hundred observable ways. Accumulated microchanges equal macrochange. There is simply no way around this. And if you were to continue making annual microchanges to your drawing for a million years, the resulting picture, differing from the original one in a million different though minor ways, would most certainly no longer be a picture of a bird at all.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 08, 2004.

What i find interesting is that there's far more dinosaur fossils than supposed "evidence" for the missing links between modern man and their supposed hominids.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), June 08, 2004.

Paul M : I strongly disagree with your proposition that macro- evolution is the logical extension of micro-evolution.

Micro-evolution involves changes within a species, still preserving its association of its species.

Macro-evolution proposes the changes that cause a species to become a completely new species. As an example, that would mean that a new species of human-like creature evolves from our kind into another kind such that it can only successfully reproduce in its own kind, not with humans.

As such, science has not provided us with a single case of one species having evolved to another because it has not observed this having taken place, nor will it.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), June 08, 2004.

“What i find interesting is that there's far more dinosaur fossils than supposed "evidence" for the missing links between modern man and their supposed hominids.” ( Oliver)

Oliver, you are wasting time and energy thinking that opposition to evolution has got something to do with being a Christian. It’s probably pointless to point out to you the logical fallacies in your arguments, but here goes:

“Dinosaur” includes thousands of very different species which lived on Earth in numbers of many millions for more than 200 million years. Even so, there are only a few species for which we have found even one complete skeleton. Hominids have lived on Earth for less than 5 million years, in numbers of a few million at most up until about 10,000 BC, most of which was during ice ages involving massive damage to the Earth’s surface by glaciers and changing sea levels. No wonder we have found very few hominid fossils, let alone "missing links" between species which probably only existed for a very short period of time, if at all.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 09, 2004.

The generaly excepted theory of evolution has a lot of holes in it. A LOT. But at the end of the day, it's still got a whole lot more backing it up than creationism.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 10, 2004.

Every branch of science has a lot of holes in it. That's why scientists are still conducting research. Cancer research has a lot of holes in it. Psychiatry has a lot of holes in it. Astronomy has a lot of holes in it. Environmental science has a lot of holes in it. What scientists do is try to slowly fill in the holes, one at a time. If all the holes were filled in relative to a particular scientific discipline, that branch of science would cease to exist as a science. However, that cannot happen since the route to closing one gap in our knowledge inevitably uncovers additional gaps that no-one realized existed. That's the nature of science. The fact that many holes exist in our knowledge of a particular scientific area doesn't make what we DO know any less valid. And we know a LOT more about the mechanisms of evolutionary change than we know about black holes, or gravity, or sudden infant death syndrome, or the treatment of AIDS. But scientists are still working to increase our knowledge in all these areas. It is meaningless and essentially dishonest to emphasize the gaps in our knowledge of evolutionary biology. People who do so hope to imply that evolution is therefore not a valid area of scientific investigation. But in fact, they prove just the opposite. It is precisely because there are holes in our scientific knowledge that scientific investigation in a particular area is valid and valuable.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 10, 2004.

LOL! No I did not mean I was leaving the forum, I just was saying that I wouldn't argue with evolution against a believer of Christianity. Actualy, this is the first time I've been back since my last post on "God and Evolution." I've been hooked in the other forum site I've found at "Catholic Answers Forums." LOL, and the debates I was following were mostly on evolution. Though most Catholics believed in it, a few plus some Protestants did not and have been debating it, for a very very long time. There must be at least 5 posts of the debates lol. Although, the most expierianced in evolution was one Catholic, and two atheists, and I got to say I have learned alot.

I though before I had been taken in by evolution propaganda (and to a certain extant, I was) yet I have now realized now I have been taken in by "creationist" propaganda. I believe in evolution now (though before I had no fear of it nor did it oppose my faith, I only thought there was evidence lacking) I have been looking at sites that provide excellent evidence for it, even a site by a CATHOLIC evolution scientist. I also have been studying two books I have about God and evolution. They are amazing. So, i'm back to check things out here now since I've been "captured" in that other forum hehe.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), July 05, 2004.

