Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on Pinterest Connect on Google Plus Connect on LinkedIn Connect on YouTube

Do Catholics Affirm Evolution or Creationism?

June 23, AD 2013 35 Comments

This clarified the question for me, and I hope it helps in your understanding of this issue.

In a document, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God from the International Theological Commission, prepared by a subcommission from 2000-2002, approved by ballot, and given permission by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, for publication, evolution – as a science – is indeed affirmed.

The document is a development of the doctrine of imago Dei, the human person created in the image of God. It was intended to orient our reflection on the meaning of human existence in the face of the challenges that accompany the increased ability to control the forces of nature with technology. In Chapter Three, “In the Image Of God: Stewards Of Visible Creation” the first section addresses “science and the stewardship of knowledge” and it is here Pope John Paul II is quoted from his 1996 “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution.”

“[N]ew knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.”

What does it say?

This document affirms the “widely accepted scientific account” that the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and that it has been cooling and expanding since then.

It affirms the gradual emergence of conditions necessary for the formation of the atom, then galaxies and stars, and about 10 million years later, planets.

It affirms the formation of the solar system and of earth about 4.5 billion years ago, and the emergence of life and then the first organism’s dwelling some 3.5-4 billion years ago.

It affirms that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, and that it is “virtually certain” that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

Finally, it affirms that there is “converging evidence” from the physical and biological sciences that some theory of evolution accounts for the diversification of life on earth, acknowledging controversy over the pace of mechanism.

The story of human origins is complex, but the document affirms that physical anthropology and molecular biology make a “convincing case” for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a “humanoid population of common genetic lineage.” The decisive factor in human origins was a “continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.” With the introduction of the “uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity” mankind began a social and cultural evolution.

This publication undoubtedly affirms evolution.

Did it affirm creationism?

Well, that requires definition. In one sense, yes of course it does. In another sense, no it does not.

This document is in continuity with the teaching of Pope Pius XII in the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis where he also warns that “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” theories attached to the science are incompatible with the Catholic faith. “Creationism” in the sense of a literal interpretation of a 6,000 year old earth that denies what sciences has revealed about human origins is rejected, a spiritualist theory. Materialist and reductionist theories are also rejected because science alone, while it may reveal a story of physical origins, cannot say anything about the “ontological leap” that fully explains the “conception of man” as created in the image of God.

Philosophy and theology are required for an adequate understanding. Why does the Church have an interest in understanding who the human person is? In part, so that the person “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument” to the species or to the society. What that means in plain language is that people are people, not objects.

A statement at the beginning of this section merits examination.

“Without embracing a discredited concordism, Christians have the responsibility to locate the modern scientific understanding of the universe within the context of the theology of creation.”

Concordism is the error of taking scripture for scientific fact, which refers to “creationism” in the literal sense. This statement says “without embracing discredited concordism,” clearly a rejection of such theories. But the statement goes on to say that Christians have the “responsibility” to see science in the context of the “theology of creation.” That is to say, we must see science as the study of creation.

Required view of universe?

This section of the document goes on to explain that the human person is made to be in communion with the uncreated Persons of the Blessed Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a life of grace available to all human persons which unites us as the human race. It is thus inappropriate to speak of the Creator as an impersonal force or energy that created by imperative rather than free will. Creation ex nihilo is the act of a personal agent, acting freely and intelligently, thus the human person, made in the image of God, also has free will and intelligence. That is what the title of the section refers to, that this “stewardship of knowledge” requires us to view the scientific understanding of the created universe within the Christian vision.

With respect to evolution, Catholic tradition affirms, in keeping with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, that God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God enabled creatures (organisms) to act according to their natures and to bring about the end he intends. God sustains all those secondary causes in the unfolding of the natural order. If there is a degree of purpose and design revealed by empirically observable developments, as the Intelligent Design theories say, Catholic theologians see that discovery as an affirmation,  rather than proof, entailed by faith in Divine Providence. We know the universe was created by God out of nothing by faith in Divine Revelation, not by science, and we understand the science within the context of that faith.

