The Vatican says Evolution is right!?!?!

[St Francis]

So if I ask you: What is the image and likeness of God?

God is pure spirit.
Man is the only creature that has an immortal spirit.
That is how we are in the image of God.

 

[John]

So if I ask you: What is the image and likeness of God?

God is pure spirit.
Man is the only creature that has an immortal spirit.
That is how we are in the image of God.

Jesus was also God while he was human correct? So why come as Human, why not Ape if the human race is all one blurred continuum.

 

[St Francis]

Did you get that out of MY post ????

 

[John]

I am just saying. IMHO its thinking like that that allows room for evolution thinking, a clear heresy. Again In my honest opinion.

 

[stranger]

So if I ask you: What is the image and likeness of God?

God is pure spirit.
Man is the only creature that has an immortal spirit.
That is how we are in the image of God.

Hi St Francis,

Are we trying to unpack what the image and likeness of God is or who it is?

 

[Gabe]

So if I ask you: What is the image and likeness of God?

God is pure spirit.
Man is the only creature that has an immortal spirit.
That is how we are in the image of God.

Jesus was also God while he was human correct? So why come as Human, why not Ape if the human race is all one blurred continuum.

I'm guessing (IF evolution were to be fact) that Christ would not have come to us humans as an Ape because He may have found it a little difficult to speak in the human tongue (due to Apes limited vocal skills) and also because He probably would not have been allowed to enter any Jewish Temples. :D

 

[St Francis]

God is pure spirit.
Man is the only creature that has an immortal spirit.
That is how we are in the image of God.

Hi St Francis,
Are we trying to unpack what the image and likeness of God is or who it is?

I think so. Sranger said that "the image and likeness of God is the image and likeness of Jesus Christ." Unless I'm mistaken, I think some of us are trying to establish that the creation of man "in God's image" took place before the incarnation, therefore the image of Christ could not be the image that man was created in. Even though the "Son" has existed for all eternity, the man Jesus Christ did not.

 

[francisdesales]

I am just saying. IMHO its thinking like that that allows room for evolution thinking, a clear heresy. Again In my honest opinion.

What parts of "evolution" are heresy? We see examples of micro-evolution right before our eyes. I think if we admit that God is behind evolution, whatever that means, how is this "heresy"? If we admit that God created Adam and Eve as a culmination of evolutionary processes, how is that heresy? Please explain where the Bible or the Church tells us infallibly that Genesis one and two must be taken literally?

Thanks

 

[Rick W]

I'm wondering if the angels and creatures in heaven evolved also. If not then why must God "create" the physical through evolution but not the heavenly? If so then that would imply mutation among the spiritual.
And if the two realms, spiritual and physical, were created differently then where is the evidence in scripture to support the idea? On what basis would "created" hold separate meanings for the physical and spiritual other than in the minds of men to support their wisdom concerning God's Creation?
The fish to feed the multitudes... were they created or brought forth by another means? If you were there and didn't believe the fish were created what age would you conclude the fish to be? Or is this miracle simply a story with "feeding" being an allegorical term?
Was Eve created after Adam or not? Scripture says so. If not then where did she come from or was both Adam and Eve also just a story? If she was around why did God have to give us the idea that she didn't exist when she did already? If a story/myth then were Cain and Abel stories also with a mythical father/mother? Or Seth?
Who was Adam's father if evolution? Surely he would not be or look much different than Adam. What made Adam so special that all of a sudden God feels the process is complete?
Like the fishes to feed the multitudes we would see age in Adam. We know where man really came from right? He didn't just appear out of nowhere because we know the stages a mature man must go through, conception, birth, infancy, adolescence and manhood. Same with the fishes... spawning, eggs or live bearer, fry and mature fish. Therefore the fish had age by all one could sense and deduce from past experience. Or do we come up with mythical ideas stretching beyond the time of creation of the fish, beyond the actual time of creation of Adam because we cannot grasp the concept of creation, something from nothing. Adam was mature therefore he had age because we all know where men come from regardless of what God tells us.
We know better right? We have more wisdom than the ancients, they were a backward people, an ignorant people and would not understand what we know to be truth. We know the real story and not the yarns spun by God because His people couldn't handle the truth at that time. We know our true beginnings not hidden in allegory, myth, metaphor and tall tales.
In reality we are looking far beyond the actual event of creation to come up with our own beginnings. We see history and age as we see history and age in the fish in our hand. That fish had history because meat is developed by ingestion of nutrients with processes of cellular growth. History is age and by all the evidence before us that fish or Adam or the universe didn't just appear out of nowhere. After all, one only needs to look at the evidence in one's hand.

 

[John]

I am just saying. IMHO its thinking like that that allows room for evolution thinking, a clear heresy. Again In my honest opinion.

What parts of "evolution" are heresy? We see examples of micro-evolution right before our eyes. I think if we admit that God is behind evolution, whatever that means, how is this "heresy"? If we admit that God created Adam and Eve as a culmination of evolutionary processes, how is that heresy? Please explain where the Bible or the Church tells us infallibly that Genesis one and two must be taken literally?

Thanks

Francis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgment of God, the present could not be adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation to proceed with scientific inquiry.


Today's intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of 'science' has been altered from "acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation" (1934 edition of Webster's New School dictionary) to "knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena"(1983 of Webster's Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that "truth" exists and emphasizes natural phenomena. By this modern definition God's intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility.

Truth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man's interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation.

The reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way:

1. The bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum.
2. The God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. ". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:27)
3. Would this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us ?
4. Belief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealings with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn't we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human's values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.

There is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement.

