Ask a Catholic

[metis]

In my own research, I have discovered something interesting about the claims for evolution. I am not speaking about adaptive changes within species as all living things exhibit this ability to adapt to their environment. Without it, creatures could be wiped out if there was some kind of alteration in climate or food source, so this "microevolution" as some call it, is clearly discernible in nature. BUT.....when it comes to "macroevolution" the story is very different. Science only has proof for adaptation, but when presenting "evidence" for "macroevolution", they resort to assumption and educated guesswork based on microevolutionary findings. IOW, they use one to prove the other when they have no real evidence that it happened that way. They are guessing that it "could have"...

Absolutely false beyond question. New species have been observed being formed, which is what "macro-evolution" is. Google "speciation" for many links that you can look up for yourself.

 

[roger1440]

God didn't need Ann to have the exact same Grace in order to give that Grace to mary.

Explain

 

[Deeje]

Absolutely false beyond question. New species have been observed being formed, which is what "macro-evolution" is. Google "speciation" for many links that you can look up for yourself.

All you have to do is see Wiki's entry on speciation and you will see that all the evidence is for adaptive changes within a species. You will never see one species evolving into another completely unrelated species. The fish were still fish...the flies were still flies.

What did Darwin observe on the Galapagos Islands? He saw species different to the ones on the mainland....but the birds were still birds...the tortoises were still tortoises....the iguanas were still iguanas. He saw adaptation, not organic evolution.

"Darwin's dilemma: Why do species exist?
In On the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin interpreted biological evolution in terms of natural selection, but was perplexed by the clustering of organisms into species. Chapter 6 of Darwin's book is entitled "Difficulties of the Theory." In discussing these "difficulties" he noted "Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" This dilemma can be referred to as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space.

Another dilemma, related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed," and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth." That clearly defined species actually do exist in nature in both space and time implies that some fundamental feature of natural selection operates to generate and maintain species."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Darwin asked " why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?"

So where are the intermediate forms that should exist if evolution is true? Why is the planet not riddled with their remains?

 

[Deeje]

Since God needed Mary to be obedient to him for her very special vocation as the mother of his only begotten son, he needed to stop her from falling in the mud puddle in the first place.

So, in the womb he preserve her from the stains off sin and from the inclination to sin, so that there would be a guarantee she would be obedient , not rebel, not get an abortion etc.

God didn't need Ann to have the exact same Grace in order to give that Grace to mary.

If Mary was without the stain of sin, then can you tell me why she and Joseph needed to present the prescribed offering at the temple after Jesus was born?

Luke 2:21-24:
"After eight days, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived.
22 Also, when the time came for purifying them according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to Jehovah, 23 just as it is written in Jehovah’s Law: “Every firstborn male must be called holy to Jehovah.” 24 And they offered a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of Jehovah: “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

The law stated....
"When the days of her purification for a son or a daughter are completed, she will bring a young ram in its first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering to the entrance of the tent of meeting, to the priest. 7 He will present it before Jehovah and make atonement for her, and she will be clean from her flow of blood. This is the law about the woman who gives birth to either a male or a female. 8 But if she cannot afford a sheep, she must then take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering, and the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”

Mary was "unclean" according to the law and needed to make a sin offering.

 

[Spiderman]

Explain

If God can create the heavens and the Earth, then he can create a fetus that has been purified, sanctified, filled with His Spirit, and molded to be obedient to him in all things, without the mother having gone through the exact same purification.

Ann may have gone through a very similar purification, it just might not have happened while she was in the womb of her mother

 

[metis]

All you have to do is see Wiki's entry on speciation and you will see that all the evidence is for adaptive changes within a species. You will never see one species evolving into another completely unrelated species. The fish were still fish...the flies were still flies.

What did Darwin observe on the Galapagos Islands? He saw species different to the ones on the mainland....but the birds were still birds...the tortoises were still tortoises....the iguanas were still iguanas. He saw adaptation, not organic evolution.