Regardless of what you think about evolutionary science, understanding that ordering is critical.

Hello, and thank you for reading. I am a wife, mother of seven, and joyful convert to Catholicism. I write from my office in a 100-year-old restored Adirondack mountain lodge. Read more about me here, with pictures. Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter. "Like" my Facebook page Science Was Born of Christianity to follow updates about my book. God bless you!

If you enjoyed this essay, subscribe below to receive all my essays by email.

Thank you for supporting me!

  • Rationalist1

    I’m just curious and this is not meant as a gotcha question but how do you view the question of ensoulment in the human species. Beyond being the one point where the Catholic view of evolution differs from the secular, I’m just curious what Catholics believe happened. Were human souls breathed into two humans at that time, were souls breathed into all humans at the time. When did “original sin” occur and was it by one person (or a couple) or by the entire human race?

    • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

      These are excellent questions, hard questions, but necessary ones, I think.

      Pope Pius XII, in the Encyclical Humani generis, taught “The Catholic Faith obliges us to hold firmly that souls are immediately created by God.” It’s not a defined dogma, but it’s a doctrine of high certitude. So we believe that every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God at the moment of its unification with the body, the first one and all thereafter.

      As to how many souls were united to bodies in the origin of man, only one. It is De fide (highest certitude) dogma that the First Man was created by God, and it follows that the whole human race stems from one single human pair and thus that the whole human race is united. We reject polygenism (multiple first humans). The teaching of the unity of the human race is again not dogmatic, but it is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption.

      If it is true that there was a “humanoid population of common genetic lineage” and only one man was ensouled, then there would need to be some explanation of how that one man differed from all the un-ensouled rest of them. The document above represents theological opinion, but strong opinion.

      I would say (so my personal lowly opinion here) that theology would be silent on this question until science proved that this was the case, and theology might be silent on it even after that because it’s not logically inconceivable that one man was ensouled while the rest were not.

      Dave Nichols at Strange Notions (I think it was him) asked me about this and I said, “I don’t know.” That’s one reason I took notice of this ITC document. It offers some explanation.

      • Loreen Lee

        If it is any help, hopefully a credible distinction, I read some time ago, forget where, that the a definition of ‘human’ is that the indiidual is in the species and the species is in the individual. The account I read put forth the argument that this is what distinguishes humanity from other forms of ‘organic’ life. (i.e. homo sapient, or capable of ‘judgment’.). We all share in a common ‘essence’. The Adam and Eve are original in that sense. I have found it more difficult to describe this characterization of the story of Adam and Eve, with that of Jesus Christ, except it is held that through his divinity, we have the promise that we will come to ‘know’ (St. Thomas) God. So there is some logical consistency in this argument for Jesus Christ being throught of as the ‘new Adam’.within even this context. Please critique this comment if you feel it is appropriate, in the hope of developing further insight. Thank you.

        • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

          That makes sense I think: We all, as individuals, share a human nature. Someone has explained to me that we can hold that there was a first man and woman, but that the rest of the original sin story is allegorical. I don’t know about that, but it is something I’ve heard. That sounds a little like what you mean.

          St. Thomas cites Boethius of the 6th century to define “person” as an individual substance of a rational nature, which would apply to the Persons of the Divine Nature and to individual human persons.

          • Loreen Lee

            I have the ‘notion’, (my explanation) that Adam and Eve portray this initiation of a ‘new level of consciousness’. And thus that the sin, (the desire to be like God) although based on -ignorance and pride- concurrently can be thought of as a ‘necessary’ aspect of human development, to be human, to have normative thought. ‘Unfortunately’, we have to accept the consequences because what this knowledge that ‘makes us like God, according to the serpent’ reveals at the same time the angst of our awareness of our limitation/sin, with the result guilt/shame, and angst(existentialist interpretation of sin-i.e. the atheist psyhologial interpretation of sin) that constitute the human condidion. Thus Jesus, in which the Word is made flesh, and not something which may I characterize as a more ‘external’ that is outside the internal consciousness, but transcendental, is a revelation of the promise of salvation, and possibly can be seen as a development of yet another ‘rise in consciousnes’. This parallels in natural philosophy, the development of Socratic/Platonic thought from the pre-socratic search for an ‘absolute’ within material manifestations such as air, fire, water, strife, etc. The forms to my interpretation indicate again the sudden kind of rise in consciousness of what is known as the axial age, culmination in the promise not only of the immortality of the soul as in Plato, but also the ‘resurrection of the body’. A ‘higher’? thought????? As for persons, I believe that is exactly what is meant by our being made in the image of God. Another revelation within the history of our self/species!!!!!!??

