Creation or Evolution theories

Jose I enjoy your posts.

I like the idea of C too.. But I still think something had to start off in adult form to survive??

I know this is a really simple question, but to me it makes sense. How else could something have survived..

I have enjoyed watching you and Peter play 'ping pong' and it is lovely to see you post all this Jose. Thank you

 

I break my promise but I feel I have to answer this.

There is no way to know if the so called transitional fossil is really a direct ancestor of a descendant group. But, remember that are creationist arguing this way. I do not need transitional fossils. But if some body ask me why we know that birds are descendants from some type of dinosaurs, or somebody asking me to show him an morphological "intermediate" species I will show him Archaeopterix which show characteristics of the two big groups of animals. This is just a hint, not a prove. Of course, if those are ancestors of living animals today they should share some traits. The "missing link" is a creationist concept. I do not see why we need any "missing link". Just look at the tree in my previous post. This is a a continuous process. Look how the different branches are formed. How can you define them a missing link between, let say, Ibises and Herons?

Regarding your question "wouldn't there be a series of links and some still here today?" you answered yourself. Evolution is continuous. It would be very difficult to find species that did not evolve at all. That is why there are not proper evolutionary ancestors present today and that is the reason about the misunderstanding related to humans evolving from monkeys. All we can see are species that are related in a more or less degree with others.

 

Because adult evolved organisms did not appeared at once. First, unicellular, then multicellular, then sexual reproduction without "womb", then eggs, then mammal with placenta etc...

 

If one wants Adam, the first man to sound scientifically mannered, one has to call him common ancestor

 

Ahhhhh now I understand.. Thank you ..

Biology and geography are not my forte.

 

I don't have a problem with Adam and Eve at all. This was about the first beings who didn't want to serve God. They had the same cry as lucifer in the end I will not serve.

Sadly, each time we do our own will, we too cry out the same thing.. But we have an excuse. We have concupiscence as a direct result of the Fall. We don't have the same knowledge that Adam and Eve did and certainly not the fallen angels so ours sins wouldn't be deemed as serious as theirs.

 

Okay...I am just looking for the Reader's Digest version of all this not the science journal version.

So Jose, as I mentioned earlier, you believe that there was a evolutionary process that took place to where human forms came into being over this evolutionary time. But you also believe that God stepped in at some point and put souls into these human forms thus starting our walk with God as humans. From what I understand, this is what the Church also is open to so thus putting you in line with Church teaching. The way I also understand is that the Church is not open to the way Darwin taught in it's fullest because he left no room for a God the creator in this process.

Your argument is with the creationists who don't believe in this evolutionary process. They think God just created Adam out of nothing and poof he was there. No evolution involved.

Do I have all this correct?

 

Jose... I am the thorn in your side today. Forgive me. I am not being flippant, I am trying to understand this..

I have gone away and had a think (something I do more often than is believed ) But, if what you state is correct regarding evolution and not needing a womb etc.. When did the transition come about that a womb was needed, and ... if this come about.. Wouldn't it have meant (in a sense) that evolution took a step backwards? In in life going from independant to dependant..

I so know the above statement is going to appear very ignorant..

I don't however think we evolved from apes, I cannot imagine God doing this.

Also man was placed at the top of the list and was given a soul and guardianship over all the earth, so how could he have evolved from something lesser than himself?

 

I know that somebody will get upset if I post a video from Dawkins here.
But I will do it because he is talking about evolution and not about God and he does it better than me.
I insist, I only share his views on biology, I think he is wrong about the existence of God.

 

ha ha.. That man will eat more humble pie than me!

 

Jose,

I really appreciate your response and bringing this dialogue to the forum. I may not have been very clear in my question - part of which you can chalk up to my lack of scientific knowledge: but wouldn't species continue to evolve, hence we would have present today a series of links that provide visible proof of the evolution of a man from an ape (not fossil remains but living breathing links)? Just like if we have a vegetable garden and we have some tomatoes at various stages of ripeness. We know that they all began green but eventually ripened (though not all at the same time). I just cannot understand why, at some point, the ape species stopped evolving into man (and the same with regard to other species as well)? Like I said, I am not very educated on these matters.... so does my question make sense at all?

Thanks

 

And I believe there was a very recent discovery of a feathered "disnosaur" (bird) that puts into question the entire theory of the supposed ancient ancestor of today's birds not being a bird originally.

 

...and the entire "theory" is built upon a house of cards called "the long ages of the earth theory." Without the billions of years, these ideas crumble. And there is mounting, ignored evidence that the earth is much younger.