"Darwin's dilemma: Why do species exist?
In On the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin interpreted biological evolution in terms of natural selection, but was perplexed by the clustering of organisms into species. Chapter 6 of Darwin's book is entitled "Difficulties of the Theory." In discussing these "difficulties" he noted "Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" This dilemma can be referred to as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space.

Another dilemma, related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed," and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth." That clearly defined species actually do exist in nature in both space and time implies that some fundamental feature of natural selection operates to generate and maintain species."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Darwin asked " why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?"

So where are the intermediate forms that should exist if evolution is true? Why is the planet not riddled with their remains?

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, had thoughts to go into the ministry, but because of my interest in science, I ran across a conflict on this topic. When doing my undergrad studies, starting out originally in biology as my intended major, it was very clearly obvious that there had to be an evolutionary process that went well beyond "micro-evolution" because no other position made one iota of sense. I left that church, found another that didn't teach nonsense, and eventually went on into my graduate studies to go into anthropology, which I then taught for 30 years.

What you post above has been covered many, many times ad nauseum here, and it simply doesn't make sense. For example, all life forms are "transitional forms" because genetic changes never stop unless the species goes extinct. You might ask yourself why is it that geneticists the world over universally accept the basic ToE as an axiom? Do you really think that they're ignorant and/or dishonest?

There simply is no logical position other than the evolutionary process because there's no viable alternative hypotheses. How does one explain the emergence of new "forms" in the fossil record? Can't be because of God because, according to the Bible, He stopped creating at the end of the 6th day, nor is there any indication throughout scripture that He created any life forms after that.

So, no matter how one tries to look at it, there's only one viable and logical explanation, and that is the basic ToE.

 

[metis]

All you have to do is see Wiki's entry on speciation and you will see that all the evidence is for adaptive changes within a species. You will never see one species evolving into another completely unrelated species...

It seems that you make such a claim whereas the article even starts out saying the opposite, so did you actually read it? Here:
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which reproductively isolated biological populations evolve to become distinct species. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

The entire article refutes what you said above, so it begs the question how in the world did you miss that-- unless you never read it but claim that you did?

 

[Spiderman]

If Mary was without the stain of sin, then can you tell me why she and Joseph needed to present the prescribed offering at the temple after Jesus was born?

Luke 2:21-24:
"After eight days, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived.
22 Also, when the time came for purifying them according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to Jehovah, 23 just as it is written in Jehovah’s Law: “Every firstborn male must be called holy to Jehovah.” 24 And they offered a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of Jehovah: “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

The law stated....
"When the days of her purification for a son or a daughter are completed, she will bring a young ram in its first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering to the entrance of the tent of meeting, to the priest. 7 He will present it before Jehovah and make atonement for her, and she will be clean from her flow of blood. This is the law about the woman who gives birth to either a male or a female. 8 But if she cannot afford a sheep, she must then take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering, and the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”

Mary was "unclean" according to the law and needed to make a sin offering.

Jesus got baptized. Does that mean he was unclean?

What need did Jesus have to be baptized?

 

[Deeje]

Jesus got baptized. Does that mean he was unclean?

What need did Jesus have to be baptized?

Jesus underwent John's baptism after John protested that it wasn't right....he felt that Jesus should be the one baptizing him.

Matt 3:13-17:
"Then Jesus came from Galʹi·lee to the Jordan to John, in order to be baptized by him. 14 But the latter tried to prevent him, saying: “I am the one who needs to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me?” 15 Jesus replied to him: “Let it be this time, for in that way it is suitable for us to carry out all that is righteous.” Then he quit preventing him. 16 After being baptized, Jesus immediately came up from the water; and look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw God’s spirit descending like a dove and coming upon him. 17 Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”

Jesus' baptism was not for the remission of sins but to present himself to God, symbolically dying to his own will and being raised to do the will of his Father. This is the same baptism that all Christ's followers must undertake. It cannot be without absolute commitment because it comes with a vow or a promice to do God's will rather than our own, from that day forward.

Eccl 5:4-6:
"Whenever you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it, for he finds no pleasure in the stupid ones. What you vow, pay. 5 Better for you not to vow than to vow and not pay. 6 Do not allow your mouth to cause you to sin, and do not say before the angel that it was a mistake. Why make the true God indignant over what you say so that he has to destroy the work of your hands?"