      • Rationalist1

        On strangenotions, I just had this link presented to me (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/does-evolutionary-science-disprove-the-faith ). Is Mark Shea departing from Catholic teaching their with his allowing for polygenesis?

        • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

          He’s exploring the idea. What he and Mike Flynn seem to be saying is that the theory of Mitochondrial Eve provides an explanation for a population of “humanoids” (to use the ITC language) in which only one had the soul of a man. In other words, polygenism wouldn’t mean the exact same thing as “multiple first humans” as I used it above. They actually aren’t contradicting what I’ve reviewed here.

          The ITC is not binding teaching, it’s a theological commission that works on these questions and issues guidance.

          But to answer your question directly: No, Mark isn’t departing from Catholic teaching.

  • Pingback: Be Counter-Cultural and Name Your Baby Mary - BigPulpit.com

  • Pingback: Genetic Adam and Eve Lived in the Same Time? : Stacy Trasancos

  • zuma

    Did Pope Pius XII support evolutionary theory?

    The following is the extract from Catholic Church and evolution, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    “In the 1950 encyclical humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.”

    Let’s analyze the above paragraph as below:

    The phrase, Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God, as mentioned above gives us the truth of God’s direct involvement in creation of individual soul. As the phrase, there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, is mentioned before the phrase, PROVIDED that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation of God, it gives us the conclusion that Paul Pius XII only supported evolutionary theory provided that it supports individual soul was a direct creation of God. However, evolutionary theory does not support individual soul was the direct creation of God. Instead, it supports that God only assisted in the evolution instead of He created individual soul by Himself directly. Indeed, evolution assumes material force, i.e. natural selection, that causes one animal to be transformed into another.

    As the phrase, provided that, has been stressed before the phrase, Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces (natural selection), it gives us a conclusion that Paul only encourages Christians to believe in evolution on the condition if it supports that God was a direct creator of individual soul, and that each of the creation was not the result of the product or the end-result of purely material force, such as, natural selection that drove the animals to be transformed.

    As evolutionary theory does not support a direct creation from God and that it supports that it was the end-result of purely material force, such as, natural selection that drove animals to transform, Paul Pius XII did not call Christians to support evolutionary theory.

    Paul Pius XII only called Christians to support evolutionary theory only if the teaching supports that it was God that created individual soul. Besides, they have to support that the existence of individual soul was not the product of material force but God’s direct creation.

    Nevertheless, Paul Pius XII did not support evolutionary theory since this teaching does not support God’s direct creation. Besides, this teaching supports the end-result of evolution was the product of material force, such as, natural selection, that drives animals to transform.

    • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

      Zuma, I apologize for the delay in responding. As you may have noticed, I was taking a break. I’ll try to address your questions though, I think I know how to answer them.

      This is where I disagree with you:

      “However, evolutionary theory does not support individual soul was the direct creation of God.”

      Evolutionary theory can neither support or deny the creation of an immaterial substance. Science deals with material things. What Pope Pius XII meant was that we would be in error to assume that evolutionary theory could deny the existence of the soul or of God.

      It is possible to accept that genes mutate, that phenotypes respond to mutations, that some phenotypes are beneficial to reproduction and some are not, and that nature would, therefore, select those beneficial mutations over less beneficial ones.

      Science alone cannot prove the existence of God, but it can contribute to proving it by revealing the rationality in the material world.

  • zuma

    supports that God was a direct creator of individual soul, and that each of the creation was not the result of the product or the end-result of purely material force, such as, natural selection that drove the animals to be transformed.