Ignored, because "faith" in evolution allows most of its "believers" to deny God, and decide for themselves what is good and evil. Sound familiar?

"Eating from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" means to know (decide) good and evil yourself, which WAS the fall, which when repeated now IS the same "deciding for ourselves what is good and evil".

There was no apple and snake in Eden.... It was an act of the will, initiated by satan and the other fallen angels, to use their creative gifts not in accordance with the Will of God the Father. And Eve then Adam were drawn into it.

 

This is where scientific explanations usually lose me. Science in my opinion seeks plausibility - that things could happen a certain way. So a "feathered" dinosaur is found and hence birds might have evolved from dinosaurs. Then some additional study will occur and, yes, birds definitively evolved from this species of dinosaur, that is, until, a different fossil is found that makes renders this unlikely. I am not anti-science but I do not believe science can provide explanations to the mysteries of God.

 

I might be mistaken, since my zoology is very far in the past, but as I remember, the main differnece between dinosaurs and birds are not feathers but the latter being homeothermic vs poikilothermic creatures, which is directly related also to the structure of their cardiovascular system and the type of methabolism involved.

actually a jump from poikilothermy to homeothermy is a huge one and requires an inteligent design, so to say( I do not see this process just as random - too much invoved)
if anybody wants to go through complicated matters, here it is:
http://facultyfiles.deanza.edu/gems/heyerbruce/B6A8Thermoreg.pdf

 

Jose did state earlier, and I have heard this that more and more scientists are realizing that there has to be something greater than themselves at work here and are becoming converted through their quest for science.

Unfortunately, there will always be those who don't want to believe in God regardless of whether they are highly educated or not. To believe in God is to challenge one's self, one's way of thinking/attitudes/behaviour/responsibilities etc..

 

Jose gave a great link on youtube for a BBC documentary which explains how evolutions and belief in God can coexist. It is long - an hour, but it is worth to spend that hour.

 

I would happily watch a documentary, but not one that involves Dawkins. He placed advertising on posters and on our buses stating that there was no God so I am not going to watch a documentary with him. I would rather hang on to my ignorance regarding biology etc..

It is not of a great importance to me to know ALL of these things. I am happy with my knowledge of God's salvation, the fact that He loves me and how He can draw all souls to Him through prayer and living out that prayer. This is my concern.

Some may recoil in horror when i say this, and that is ok lol.. I am an RCIA catechist. We go through the whole story of God's salvation in action, all the patriarchs etc.. right up to Christ and then go through the Mass and everything else that makes our Catholic faith what it is in so far as we can. (Of course we are continuously learning about our faith for as long as we live).

I know that Christ is the one who ministers in ALL the Sacraments and indeed we receive God in all of them. I find Christ in my Gospels. I find Mary in her love for God and her son, I learn from her humility and obedience.. even if I am a slow learner on these two.

But that is my WHOLE world. God is my WHOLE world. Everything else is a part of that relationship that I have with God if that makes sense.

This is all I need. This is my everything.

 

If Darwin lost his faith studying evolution, well this thread can be a little scary,...as I previously posted,..

We are obliged by faith to hold that Adam and Eve are two real historical persons. If there was no Adam, then:
a. there would be no original sin
b. we would not be in a fallen state
c. we would not need Baptism
d. we would not need to be reconciled to God by Christ
e. the Immaculate Conception, which preserved Mary from original sin, would be meaningless, null, and void.
Therefore, we must hold that both Adam and Eve existed as real historical persons, regardless of the assertions of any field of science. Furthermore, the dogmas taught by the Council of Trent explicitly require belief in Adam as the source of original sin, which we all inherit from him. So a denial of the historical existence of Adam and Eve implies a denial of several dogmas, indirectly.​

 

I posted this to insearch, but I meant to send this reply to you..If Darwin lost his faith studying evolution, well this thread can be a little scary,...as I previously posted,..

We are obliged by faith to hold that Adam and Eve are two real historical persons. If there was no Adam, then:
a. there would be no original sin
b. we would not be in a fallen state
c. we would not need Baptism
d. we would not need to be reconciled to God by Christ
e. the Immaculate Conception, which preserved Mary from original sin, would be meaningless, null, and void.
Therefore, we must hold that both Adam and Eve existed as real historical persons, regardless of the assertions of any field of science. Furthermore, the dogmas taught by the Council of Trent explicitly require belief in Adam as the source of original sin, which we all inherit from him. So a denial of the historical existence of Adam and Eve implies a denial of several dogmas, indirectly.​