Promises made to God are serious. Baptism is a promise.

 

[Deeje]

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, had thoughts to go into the ministry, but because of my interest in science, I ran across a conflict on this topic. When doing my undergrad studies, starting out originally in biology as my intended major, it was very clearly obvious that there had to be an evolutionary process that went well beyond "micro-evolution" because no other position made one iota of sense. I left that church, found another that didn't teach nonsense, and eventually went on into my graduate studies to go into anthropology, which I then taught for 30 years.

IOW you found a church that tickled your ears, telling you what you wanted to hear? (2 Tim 4:3, 4) When you listen to scientists spout off about evolution, its hard not to fall for the rhetoric which sounds for all the world like true science. But when you really examine what they say, all you find is supposition. There are no facts because they don't really exist except in the computer animations of the scientists which are presented as if they are facts.

What you post above has been covered many, many times ad nauseum here, and it simply doesn't make sense. For example, all life forms are "transitional forms" because genetic changes never stop unless the species goes extinct. You might ask yourself why is it that geneticists the world over universally accept the basic ToE as an axiom? Do you really think that they're ignorant and/or dishonest?

I know who rules this world and I know he wants to make God disappear in the minds of as many as he can. Deception is his MO. Do people who are deceived know that they are?
Even the scientists themselves probably have no idea how they are being used to discredit the Creator. Its not like they do this to spite God, but because they themselves have been deluded into thinking he doesn't exist. They can't see that they have swapped one "fantasy" for an equally unprovable "fantasy".

There simply is no logical position other than the evolutionary process because there's no viable alternative hypotheses. How does one explain the emergence of new "forms" in the fossil record? Can't be because of God because, according to the Bible, He stopped creating at the end of the 6th day, nor is there any indication throughout scripture that He created any life forms after that.

So, no matter how one tries to look at it, there's only one viable and logical explanation, and that is the basic ToE.

I find God's logic to be anything but inscrutable. I find no logic whatsoever in a theory that has no actual proof to back it up.
Organic evolution is taught as fact, couched in scientific jargon, and promoted as fact to the world. Scientists themselves are pressured into accepting it, fearful that their reputations will be ruined if they question it.

I found this YouTube Video that brings out some interesting points. Can you give his points a logical scientific counter argument?

 

[metis]

IOW you found a church that tickled your ears, telling you what you wanted to hear? (2 Tim 4:3, 4) When you listen to scientists spout off about evolution, its hard not to fall for the rhetoric which sounds for all the world like true science. But when you really examine what they say, all you find is supposition. There are no facts because they don't really exist except in the computer animations of the scientists which are presented as if they are facts.



I know who rules this world and I know he wants to make God disappear in the minds of as many as he can. Deception is his MO. Do people who are deceived know that they are?
Even the scientists themselves probably have no idea how they are being used to discredit the Creator. Its not like they do this to spite God, but because they themselves have been deluded into thinking he doesn't exist. They can't see that they have swapped one "fantasy" for an equally unprovable "fantasy".



I find God's logic to be anything but inscrutable. I find no logic whatsoever in a theory that has no actual proof to back it up.
Organic evolution is taught as fact, couched in scientific jargon, and promoted as fact to the world. Scientists themselves are pressured into accepting it, fearful that their reputations will be ruined if they question it.

I found this YouTube Video that brings out some interesting points. Can you give his points a logical scientific counter argument?

Listen, you can believe in whatever you want to believe in, and I frankly am not going to waste my time with you. Already, you've shown that you are willing to lie in regards to supposedly reading the link I provided you that you obviously could not have read, so that tells me I simply cannot trust whatever you may say next. Dishonesty has its effects, and you were dishonest on that accounting.

As previously mentioned, I came from a church like you appear to belong to, did the studying, realized that I was making a mistake, and I left that church for good. If you actually do the research, maybe you'll see the truth some day and maybe even seek out another church or religious body that doesn't teach blind faith devoid of reality.

Good luck and do some good studying for your sake.