Good for you Jason. Just one little point. You said “I believe in evolution”. Evolution and other scientific theories are not something you believe IN. They are not a matter of faith. You mean, I hope, “I believe THAT the theory of evolution is correct.” Or “I believe that evolution occurs.”

The nonsense theory of “Creation science” is a mockery both of science and of God’s work of creation. Those Christians who promote “Creation science” have unwittingly given in to the atheists who taunt Christians as fools for believing the world was made in 7 days, etc. The Bible is not, and was NEVER meant to be a science textbook. Nor has the Catholic Church (nor most other Christians) ever understood it to be a science textbook (of palaeontology, biology, astronomy or any other science). The furious promotion of “creation science” by a minority of (mainly protestant fundamentalist) Christians is a reaction to modern atheist taunts. They’ve fallen right into the trap the atheists have set. God knows how many honest seekers have been turned away from Christianity because someone told them that to be a Christian they have to believe the “creation science” claptrap.

To answer your original question, Yes, Adam’s sin brought death into the world, but God is not constrained by the linear time we live in. Animals, plants and microorganisms were dying and mutating for eons before humans were around. And there is no reason to doubt that, just like today, most of those mutations were UNfavorable.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 05, 2004.

As a catholic, I believe should be neither be for or against regarding any theory. That is, I should only accept a scientific theory if only it is fully proved. If it is not proved, we do not reject it, but neither do we accept it unless it is confirmed as a truth. It is sad that we Catholics are so much stung from the embarrassment of the Pope versus Galileo event, that we are still unable gain or composure. While we are still reeling in shame with that episode, Satan has found opportunity to infiltrate into every discipline of life, be it science, psychology, sexology, archeology, political science, sociology, laws, ethics, culture, religion, etc. Should we swallow everything so much without a thought, just because science says so, etc. Is is not out of fear of being different, fear of being not progressive, fear being left out, fear of being the odd man out, that we openly accept anything dictated by popular beliefs of our time? Then, we really feel great and progressive, in the streets, in our workplace, school, society, family, and even in our parishes. It is indeed 'fearful unto death' to be different at least at present times. But, as Christians, we should stand for the truth without compromise. If we compromise with the gray areas of science and other disciplines of life instead of being on our guard, then we give opportunity for demonic infiltrate in those areas.

For example, many times, we accuse a person when he has quoted certain bibilical text out of context. But, we do the very same thing when accept some some theory as scientific truth when it is not even proved, and we will not care to listen a opposing view just because it has become popular belief. If I keep listening only to one view, I am easily converted into it, be it a scientific theory or even a religious belief. Let us for example take the Shroud of Turin a scientific marvel and genuine relic that withstood all scientific, until carbon dating proved it to be a hoax. But then, here most Catholics will not consider the carbon dating as conclusive. So, you see, it is not that we do not have a faculty to separate weeds from wheat, but only on such rare occasion.

If only we could only grasp of magnitude of the havoc created of not being watchful enough. It is not purely of human origin that today's theologians, politicians, archeologists, biologists, sexologists, medical doctors, psychiatrists/psychologists, law makers, teachers, etc., have such anti-Christian view of life and propagate it relentlessly and even forcefully. I am not speaking of third world countries or Islamic nations, but developed countries.

