Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah why is it that whenever we discuss evolution some people have to go back to the accusation that we’re all atheists? I’m Catholic and it’s acceptable for a Catholic to believe in it and I do.Remember you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution... there are Christian scientists in the very thread who accept evolution.
You're not assuming the modern human genome evolved from the modern chimp genome, are you?But the real question is: how many of those differences had to be functional to account for the profound anatomical, cognitive, and behavioural differences between humans and chimps?
It most certainly is. A single copying event can account for thousands of base pair differences. Are you aware of CNVs?The concern isn’t that all changes are one-at-a-time
You're just repeating your error of assuming that all the mutations must be beneficial. How many of the differences are in sequence types like microsats, or retrotransposons for example?or all beneficial, it’s that beneficial mutations must become fixed in the population, which takes time and reproductive cost.
Sir, this is a science subfora.
You're right that interpretation has varied throughout history, sometimes with serious consequences. But differing interpretations don't mean all interpretations are equally valid. The goal is to interpret Scripture faithfully and consistently, using context, genre, and the original languages. It’s not about claiming personal authority, but about seeking truth with humility.
Yeah why is it that whenever we discuss evolution some people have to go back to the accusation that we’re all atheists? I’m Catholic and it’s acceptable for a Catholic to believe in it and I do.
If intelligent humans can’t produce life from non-life or build a human from scratch, that highlights just how incredibly complex life is. If even intelligence struggles with this, how much more unlikely is it that blind, unguided processes, without any mind or purpose, could do it by chance?
Randomness has no intelligence, yet we’re told it produced birds, humans, dogs, fish, and everything else.
But you do have intelligence. So, if unguided chance can supposedly create a leaf, go ahead, make a leaf from raw, non-living matter. Start there.
From your world perspective. Not from the bibles perspective.
If evolution is correct, then the foundation of the bible is a lie. Death was in the world before Adam sinned.
Also, Jesus would not have been telling the truth when He said that He made them male and female. So, He did not make sludge that evolved.
By giving evolution the credit, we take the Glory away from God and give it to the creatures of the earth. We say it was the creature that made itself into what it is today.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures."
Many people profess to believe but in the end, they do not even trust the very foundation of God's word. Genisis. They say the creation account cannot be trusted and that it was simply poetic. So, they suppress the truth of what is written in the Bible with a lie. In God's creation, there is evidence that God made everything, and God has made this known to all men. When you give creation the glory instead of God, it is like you are worshipping the creation instead of the creator. You profess to know God, but you are not giving honour and thanks to Him. Instead, in your own wisdom, professing to be wise, you give honour and thanks to the birds, four-footed animals and crawling creatures because they evolved. That is really wrong. The first commandment is that you shall have no other Gods before Him. The second is that you shall not make any idols. If you do make an idol, you will then give it glory. And this is what biologists do with evolution. They give glory to the creation instead of the creator. They say it was the creation that got us where we are today; we all evolved. So, in their own wisdom, they elevate evolution over God.
Tell that to evolutionist, they would say evolution doesn't need God, is a process that does its thing alone and no need no God.
Why you think scientists make science, because they have a personal experience inside, God can be as real as anything else.
Not at all. I’m aware that both are said to have evolved from a common ancestor. My point is simply that the functional genetic differences, whatever their origin, must be significant enough to explain the vast gap between humans and chimps in anatomy, cognition, and behaviour. That’s a high bar for random mutations to clear.You're not assuming the modern human genome evolved from the modern chimp genome, are you?
Yes, I’m aware of CNVs (copy number variations) and other large-scale mutations. But the concern isn’t just the quantity of changes, it’s about the functionality of those changes. Even if thousands of base pairs change at once, how many of them are beneficial, coordinated, and preserved without disrupting existing systems? It's not just about generating variation, but producing integrated, functional innovation.It most certainly is. A single copying event can account for thousands of base pair differences. Are you aware of CNVs?