    As evolutionary theory does not support a direct creation from God and that it supports that it was the end-result of purely material force, such as, natural selection that drove animals to transform, Paul Pius XII did not call Christians to support evolutionary theory.

    Paul Pius XII only called Christians to support evolutionary theory only if the teaching supports that it was God that created individual soul. Besides, they have to support that the existence of individual soul was not the product of material force but God’s direct creation.

    Nevertheless, Paul Pius XII did not support evolutionary theory since this teaching does not support God’s direct creation. Besides, this teaching supports the end-result of evolution was the product of material force, such as, natural selection, that drives animals to transform.

  • zuma

    Did Pope John Paul II really support evolutionary theory when he delivered his message to the general audience on 29th January 1986 that the theory of natural evolution was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis?

    The following is the extract from the third paragraph of his dialogue:

    The first account, later in time of composition, is more systematic and theological. It uses the term Elohim to designate God. IT DISTRIBUTES THE WORK OF CREATION OVER A SERIES OF SIX DAYS. Scholars have concluded that this text had its origin in the priestly and cultic circles, since THE SEVENTH DAY IS PRESENTED AS THE DAY ON WHICH GOD RESTS. It proposes to man the worker the example of God the Creator. The author of the first chapter of GENESIS wished to CONFIRM the teaching contained in the Decalogue by inculcating the obligation TO KEEP HOLY THE SEVENTH DAY.

    Comment upon the speech of Pope Paul II as listed above and observe those letters that are placed in capital letters. As the phrase, it distributes the work of creation over a series of six days, it gives an undisputable truth that he supported that God’s creation fell within six days. Did he refer a day of the creation as mentioned in Genesis 1 to be a thousand years? No, he did not refer it to more than a day. As the phrase, seventh day is presented as the day on which God rests, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, to keep holy the seventh day, it implies that he referred a day to be literally a day instead of more than that. Unless he did not relate the Sabbath day in which the Jews have to keep holy to the seventh day as God rested, a day could represent a thousand years or more. This is by virtue of Sabbath day that the Jews have to observe falls exactly a day instead of more. As he relates Sabbath day to be the seventh day in which God rested, it implies that he did not support that a day in Genesis could be interpreted as a thousand years or more.

    The following is the extract from the 8th paragraph of the speech of Pope Paul II:
    ‘Together with all that Sacred Scripture says in different places about the work of creation and about God the Creator, this description enables us to set out certain elements in relief:
    1) GOD CREATED THE WORLD BY HIMSELF. The creative power is not transmissible—incommunicabilis.
    2) GOD FREELY CREATED THE WORLD, WITHOUT ANY EXTERIOR COMPULSION or compulsion or interior obligation. He could create or not create; he could create this world or another one.
    3) THE WORLD WAS CREATED IN TIME, therefore, IT IS NOT ETERNAL. It has a beginning in time.
    4) THE WORLD CREATED BY GOD is CONSTANTLY MAINTAINED IN EXISTENCE by the Creator. This “maintenance” is, in a certain sense, a continual creation (conservatio est continua creatio).’

    Comment upon the speech of Pope Paul II as listed above. As the phrase, God created the world by himself, is mentioned in his speech above, he absolutely supported that this world was God’s creation undoubtedly. As the phrase, God created the world by himself, is mentioned above, it gives also a significant truth that he did not support that God did not create the world directly but to stand aside to assist the evolution of the world. Instead, the creation of the world was the master piece of direct construction from God.

    As the phrase, the world was created in time, is mentioned in his speech above, he supported that the world was created in time or immediately. Or in other words, he did not support that this world would take many years to be formed.

    As the phrase, it is not eternal, is mentioned in his speech above in the same line with the phrase, the world was created in time, it implies that he did not support God’s creation was eternal and yet evolutionary theory supports eternal evolution.

    The phrase, the world created by God is constantly maintained in existence by the Creator, as mentioned in his speech above implies that God maintain the existence of His creation. It could be by means of protecting the world and to prevent it to be worse off or whatever as a result of natural disaster or whatever.

