Creation or Evolution theories

Dear cornhusker,
Now I understand your question. I will try to explain it with a very simple example.

Just imagine a population of letters "E". Now, the evolution rule is that one can lose some lines but not gain any. Some of them lost the lower line... Then we have "F". Some other lost the middle line ending like
"[" and some lost the upper one resulting in an inverted "F".

The three characters are related and all derived from a common ancestor "E" that does not exist anymore. The three resulting characters are cousins and they will go on evolving perhaps to "I" or to "L" but it will not possible to get anymore "F" or inverted "F" because no "E"s are anymore available.

This is a simplification, of course, but could help to explain your question. And helps to understand why apes and humans are cousins and we do not evolve from monkeys. A different thing is the question of particular characters could evolve more that once. This is call convergent evolution, but this is a different issue. I hope I could answer your question

 

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurcontroversies/i/warmblooded.htm

 

I rest my case

 

Of course the Council of Trent is right there had to be a first man a 'Adam' and there had to be a first , original sin committed by an 'Eve' and of course this original sin had to be committed in a sinless environment since this was the first sin.

The ball had to start somewhere and someplace, I agree.

This does not however tie us down to a Fundamentalist take it as you read it understanding of Genesis. I doubt very,very much if, for instance, Pope Francis, would understand it this way...


'At the beginning of the Second Vatican Council in 1962, the preliminary document on the sources of revelation sent out by the Holy Office before the council was rejected and sent back by Pope John XXIII for thorough rewriting. "The Historical Truth of the Gospels" - Instruction of the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission (1964) became the basis of the final Vatican II document on Scripture Dei Verbum, in Latin, or "Word of God," written in 1965 (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 1965).
The Biblical Commission approach steered Catholics away from a literalist approach to the Bible stating:

The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.​

That is about as strong a statement we can get from the Church about fundamentalism and the potential of abusing the Bible to get simplistic answers to complex questions.
Dei Verbum affirms that the books of Scripture "Teach firmly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted to put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (DV 3:11).
The emphasis must be placed upon the words "for the sake of our salvation." Inerrancy of the Bible is relevant only insofar as it teaches us the truth about God and God’s plan for our lives. The Bible is not to be read as a text book of natural science or history. Biblical inerrancy does not pertain to those things that are not matters of salvation. Dei Verbum urges the interpreters of Sacred Scripture: "in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, to carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words" (DV 3:12). The Church gives guidance on Biblical interpretation and fosters good critical Biblical scholarship to do that. '

 

Jose, Thank you for the response, again. You are very generous in sharing your knowledge in these matters. God Bless

 

Jose, it does not matter if dinosaurus were cold or warm bloodied. What matters is a step-up from cold-bloodied creature ( previous reptile, or whatever) to a warm-bloodied. What kind of creature it is in a chain ( IF it is a chain and not parallel lines) - does not paly a role for the principle.

Can you, please, repost the link for Mary's Child - the one wich has nothing to do with Dawkins, and the one which clearly has been viewed only by me

 

Dear Jimmyiz,

Yes, but I do not agree with the idea that the Church banned Darwin. Darwin never said that there was not room for God.
My arguments is with everyone who, only moved by religious believe, says that evolution is nothing but an invention by atheist to kill God.
My argument is with those who, not knowing a word about biology, dare to criticize science. My argument is with those that make the huge mistake to say the earth is 6000 years old.
My argument is, finally, with those trying to convince me that I have to leave reason aside when God was the One giving me the brain to use it.

 

The article deals with the idea that we do not know if really this was so.

Actually this is the same that to wonder how it is possible that fish and mammals could have a common ancestor. And yes, according to evolution theory, they have it. It is all a matter of graduate change and I do not see a problem with it. I explained with the example of the letters before.

 

I post again the video here.

 

That is exactly what mightg be wrong, btw - they might not have a common ancestor, if evolution works not in a straightforward linear way but in parallel and with interlinks.
thouch the theory with a common ancestor, being it the principle of DNA, does not contradict initial God's creation.