I'm not assuming all mutations must be beneficial, only that the key functional differences driving major anatomical and cognitive changes would need to be. Differences in neutral regions like microsatellites or retrotransposons don’t explain the development of complex traits. The real challenge is whether enough functional changes can arise, become fixed, and coordinate to produce the profound differences we see.You're just repeating your error of assuming that all the mutations must be beneficial. How many of the differences are in sequence types like microsats, or retrotransposons for example?
A good question could be asked, "Are those who do not believe God's word really Christians"? -This is an important question that we should ask ourselves.It's an easier argument to ignore. If everyone you are arguing with is a faithless atheist then who cares what they claim? My favourite statistic is that in most of the west, evolution accepting Christians outnumber atheists of all varieties.
You're right, evolution and abiogenesis are technically separate topics. But they’re still deeply connected: evolution requires life to already exist. So, the question remains, where did that life come from?But that wouldn't prove that evolution is factual, just that humans are able to create life from non-life. It'd still be something you and others would rail against, since it would literally be playing God.
It's also not something that evolution claims at all, since evolution is how life evolved to fit the environments life was already in. Origins is not evolution and evolution is not origins.
I’m here because truth matters, and if the foundation of our faith is being reinterpreted in ways that undermine it, that’s worth addressing. It’s not about resisting evidence; it’s about how we interpret that evidence. God's creation doesn’t contradict His Word; both speak truth, and I believe they must align.And you're welcome to believe that, but you are wrong. The only people who have a problem with evolution are Biblical literalists like yourself, which really leaves the question... why are you even bothering with all of this? It's obvious that your mind isn't going to be changed by evidence, even when God's own creation shows that He used evolution otherwise it wouldn't be in the world. So why are you even here?
You're right, evolution and abiogenesis are technically separate topics. But they’re still deeply connected: evolution requires life to already exist. So, the question remains, where did that life come from?
If life couldn't have arisen without intelligent input, that has major implications for whether purely naturalistic explanations are sufficient. The complexity we observe in even the simplest life forms raises legitimate questions about whether mindless processes alone can account for it, from origin through development.
I’m here because truth matters, and if the foundation of our faith is being reinterpreted in ways that undermine it, that’s worth addressing. It’s not about resisting evidence; it’s about how we interpret that evidence. God's creation doesn’t contradict His Word; both speak truth, and I believe they must align.
If evolution requires death before sin, then it changes the entire redemptive framework of Scripture. That’s not just a side issue; it touches the Gospel itself. I'm not here to argue for argument’s sake, but to stand on what I believe is the plain meaning of Scripture and encourage others to think carefully about where their worldview ultimately leads.
Evolution, strictly defined, deals with changes in existing life forms over time. But that doesn't mean the origin of life is irrelevant to the broader discussion. If evolution is a natural, unguided process, then the same framework is typically assumed for how life began, namely, that it arose through natural means (abiogenesis). That's why these two ideas are often treated together: they both aim to explain life without intelligent input.Life on earth could have been started through abiogenesis. Life on earth could have been started through genetic material from outer space coming here. Life on earth could have been started by God, Odin, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any number of deities from across the world. That doesn't change the fact that evolution, as a concept, only talks about how lifeforms change in response to environmental pressures.
Yes, they are connected, but the one does not need to follow the other.
Firstly, I want to clarify something: I’m not claiming to have "my truth". I believe in the truth, as revealed by God in Scripture and confirmed in what He has made. The issue isn’t about ignoring evidence; it’s about how we interpret it. All evidence is interpreted through a framework. You’re interpreting it through a naturalistic lens, one that assumes no divine intervention, while I’m interpreting it through the lens of God’s revealed Word.But it's not THE truth that matters to you though. It's YOUR truth that matters, and your truth is solely focused on your singular and person interpretation of the Bible. You say God's creation doesn't contradict His word, but you say that His creation is in error since His creation clearly shows that evolution occurred. We have the genetic and fossil evidence to back it up, which means that God's creation show it.
Why does the Catholic Church, wider Protestant churches or even a good half of the Orthodox Church accept evolution as scientific fact if it goes against Scripture?