 

[Demonslayer]

When you listen to scientists spout off about evolution, its hard not to fall for the rhetoric which sounds for all the world like true science. But when you really examine what they say, all you find is supposition

LOL

 

[PackJason]

This Deeje person is friggin' hilarious.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

IOW you found a church that tickled your ears, telling you what you wanted to hear? (2 Tim 4:3, 4)

How is this different from the denomination you chose?

I know who rules this world and I know he wants to make God disappear in the minds of as many as he can.

Why worship God if He can't even manage a single planet without losing it to someone far inferior?

I find no logic whatsoever in a theory that has no actual proof to back it up.

And the proof you are descended from some guy made out of dirt is ...?

 

[Deeje]

Well, I notice that the evolutionist here ran a mile when confronted with actual evidence of intelligent design.

Please watch the video and provide a scientific explanation as to why this guy is wrong....that's the challenge. Feigning disgust or laughing it off just won't cut it...

If the Catholic Church can cave on this issue, then it needs investigation. The truth needs to be told.

Where is your scientific refutation of the material contained in the video? Come on all you evolution supporters...lets hear your irrefutable evidence that evolution is true and intelligent design is wrong. Draw your sword...

 

[Deeje]

Listen, you can believe in whatever you want to believe in, and I frankly am not going to waste my time with you. Already, you've shown that you are willing to lie in regards to supposedly reading the link I provided you that you obviously could not have read, so that tells me I simply cannot trust whatever you may say next. Dishonesty has its effects, and you were dishonest on that accounting.

As previously mentioned, I came from a church like you appear to belong to, did the studying, realized that I was making a mistake, and I left that church for good. If you actually do the research, maybe you'll see the truth some day and maybe even seek out another church or religious body that doesn't teach blind faith devoid of reality.

Good luck and do some good studying for your sake.

This is a bit telling metis. All I asked for was science's counter arguments for the points raised in the video.....they must exist so can you provide them, or are you just going to storm off in a huff?

If I am dishonest then please show me how intelligent design is not more backed up by the evidence than evolution? I am all ears...educate me.

 

[PackJason]

Well, I notice that the evolutionist here ran a mile when confronted with actual evidence of intelligent design.

Please watch the video and provide a scientific explanation as to why this guy is wrong....that's the challenge. Feigning disgust or laughing it off just won't cut it...

If the Catholic Church can cave on this issue, then it needs investigation. The truth needs to be told.

Where is your scientific refutation of the material contained in the video? Come on all you evolution supporters...lets hear your irrefutable evidence that evolution is true and intelligent design is wrong. Draw your sword...

Wipe your chin.

 

[PackJason]

This is a bit telling metis. All I asked for was science's counter arguments for the points raised in the video.....they must exist so can you provide them

I can't watch the video because I'm at work, but I'm sure it's no different than any of the other dozens of pro-intelligent design videos that I've debunked in the past.

Ask me a specific point that the video makes and I'll gladly make a counter argument.

 

[metis]

This is a bit telling metis. All I asked for was science's counter arguments for the points raised in the video.....they must exist so can you provide them, or are you just going to storm off in a huff?

If I am dishonest then please show me how intelligent design is not more backed up by the evidence that evolution? I am all ears...educate me.

I did "educate" you with the Wikipedia link on "speciation", which you then turned around and lied when you said you had read it when even the first sentence of the article completely refuted what you claimed the article said. So, no, there simply is no reason why I would engage with someone who simply is acting in such a disingenuous manner and has an "agenda" that's devoid of both what the evidence has clearly indicated and even common sense itself-- all material entities appear to change over time and genes are material entities, period.

Sorry to come on this way, but I've seen this way too many times over my life, and it has the effect of really cheapening the religion or denomination that the person belongs to, thus obscuring the far more important messages of compassion and justice for all found in Christianity, Judaism, etc.

 

[metis]

If the Catholic Church can cave on this issue, then it needs investigation. The truth needs to be told.

This is an "Ask a Catholic" thread and not an "Ask About Evolution" thread, so please stop derailing the conversation here. There are plenty of threads that cover the latter.