More proof Evolution is not true

[FriendlyJosh]

I'm not insulting you, I'm pointing out that if you don't have a basic grasp of biology, you really aren't capable of discussing this topic.

You're absolutely right. So i'll cease discussing this topic, with you. Have a nice day.

 

[Aeneas]

You're absolutely right. So i'll cease discussing this topic, with you. Have a nice day.

I didn't say you should stop, but ok.

 

[ChiRho78]

Does that make you feel good, to insult and belittle myself? Hey I have an idea, instead of making such claims, how about instead we put your misunderstandings to the test, name one thing you feel is contradictory in The Bible, i'll be happy to look it up for you.

1st of all show me where my insult was, before you make such a claim.

2ndly as far as contradictions go, anwer what the other poster said already. there are two creation stories, and they both can't be correct because they contradict each other.

 

[FriendlyJosh]

Wow that is quite a rebuttal, google it [/sarcasm].

You are a perfect example to the danger of Sola scriptura.

Both insulting and there are NO contradictions in The Bible. I can see you and others misconception requires a thread dedicated to this. Until then do yourself and others a favor and stop posting over and over that there are contradictions because you're just posting misinformation.

 

[Aeyamar]

Both insulting and there are NO contradictions in The Bible. I can see you and others misconception requires a thread dedicated to this. Until then do yourself and others a favor and stop posting over and over that there are contradictions because you're just posting misinformation.

Do you believe in the real presence manifest in the Eucharist?

 

[chilehed]

More insults.

You find it insulting when someone observes the objective fact that you're ignoring contrary evidence and that you need to improve the level of your education?

Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution - Answers in Genesis
....

AIG??? REALLY??

BWAAAHAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHA.....!!!

ROTFLMHO!!!!

Poe.

 

[JesusIsTheWay33]

I will reiterate what I wrote on another page:

1. St Augustine wrote an entire book arguing against the literal interpretation of Genesis.
2. St Augustine we believe to be a saint in heaven.
3. A saint must believe everything necessary for salvation.
4. Is it, therefore, necessary for salvation to believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis?
5. If it is not necessary for salvation, what is the matter?

As I also said on the previous pages, I am guessing that you still have both a right hand and a right eye. Yet Jesus clearly tells us that if they cause you to sin you should cut them off. I am guessing that as a male, one or the other has at some point caused you to sin. Why do you still have them, then?

 

[FriendlyJosh]

You find it insulting when someone observes the objective fact that you're ignoring contrary evidence and that you need to improve the level of your education?



AIG??? REALLY??

BWAAAHAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHA.....!!!

ROTFLMHO!!!!

Poe.

I'm happy I amuse you because that's all i'll be doing, I won't be having a meaningful discussion with you, I made it clear before, and i'll make it clear again to everyone reading, if you want to be disrespectful, insulting, immature, etc...you're free to do so, but at that point, at that very moment, I will no longer take you serious or engage in meaningful conversation with you. And could I improve my level of education? absolutely, who couldn't?

 

[Aeyamar]

 

[Chrystal-J]

As far as evolution... Man was made in God's image and since God doesn't "evolve", neither does man.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

 

[ebia]

As far as evolution... Man was made in God's image and since God doesn't "evolve", neither does man.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

That logic doesn't work.

 

[Michie]

My main question to those that say Adam & Eve were not literal humans is the geneology that follows after them. I have never gotten any answer.

 

[Chrystal-J]

That logic doesn't work.

In what way?

 

[Chrystal-J]

My main question to those that say Adam & Eve were not literal humans is the geneology that follows after them. I have never gotten any answer.

You won't get an answer, because they don't have one.

 

[ebia]

In what way?

Image does not mean identical to. That much ought to be so obvious it doesn't need pointing out.

We make mistakes - God does not
We reproduce - God does not
we evolve - God does not
We are created - God is not
We are limited - God is not
...

One might take your logic and say:
We are in God's image, God is not made from mud, therefore Genesis 2 is wrong.

 

[Michie]

You won't get an answer, because they don't have one.

Seems to point in that direction doesn't it?

 

[ebia]

My main question to those that say Adam & Eve were not literal humans is the geneology that follows after them. I have never gotten any answer.

Genealogies serve to make connections, and in the case of Genesis 5 to emphasize the power of death. They serve exactly the same purpose whether or not the characters near the beginning were historical individuals or not.

 

[Michie]

Genealogies serve to make connections, and in the case of Genesis 5 to emphasize the power of death. They serve exactly the same purpose whether or not the characters near the beginning were historical individuals or not.

I disagree. And quite honestly, I'm looking for Catholic commentary here. The same line of reasoning could be used in Jesus' genealogy.

 

[ebia]

I disagree. And quite honestly, I'm looking for Catholic commentary here.

people have pointed out Catholic scholars from Augustine to Benedict who don't take the Genesis creation accounts literally.

Quoting in depth Catholic commentaries is more tricky because they're less widely available than non-Catholic ones, but in the world of serious biblical scholarship there is very little difference - they all use and cite each other.

The same line of reasoning could be used in Jesus' genealogy.

A similar line of reasoning does happen in Jesus' genealogy. Matthew sets it up in groups of 14 for instance. He throws in Rahab to make a theological point. And so on.

 

[Joshua G.]

Evolution is an established fact.

As one who is not threatened by the prospect of Evolution, it factually is NOT an established fact. It is a theory. There is a big difference. You don't hear otherwise from the Scientific community by and large because those who say otherwise for scientific reason are virtually blacklisted from major universities. This is well documented... not moon-landing conspiracy theories.