These are symptoms of a bigger problem: A forced immodesty in France (forbiddance of veils). Crucifixes removed from classroom to not offend with the so called sensitive beliefs of other religions (Immodesty, immorality and perversion in all its hues is quite okay I guess), etc., etc., etc.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Leslie, you don’t seem to understand that science and religion are two very different things. NO scientific theory can ever be “FULLY proved” and “confirmed as a truth” in the absolute sense you mean. By definition, any scientific theory is only ever accepted as PROVISIONALLY true, and to be thrown out if new scientific observations and experiments throw up a result which the theory does not explain. But in practice, many scientific theories predict things so well that, for practical purposes and for the present, we regard the theory as simply “true”. For example the theory that matter is composed of atoms: – no one has ever seen an atom, but the theory (and no other alternative theory) explains so many observations so well, and there are so few and minor instances where it does not seem to adequately explain observations, that we accept it as true and that the minor discrepancies may be explained by slightly tweaking the theory. It would be ridiculous to throw it out. The same goes for the theory of evolution. The supposedly "alternative" theory of “creation science” is not science at all but “pseudoscience” – it uses scientific style language to fool the uneducated into thinking it is just as valid as real science. But it is as bogus as astrology and homeopathy.

I don’t know about you but neither I nor any Catholic I know is “stung”, “embarrassed” or “reeling in shame” from the Galileo case. Sure the Inquisition infringed his rights in a minor way, but in the whole scheme of things a minor mistake made by a church court 400 years ago is hardly reason for embarrassment today. Even if you have perhaps been fooled by the wildly calumnious stories about Galileo’s case concocted by 17th century protestants, I fail to see how this could cause you much embarrassment today.

"Should we swallow everything so much without a thought, just because science says so?" No, to do that would be antithecal to the ideals of science. Question everything. Try to become scientifically educated so you can make at least some personal judgment whether a scientific theory is likely to be true, or at least seek the opinions of acknowledged experts in that field of science. I agree we should should resist what is simply “dictated by popular beliefs of our time” but such beliefs are frequently OPPPOSED to what science has truly discovered, or are based on an overly simplistic understanding of a scientific theory. I agree “as Christians, we should stand for the truth without compromise.” But there is NO NEED to “compromise with the gray areas of science” . Science and religion operate in different fields. As the Pope has said “The Church has nothing to fear from science.” The church welcomes scientific discovery and the ongoing formulation and adaptation of scientific theories to explain systematically our observations of how God has ordered the universe.

“It is not purely of human origin that today's theologians, politicians, archeologists, biologists, sexologists, medical doctors, psychiatrists/psychologists, law makers, teachers, etc., have such anti-Christian view of life and propagate it relentlessly and even forcefully.”

Your sweeping statement is pretty damning of all in these professions, most of whom I’m sure are not at all anti-Christian. Your attitude seems close to rejecting the world entirely. We must live IN this world though as Christians we belong to the next, and must be the leaven which saves this world, not shuts it out.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 06, 2004.

A good post. To tell the truth, I am not an expert either regarding evolution or about creation science in depth, though I have basic understanding of it. It was my impression that evolution theory was created by anti-God scientists to embarrass the Catholics. For example, I have heard that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" statement is one of the theory being misused right from the Nazis who killed millions of weak and disabled, to the present-day medical doctors who indirectly or directly build upon this theory to have enough valid reasons for abortion or termination of pregnancy (feticide/infanticide), euthanasia (active or passive murder), right to die with dignity (suicide), etc., because the patient so weak, disabled, sick, unconscious or prognosis is poor. There are many things going on behind the curtains e.g. illegal cloning, stem-cell research, etc., very little leaks out.

I don't know about you but neither I nor any Catholic I know is "stung", "embarrassed" or "reeling in shame" from the Galileo case.

I was actually echoing liberal theologians who go to other extreme of supporting everything and new and progressive, and their greatest honor is not being a spiritual man, but to be called a scientist or a doctor. Their goal in life is able to prove the Holy Father wrong, destroy traditional religious thoughts, and violate moral and divine laws in keeping with our times. To able to that is a great personal triumph for them. They often quote the Galileo incident so that their audience may remain tongue-tied and not oppose their so called scientifically and psychologically sound statements against dogmatic or traditional teachings of the church. I am direct witness to this.

The supposedly "alternative" theory of "creation science" is not science at all but "pseudoscience" - it uses scientific style language to fool the uneducated into thinking it is just as valid as real science. But it is as bogus as astrology and homeopathy.