    Pope Paul II had mentioned the same in his following speech to emphasize that God was undoubtedly to be the One that directly created the world. He did not stand aside to assist the world to form but to involve personally so as to create it by Himself:

    ‘For almost two thousand years the Church has consistently professed and proclaimed the truth that THE CREATION OF THE VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE WORLD IS THE WORK OF GOD. It has done this in continuity with the faith professed and proclaimed by Israel, the People of God of the old covenant. The Church explains and thoroughly examines this truth by making use of the philosophy of being, and she defends it from the distortions that arise from time to time in the history of human thought. In the First Vatican Council, in reply to the trends of the pantheistic and materialistic thought of the time, THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM HAS CONFIRMED with particular solemnity AND FORCE THE TRUTH THAT THE CREATION OF THE WORLD IS THE WORK OF GOD. Those same tendencies are present also in our century in certain developments of the exact sciences and of the atheistic ideologies.’

    The same is also mentioned below that God was the One that created the world:
    ‘According to the “canons” added to this doctrinal text, the First Vatican Council confirmed the following truths:
    1) The one, true GOD IS CREATOR AND LORD”OF VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE THINGS” (DS 3021).
    2) It is contrary to faith to affirm that only matter exists (materialism) (DS 3022).
    3) It is contrary to faith to assert that God is essentially identified with the world (pantheism) (DS 3023).
    4) IT IS CONTRARY TO FAITH to maintain that creatures, even spiritual ones, are an emanation of the divine substance, or TO AFFIRM THAT THE DIVINE BEING BY its manifestation or EVOLUTION BECOMES EVERYTHING (DS 3024).
    5) ALSO CONTRARY TO FAITH is the idea THAT GOD IS the universal or INDEFINITE BEING which in BECOMING DETERMINATE constitutes universe divided into genera, species and individuals (DS 3024).
    6) It is likewise contrary to faith to deny that the world and all things contained in it, whether spiritual or material, in their entire substance have been created by God out of nothing (DS 3025).’
    Comment upon the speech of Pope Paul II as listed above. As the phrase, It is contrary to faith…to affirm that the divine being by…evolution becomes everything, is mentioned above, it implies that he opposed the faith that God (the divine being) would use evolution as a source to cause everything to be in existence.

    As the phrase, God is the universal or indefinite being, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, becoming determinate, it implies that God was not created from something else.

    Nevertheless, Pope Paul II did not support that God used evolution to be the source that caused everything into existence.

    If he did not support that evolution was the source that caused everything into existence, why should he mention that the theory of natural evolution was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis?

    It could be that:

    When he mentioned that evolutionary theory was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis, it could mean that he supported that evolutionary theory and Genesis have the principle and that is to find out how this universe was formed; or to find out how animals were created; or to find out how plants were created; or etc. However, he did not support that the formation of everything was not the direct work of God but through evolution.

    Or

    He could have made a mistake in his statement.

    Or

    He spoke it ignorantly.

    • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

      Here…

      “Nevertheless, Pope Paul II did not support that God used evolution to be the source that caused everything into existence.”

      …you are committing what Thomists call the “Cosmogonical Fallacy”. You are confusing Creation with change in created bodies. Creation from nothing and natural change or motion in created things are two different concepts.

      This is an excellent article on the fallacy. http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