The message of redemption in Christ and God does not hinge on whether the story of Genesis is shown to be false through the evidence, and it does show that it's false, but it's easy to get them to coexist when you accept that Genesis is a story written by Hebrews, the Jews, to explain their place in the world and how they got there in a time when no-one knew virtually anything about the world around them.
Because we want to find out how things work. ‘Godidit’ is not a scientific answer.Why you think scientists make science,
Evolution, strictly defined, deals with changes in existing life forms over time. But that doesn't mean the origin of life is irrelevant to the broader discussion. If evolution is a natural, unguided process, then the same framework is typically assumed for how life began, namely, that it arose through natural means (abiogenesis). That's why these two ideas are often treated together: they both aim to explain life without intelligent input.
The suggestion that life could have come from anywhere, space, God, Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, only reinforces the fact that we don’t actually know how life began. But that’s precisely the issue: the origin of life is foundational. If mindless matter could not have produced the information, machinery, and function we see in even a “simple” cell, then that puts serious pressure on the idea that unguided processes can account for all of life.
Abiogenesis is not just a separate topic; it’s a necessary prerequisite for naturalism to be a complete explanation. If it fails, and intelligent design is required at the beginning, then the door is wide open to consider whether intelligence is also needed in the development of life, not just its origin.
Firstly, I want to clarify something: I’m not claiming to have "my truth". I believe in the truth, as revealed by God in Scripture and confirmed in what He has made. The issue isn’t about ignoring evidence; it’s about how we interpret it. All evidence is interpreted through a framework. You’re interpreting it through a naturalistic lens, one that assumes no divine intervention, while I’m interpreting it through the lens of God’s revealed Word.
When you say that “creation clearly shows evolution occurred,” that’s not an observation; it’s an interpretation. The fossil record, genetic similarities, and variation are real data, but they can be interpreted differently depending on one’s presuppositions. I’m not saying God’s creation is in error; I’m saying our interpretations of it can be, especially when they contradict the plain reading of Scripture.
Regarding the widespread acceptance of evolution among denominations: Yes, many Christians today do accept evolution. But truth isn’t decided by consensus. Church history is full of moments where the majority view was wrong. The fact that some churches have adopted theistic evolution doesn’t prove it’s biblical; it shows how influential cultural and scientific assumptions can be, even accepted in theology.
Now, about Genesis being “a story” to explain ancient Israel’s place in the world: that’s one view, but not the one Jesus held. He referred to Adam and Eve as real people (Matthew 19:4–6) and linked marriage, sin, and even His own mission to them. Paul bases core doctrines, like the resurrection and our need for redemption, on the literal events of Genesis (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15). If sin didn’t enter through one man, then why did Christ need to die?
So yes, if evolution requires death before sin, then it reshapes the entire Gospel. Death becomes a normal part of creation rather than the result of the Fall. That undermines the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice, which came to defeat death (1 Corinthians 15:26).
I'm not here to win a debate, but to stand where I believe God’s Word plainly speaks. This matters not just because I believe Genesis is true, but because what we believe about origins ultimately affects how we view God, sin, salvation, and even the nature of Christ’s return.
The Catholic Church does not accept evolution as scientific fact.Why does the Catholic Church, wider Protestant churches or even a good half of the Orthodox Church accept evolution as scientific fact if it goes against Scripture?
The Catholic Church does not accept evolution as scientific fact.
You asked not to be reported for your offensiveness, and we have been patient with you because theological disputations are mostly off topic for this forum, but I think you have just used up your last chance. You don't own the Bible and are in no position to dictate to others what they must believe about it.But it is about whether you believe the word of God or not.
No it doesn’t. Until God is established it cannot be eliminated.Eliminating God as a possibility goes against scientific method.
A good question could be asked, "Are those who do not believe God's word really Christians"? -This is an important question that we should ask ourselves.
So, the statistics you give may be badly misinformed about Christians.
I know many people who claim to be Christian, but you would not be able to see it at all in their lives.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?