I am not against the theory of evolution as such, but making it as if it is an unquestionable proved theory. Today, the theory of evolution is considered to be just like any other proved laws like gravitational force, the roundness of the earth, heliocentric movement of the planets, etc. It is all the more held by many because it makes one feel more modern, progressive, intelligent, and has an pleasurable opportunity of being a legitimate rebel (this is apart from the fact that the theory can be either 100% truth or 100% false).

Astrology is bogus, but I don't think homeopathy is. Homeopathy is thriving medical practice (at least in my place), which gives relief to thousands of people each day based on the Similia Similibus Curantur (like cures like) philosophy. The problem is, it is depends upon artful application of its principles. If a competent doctor with practice and skills of observation can derive the correct drug, and administer the right potency, it works. Neither the church nor science considers homeopathy today as a pseudoscience.

Your sweeping statement is pretty damning of all in these professions, most of whom I'm sure are not at all anti-Christian. Your attitude seems close to rejecting the world entirely.

I am not speaking against any professions, but rather (some) professionals of the top rank in almost every more major professions/disciplines who are working zealously and rabidly day and night to spread immorality, godlessness, and chaos. We don't know whether consciously or unconsciously, but it is clear they are obeying unseen spiritual forces of darkness. It is by the fruit we know. It is very sad and surprising that Christians are not aware of the spiritual nature of things. Everything is not naive and straightforward, as it seems like. If we can have so many wicked men even within the Church, why not outside, especially in professions where important contributions/decisions are made which can affect globally, e.g., the force behind family planning, is concerted effort of sociologists, medical scientists/doctors, pharmacologists, businessmen, politicians, etc.

There are always some gray areas in science, which shrewd men of various professions build upon to spread immorality and rebelliousness of all kinds, e.g., objective truth versus subjective truth, church laws versus dictates of one's conscience, Divine revelation versus personal experience of life. What is not clearly defined has been used as if defined by shrewd men to manipulate morals, ethics, and the image of God. Theory of evolution has also translated into the theological realm with modern Christian philosophy teaching seminarians that Christ is a force within that will take you through a spiritual evolution so that all will progress into Christ-like nevertheless.

A perverted mixture of modern psycho-sociological outlook stripped of ethics has done much evil. No religion in schools; a pretext to maintain godlessness. No crucifixes; could remind of sin and sacrifice for sin. No picture of the Blessed Virgin and Child Jesus; could remind the completion perfection of womanhood, which is motherhood, which involves love, and love is close to God. No 10 commandments; it may make people guilty of their life's choices. But, practices of planchette, ouja board, seances, witchcraft, etc., are not debarred.

Perverted psychosexual understandings and theories gathered from unscrupulous/manipulated experiments, e.g. Kingsey, a zoologist who dictated human sexual expressions according to the behavior of animals, which is one of the many forces behind that laid the foundation for a modern permissive American society with all its deviant (abnormal/unnatural) sexual behaviors with legitimacy, which in comparison may make Sodom and Gomorrah look angelic-like. Many years ago, I read from "The New Covenant" a catholic charismatic magazine about some things happening in the schools. Forcing children into groups of boy-girl friendship in schools. Forced sexual education right from kindergarten along with live nude visuals with contraception along with practices. Stripping literally both girls and boys to wipe away all notions of gender differences. Any kind of gender differentiation is shrewdly translated as gender discrimination and immediately punished. Very shrewdly, some of the top professionals of these disciplines (coupled with others) have been playing and manipulating with some psychological concepts like unconditional human response or conditional human response, nurture versus nature, etc., and using these for various irresponsible experiments to destroy human lives and the society. The fruits of which is that we no longer see words like adultery, sodomy, immodesty, perversion, etc., in the dictionary, and people who believe in such words will be considered as part of a funny funny joke and of an extinct world.