  • zuma

    What did Pope Pius IX want Christians to do towards those fellow Christians that support all things were the divine work from God through evolution?
    The following is the extract from Catholics and Evolution, wiki:
    On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, during the papacy of Pope Pius IX, who defined dogmatically papal infallibility during the First Vatican Council in 1869–70…..
    ………………..
    ……………….
    ………………..
    On God the Creator, the Vatican Council was very clear. The definitions preceding the “anathema” (as a technical term of Catholic theology, let him be “cut off” or excommunicated, cf. Galatians 1:6–9; Titus 3:10–11; Matthew 18:15–17) signify an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Faith (De Fide):
    1. On God the creator of all things
    1. …..
    2. …..
    3. …..
    4. IF ANYONE SAYS THAT that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from THE DIVINE SUBSTANCE; or that the divine essence, BY the manifestation and EVOLUTION of itself BECOMES ALL THINGS or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self-determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.
    5. …..
    Comment upon the speech from Pope Pius IX as listed above and observe carefully those letters that are in capital letters.
    As the phrase, If anyone says that…the divine substance (could be God)…by…evolution of itself becomes all things…let him be anathema, is mentioned in his speech above, it seems to be that he discouraged Christians to have faith in evolution. The phrase, finite things…spiritual…the divine substance, as mentioned in his speech, could refer to God in which Christians support the divine work of God in evolution. Thus, the phrase, the divine substance…by…evolution…becomes all things, could be interpreted as these Christians should have supported that God by evolution that becomes all things. What did he mention about these people? Let him be anathema. Excommunicate!

    • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

      You are confused, still, and to be honest, I have little patience with fellow Catholics who so quickly and easily call other Catholic excommunicated (!) without bothering to understand the arguments. It seems like a sin of pride. I’ll try one more time.

      The act of Creation is different from the act of natural change. Please review the Cosmogonical Fallacy. The council was condemning materialism and pantheism.

      Perhaps this from the St. Aquinas will help, another way to say it is to use the words “necessity” and “contingency”. The council was not calling Aquinas a heretic.

      According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes.” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4).

      We know this from baking cakes. The ingredients can become a cake by natural changes, according to the nature of the ingredients. I don’t think we need to call fellow Catholics heretics for believing in cake baking. We can still thank God for the cake even though we realize it did not just appear in that form, fully baked, by necessity.

  • zuma

    The website below shows the discovery of plenty of seashells on mountains top:
    http://www.google.com.sg/images?hl=en-SG&q=mountain+top+seashel
    The discovery of seashells on mountains top provides the evidence of the existence of a Great Flood in the past. The absence of sea surrounding each mountain provides the truth that it is irrational to have seashells on mountains top especially they could only be available around the sea. It is also irrational to comment that seashells could climb up the mountains to reach its top. Apparently there should be a Great Flood occurred in the past with great sea waves that had caused that mountains top to bring forth plenty of seashells.
    If there were no great flood occurred in the past, why should there be plenty of seashells located on mountains top then?

  • zuma

    Refer to the website below pertaining to the belief of the possibility of the existence of multicellular organisms on Mars without any evidence of the presence of fossils:

    http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-8837-7_6#

    The existence of unicellular organisms on Mars is confirmed in the website address below:

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-08-07/news/1996220012_1_mars-

    Read carefully the heading in the above website:
    SCIENTISTS DISCOVER EVIDENCE that life existed on Mars Single-cell organisms, not ‘little green men,’ says NASA director

    As the phrase, scientists discover evidence, is mentioned in the website above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of the existence of single-cell organisms.
    Some might argue the heading of the website address above might not support the existence of unicellular organisms due to the phrase, may have existed, is mentioned in the description after the heading. The following statement is extracted from the website above:

    ‘In a statement issued yesterday, as unofficial word of the discovery spread, NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin confirmed that scientists had “made a startling discovery that points to the possibility that a primitive form of microscopic life MAY HAVE EXISTED on Mars MORE THAN 3 BILLION YEARS AGO.” ’

    The phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, as mentioned above implies the uncertainty that scientists have whether the discovery of unicellular organisms could be more than 3 billion years ago or less. They realize their existence. However, they do not know the exact date of their derivation and that is why the phrase, may have existed…more than 3 billion years ago, is mentioned.

    The presence of hydrothermal vents on Mars could be located in the website below:

    http://www.space.com/5374-hydrothermal-vents-mars-supported-life.html

    Read carefully the heading in the above website:
    Hydrothermal Vents on Mars Could Have Supported Life

    As the phrase, Hydrothermal Vents, is mentioned above, it implies that it is not hypothesis but fact about the discovery of hydrothermal vents.

    Unicellular organisms could live in critical condition especially in the oil. The following is the website that supports it: http://www.mpg.de/791317/W005_Environment-Climate_078-083.pdf

    From the above extracts, it could confirm the existence of unicellular organisms and hydrothermal vents on Mars.