 

[John]

Okay, now sit down now, boys and girls - it's story time! Shhhh.... Once upon a time, billions of years ago, there was nothing. Suddenly, magically, the nothing exploded into something. That something is called hydrogen. Can you say "hydrogen?" I knew you could. This hydrogen eventually cooled down enough to condense into solid rock. It was magic rock. Inert and lifeless, but still magical. And then, magically, water formed in the sky above the rock. The waters rained on the rock for, oh, let's say billions of years. Some of the rock broke down into minerals, and these minerals washed into a pool of water.

Then one day some of these minerals magically formed into a kind of goo in the pool of water. Can you say "goo?" I knew you could. Well do you know what happened then? That's right! The goo magically became ALIVE. So anyway, this bit of magic goo magically found something to eat. Then, magically, it found another bit of magic goo to marry, and they had a whole bunch of magical little goos. Eventually - millions of years later - some of this goo grew up into all the plants and animals in the world around us. If it's alive, it came from that first bit of magic goo! Well, more time went on. Finally some of this goo magically evolved - can you say "evolved?" I knew you could - some of this goo magically evolved upwards and upwards, growing ever more advanced, bigger, stronger, smarter, until it became a kind of magical hairless ape with thumbs.

And do you know who those apes are? That's right! They're YOU and ME! We are the magic rock apes! And you know what else? Someday we'll evolve enough that we'll become the God we all know doesn't exist. Now take a nap.

 

[St Francis]

Nobody believes in evolution out of nothing, except atheists.

However, I see no contradiction in the fact that God created everything out of nothing & created man in his own image, and the facts of certain aspects of the evolutionary process.

 

[Rick W]

John,
We can't fathom creation, we have no laws to govern the mechanics of creation, we have no mathematical means to do so. All things must come from somewhere, that's our experience, that's what we know and see.
The conclusions we draw from observation is solidly based on past experience of where things come from. Nowhere can we point to such and such and say this appeared out of nowhere, not altered, not modified or not produced from something else. Our experiences coupled with physical evidence point to a time far beyond the actual event of creation because that's what we know, that's how we understand things. We extrapolate backwards to a time past creation since we don't know how things can be created that don't have age yet have the appearance thereof. Anything put in front of us must have come from somewhere and using our knowledge of the physical we have no other course than the deduce age through change of some kind whether chemical, thermal, electrical or evolutionary. All things must come from somewhere. And since things come from somewhere even on the molecular level all things consist of age.

 

[Rick W]

St Francis,
If you were in the multitude at the time Christ fed the people and didn't know or believe where the fish in your hand came from how old would you say it was?

 

[John]

We have ample evidence of micro evolution but we have zero for bacteria turning into humans.

 

[Rick W]

I think you're speaking of adaptation, enhancing a trait/function that already exists or the lose thereof.

Regardless, my point remains... extrapolating further back than the actual time of creation of the fishes or the universe. Those fish didn't have time to evolve, the people were hungry.

 

[St Francis]

St Francis,
If you were in the multitude at the time Christ fed the people and didn't know or believe where the fish in your hand came from how old would you say it was?

I don't see what that has to do with the Genesis creation narrative.

If you are asking me if God has the ability to create a world in 6 days that appears to be billions of years old, I would be forced to answer that He does have that capability.

But the question is not what He is able to do, the question is: What really happened. There is too much evidence, in my opinion, for anyone to seriously accept a literal 6-day creation. But, as I said, I must and do believe:

- God created everything out of nothing
- God created man in His own image
- Man fell from grace through defience of God
- God immediately set about to repair the ruptured relationship through His divine plan of salvtion

That is the essence of what the author of Genesis was trying to convey, and that is what we are called to believe

 

[one_lost_coin]

We have ample evidence of micro evolution but we have zero for bacteria turning into humans.

Good then keep the part that is true about the changes in bacteria it is no threat to the belief that God ordered His creation to allow for such changes.

That is also all the Catholic Church is saying.

I never saw a Chinese couple give birth to a Swedish child but I know that we all came from the same two parents. I also don't expect to find out that Adam and Eve will look Hungarian. I think its safe to say there have been some changes.

I once heard a pastor tell a joke about One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.â€Â

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this, let’s say we have a man making contest.†To which the scientist replied, “OK, great!â€Â

But God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.â€Â

The scientist said, “Sure, no problem†and bent down and grabbed himself a handful o dirt.

God just looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!â€Â

 

[John]

We have ample evidence of micro evolution but we have zero for bacteria turning into humans.

Good then keep the part that is true about the changes in bacteria it is no threat to the belief that God ordered His creation to allow for such changes.

That is also all the Catholic Church is saying.

I never saw a Chinese couple give birth to a Swedish child but I know that we all came from the same two parents. I also don't expect to find out that Adam and Eve will look Hungarian. I think its safe to say there have been some changes.

I once heard a pastor tell a joke about One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.â€Â

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this, let’s say we have a man making contest.†To which the scientist replied, “OK, great!â€Â

But God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.â€Â

The scientist said, “Sure, no problem†and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him an said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!â€Â

I love that Joke :

 

[stranger]

[quote="St Francis":9dq72umk]
God is pure spirit.
Man is the only creature that has an immortal spirit.
That is how we are in the image of God.

Hi St Francis,
Are we trying to unpack what the image and likeness of God is or who it is?

I think so. Sranger said that "the image and likeness of God is the image and likeness of Jesus Christ." Unless I'm mistaken, I think some of us are trying to establish that the creation of man "in God's image" took place before the incarnation, therefore the image of Christ could not be the image that man was created in. Even though the "Son" has existed for all eternity, the man Jesus Christ did not.[/quote:9dq72umk]

Come let us reason together:

1. man is created in the image and likeness of God.
2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
3. therefore man is created in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ.

Indeed 'the "Son" has existed for all eternity' so that when God said 'let us make man in our image and likeness' . . . I take it that the 'us' includes 'the Son of God', as well as the Father and the Spirit.