 

And what case is it that you rest? The assumption that it is an inferior intellect that questions the long ages of the earth theory? I think my son alone could slap enough "anomalies" up here to keep you busy for while on the topic. He is on this forum, maybe I'll ask him to engage.

As I said before, "the wisdom of men is folly" (1 Corinthians 3:19). ...But many of us men certainly think highly of our collective intellects.

 

Who is your son Jon? Yes, indeed I am nosy!

 

Were you all aware that Moses was given the book of Genesis? Are we to assume that he was lying?

I am not entirely silly, I know that the apple just helps to explain that they didn't remain in The Heavenly Father's will.

We are all tested in this. The angels are. Mary was. Indeed Christ was. They restored grace. We are trying to live by God's will. The test as to whether we will be able to live in Heaven or not. Where God's will is done everywhere. Where there is true peace etc..

But, with the evolution theory. How then do you explain the fall of man? When did this happen? Adam and Eve (or the first two humans if you prefer) Had full knowledge of God. They had all the gifts. They saw things in truth. They were not aware of good and evil (as it never existed in their world,) until they did their own will at the instigation of satan.. yes he tempted them as he does us all...

How does evolution tie in with this truth??

Adam (First man) was given guardianship over the earth. When they fell the whole of nature fell, then sickness etc came creeping in. This is our faith as we are taught it.

How does this other theory tie in with that?

Insearch, thank you, I hold my hands up, I am not a biologist. However, I do know God's truth, and I think that we would have a problem reconciling evolution to the Fall of man..

Also,, men are given a soul. Animals are not. At which point did God decide we were ready to receive our souls???

I am interested in God's truth first as He is indeed Truth.

 

I thing the key is trying not to understand the fact literally. The same as one cannot read literally that God made everything in 6 days.
How and what and when that happens we were no able to find but I do not see any problem with the evolution of man and that at some point God elevated him to a different category and let him just go to his old situation after the fall when God told man that he will die. For me is the only way to reconcile what we know from science and from faith. I can imagine that by means of divine intervention men got preternatural characteristics. I could also even speculate that this divine intervention was operating on a product of evolution. But this is pure speculation.

 

Jose. I am not reading it literally but the fact remains. Man fell from grace and needed salvation. The whole reason why Christ came. Man had full knowledge of God before the fall.. This is fact..

How do you reconcile this with your theory?

I am very aware of the fact that a day can be a 1000 years with God etc..

But, we have the basic truths of our faith. How do yo reconcile this..

Are you saying that the fall etc and the need for salvation and the patriarchs shouldn't be taught in RCIA etc..

What then is left?

 

Read, please, carefully my last post.

 

Sorry Jose.. I have done..

That is where the argument for evolution and faith get a bit stuck from what I can see. I cannot think at any point that man walked around without a soul, or that he came from animals..

 

And you can accept that when all animals and plants were around man was made out of mod? Have you thought how comes that man has the characteristics of an animal? Why do we have exactly the same organs and genetic background as our cousins the monkeys? Why did God not made man definitively different? Why are we sooo similar to animals if we were created separately? Sorry, I think the burden of proof lies with you.

 

But we are not similar. We can reason. We have the power to forgive. We are able to look back at the past and look forward to the future whilst living in the present. Do animals have this ability?

We have a soul.

The burden of proof doesn't lie with me Jose. This doesn't fit in with my faith, so I am more than happy to drop it.

Look at our world, how amazing it is.. God created this yes? So is it so difficult to know that He can make people and place them here? That they don't have to evolve?

Many times over scientists have got it wrong. At one time everyone thought there was nothing about the sky etc.. But they were proven wrong.

Another few years from now scientists could say... Oh.............. we were wrong about that............. We have new proof............ Here is how it happened..

 

Father John Hardon's, SJ, Catholic Dictionary http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm
EVOLUTION

The theory that something was or is in a state of necessary development. Materialistic evolution assumes the eternal existence of uncreated matter and then explains the emergence of all living creatures, of plants, animals, and human beings, both body and soul, through a natural evolutionary process. This is contrary to Christian revelation. Theistic evolution is compatible with Christianity provided it postulates the special divine providence as regards the human body and the separate creation of each human soul.