    Let’s assume that scientists would be true that the existence of hydrothermal vents would cause unicellular organisms to turn up to be multicellular organisms. Why is it that scientists still have not discovered any fossils of multicellular organisms on Mars despite the presence of hydrothermal vents currently? They did mention of their existence and yet their conclusion was based on assumption and belief without reliable evidence of fossils. It seems to be that the presence of hydrothermal vents does not provide a clear sign of the existence of fossils of multicellular organisms. Besides, if unicellular organisms would work as what evolutionary theory mentions that they would be united to form a multicellular organism, why is it that scientists still could not locate any bigger fossils of living creatures on Mars even though scientists have assumed that it was formed in 4.6 billion years ago about the same time as the earth as mentioned in the website below:

    http://www.space.com/16912-how-was-mars-made.html

    Given the information by scientists that both earth and Mars would be created almost at the same time, why is it that gigantic creatures could be evolved on earth from time to time and yet not on the Mars? Despite the time would be long enough since the creation of Mars for multicellular organisms to be evolved into gigantic animals as the earth, yet none of the bigger fossils could be located on Mars. The absence of fossils for bigger living creatures on Mars has placed the reliability of evolution into question. The reason is simply that if evolutionary theory could work on earth, why is it that it does not work on Mars to produce gigantic living creatures?

  • zuma

    Refer to the website address, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8613.full. Evolutionary theory is full of hypothesizes:

    You could locate the following extracted sentences from the first paragraph under the sub-title, Abstract, from this website:

    Individuality is a complex trait, …… Our HYPOTHESIS is that fitness tradeoffs drive the transition of a cell group into a multicellular individual through the evolution of cells specialized at reproductive and vegetative functions of the group. We have modeled this hypothesis and have tested our models in two ways…..

    The following are the extracted eighth to tenth paragraphs under the subtitle, Abstract, from this website:
    The volvocine algae readily form groups by keeping the products of mitosis together through the use of extracellular materials….The central idea motivating our HYPOTHESIS is that by coping with the fitness tradeoffs and the challenges of group living, the group evolves into a new evolutionary individual.
    There are several HYPOTHESIS for the evolution of cell specialization. The first involves the evolution of cooperation (versus defection). To cooperate, cells presumably must specialize at particular behaviors and functions. The evolution of costly forms of cooperation, altruism, is fundamental to evolutionary transitions, because altruism exports fitness from a lower level (the costs of altruism) to a higher level (the benefits of altruism). The evolution of cooperation sets the stage for defection, and this leads to a second kind of HYPOTHESIS for the evolution of specialized cells involving conflict mediation. If the opportunities for defectors can be mediated, enhanced cooperativity of cells will result in more harmonious functioning of the group. A variety of features of multicellular organisms can be understood as “conflict mediators,” that is, adaptations to reduce conflict and increase cooperation among cells (6): high kinship as a result of development from a single cell, lowered mutation rate as a result of a nucleus, self-policing of selfish cells by the immune system, parental control of cell phenotype, programmed cell death of cells depending on signals received by neighboring cells, determinate body size, and early germ soma separation. These different kinds of conflict mediators require different specialized cell types. The third HYPOTHESIS for specialization involves the advantages of division of labor and the synergism that may result when cells specialize in complementary behaviors and functions. The most basic division of labor in organisms is between reproductive and vegetative or survival-enhancing functions.
    This article is primarily concerned with the division of labor and cooperation hypotheses. As a model system, we are considering volvocine algae cell groups that are of high kinship because they are formed clonally from a single cell. Hence, the opportunity for conflict should be low in these groups. Nevertheless, the opportunity for conflict can increase with the number of cell divisions and can depend on the type of development (e.g., rapid cell divisions, as in some volvocine algae, might not allow enough time for DNA repair). For these reasons, the CONFLICT MEDIATION HYPOTHESIS may help explain the early sequestration of the germ line in some volvocine lineages (7).