We must live IN this world though as Christians we belong to the next, and must be the leaven which saves this world, not shuts it out

Yes, first we must be light that shines out truth in this world. Without expressing truth, we cannot be leaven that saves the world, but most likely be leavened by the lies and falsehood of the world and shut ourselves into spiritual blindness.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), July 12, 2004.

Leslie, I’m no expert either but anyone who grasps even the basic concept of what science is can see that “creation science” is not science. The principle of science is that you do experiments and make observations of the results, THEN formulate an explanation for the results you find, rejecting any explanation which doesn’t explain all the results no matter who does the experiment or observation. Pseudosciences FIRST choose the theory, then selectively choose only those results and observations which can be distorted to make it appear they fit the theory, ignoring all other observations.

“It was my impression that evolution theory was created by anti- God scientists to embarrass the Catholics.” Certainly not. Darwin I think veered between Anglicanism and agnosticism. Many other scientists who helped develop evolution theory were committed Christians. Gregor Mendel who showed the principles of genetic inheritance, beginning to illuminate the mechanism by which evolution works, was a Catholic monk. Some protestants who particularly emphasized the literal words of the Bible opposed evolution. But until I came to this forum I was not aware of any Catholic who saw evolution as being contrary to the Catholic faith. The general Catholic understanding is that if new scientific or historical discoveries contradict the literal words of the Bible, those words must be given a metaphorical meaning. This is not something invented by a modern liberal theologian; it goes back to St Augustine at least.

“I have heard that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" statement is one of the theory being misused right from the Nazis who killed millions of weak and disabled, to the present-day medical doctors who indirectly or directly build upon this theory to have enough valid reasons for abortion or termination of pregnancy (feticide/infanticide), euthanasia (active or passive murder), right to die with dignity (suicide), etc.,”

These people also misuse/d Christian beliefs to promote these evil things. That doesn’t mean those beliefs are wrong. Nor is evolution wrong because they misused its concepts.

“I am not against the theory of evolution as such, but making it as if it is an unquestionable proved theory. Today, the theory of evolution is considered to be just like any other proved laws like gravitational force, the roundness of the earth, heliocentric movement of the planets, etc.”

That’s the point. ALL of these ARE just theories. They are not “unquestionable” or “proved” in the final sense, but it is common sense to treat them as “real”.

Homeopathy is if anything even MORE bogus than astrology. Astrology is ALSO a thriving practice which millions of people claim helps them. Homeopathy's “principles” are an insult to human intelligence. Homeopathic “medicines” have their so-called active principle (anything from common salt to deadly poisons) diluted typically to 1 part in a trillion – so dilute that the chances are that there is not even ONE molecule of the substance in the “dose”. The patient is paying for plain water. The charlatan homeopath “doctors” say this doesn’t matter because the process of diluting and shaking imparts “vibrations” to the water, and these “vibrations” actually effect the “cure”. They have not even a theory to explain HOW this might occur. No scientific observation or experiment has ever detected any of these supposed “vibrations”, or shown any benefit from homeopathic “medicines” compared to any other inert placebo. It’s not science, it’s superstition. Science certainly DOES consider it pseudoscience, and the Church holds that all forms of superstition are a sin against the first commandment.

If you’re only complaining of SOME professional people then don’t damn ALL of them with “It is not purely of human origin that today's theologians, politicians, archeologists, biologists, sexologists, medical doctors, psychiatrists/psychologists, law makers, teachers, etc., have such anti-Christian view of life and propagate it relentlessly and even forcefully.” I don’t see anything particularly wrong, much less diabolical, about saying “Christ is a force within that will take you through a spiritual evolution” . Theology and every other science often “borrow” words and theories from other disciplines to help explain different concepts.

I agree we should combat the false psychosociological ideas limiting religion in schools, legitimating deviant sexual behaviours etc., but you are stretching credibility to breaking point trying to blame the theory of evolution for somehow causing these ills. And you diminish your case by vastly overstating it. If you could direct me to an adult dictionary which does not contain “adultery, sodomy, immodesty, perversion, etc.” I would be fascinated to see it.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 13, 2004.