    My comment: As the word, hypothesis, is mentioned above, it implies that evolutionary theory is not fact but full of hypothesizes. This is by virtue of nobody did live more than beyond 6,000 years to witness all creatures would be formed through evolution. The theory is simply done through guessing game with full of assumptions.

  • zuma

    Let’s put it in another scenario. There was no unicellular organism or multicellular organism on Mars. The assumption would turn up to be worse in the sense that evolutionary theory would not be workable in reality.

    The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/life-mars-possible-says-nasa-1944503 , indicating the environmental condition on Mars is suitable for life to begin:
    The rover’s lead scientist Prof Steve Squyres said: “Before detecting any clay minerals, ­Opportunity had mostly been discovering sulphuric acid or evidence of it.
    “Clay minerals tend to form only at a more neutral pH. This is water you could drink.
    “It was much more favourable for things like prebiotic chemistry – the kind that could lead to the origin of life.”

    The same is supported in the website address, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12206179 , explaining the Mars is the place that is suitable for unicellular organism to be formed:

    ‘Temperature, humidity, pressure, composition of the atmosphere and radiation are the main factors conditioning life on the surface of Mars. When studying the Martian ecology, one must know the total effect of these factors. One may expect that, as a result of adaptation to low temperatures, there is a corresponding shift in the temperature optimum of enzymatic activity. Dryness is the main obstacle to active life. We suggest the presence of some soil moisture and water vapour. Moreover, there can be areas of permafrost. This minimum supply of water and periodic fluctuations of humidity may create conditions for the existence of drought-resistant organisms. Decreased atmospheric pressure alone does not affect micro-organisms, plants, protozoa and even insects. Ciliates reproduce in a flowing atmosphere of pure nitrogen containing 0.0002-0.0005% oxygen as an impurity. Protozoa may also develop in an atmosphere of 98-99% carbon dioxide mixed with 1% O2. Therefore, even traces of oxygen in the Martian atmosphere would be sufficient for aerobic unicellular organisms. Cells and organisms on earth have acquired various ways of protection from uv light, and therefore may increase their resistance further by adaptation or selection. The resistance of some organisms to ionizing radiation is high enough to enable them to endure hard ionizing radiation of the sun. Experiments with unicellular [correction of unicellar] organisms show that the effect of short wave uv radiation depends on the intensity of visible light, long-wave solar uv radiation, temperatures, cell repair processes, and the state of cell components, i.e. whether the cell was frozen, dried or hydrated.’

    The same is supported in other websites below:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130312-mars-life-curiosity-space-science/
    http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-was-suitable-for-life-scientists-find-130312.htm

    Despite the presence of environmental condition on Mars that would be suitable for the formation of unicellular and multicellular organisms and that the earth and Mars were formed about the same time, the non-existence of organisms on Mars would imply that evolutionary theory could only be permanently an assumption and could not be workable in reality. The reason is simply that nothing could be formed on Mars despite the presence of its environmental condition is suitable for organisms to be formed. If evolutionary theory is workable, why is it that none of the organisms could be evolved on Mars despite the environmental condition is the same as the earth that has the potentiality to develop organisms?

  • zuma

    Scientists support that unicellular organisms would integrate with each other to turn up to be in multicellular organism in the presence of hydrothermal vents. The absence of multicellular organism on Mars despite the presence of unicellular organisms as well as hydrothermal vents, implies that it is impossible for unicellular organisms to be converted to multicellular organism. Hence, this proves the evolutionary theory is not workable in reality.

    Even if unicellular and multicellular organisms would be in existence on Mars, the absence of gigantic living creatures on Mars has too placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question. Why is it that multicellular organisms on Mars could not evolve into gigantic living creatures if evolutionary theory is true?

    Nevertheless, the absence of gigantic living creatures on Mars has placed evolutionary theory into question if unicellular organisms do exist on Mars.

  • zuma

    There are three different views regarding the time in which the stars were formed.

    1)Scriptural order of creation.

    Let’s meditate the verses below:

    Genesis 1:6, “Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.” (New American Standard Bible)
    Genesis 1:11, “Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so.”
    Genesis 1:16, “God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also.”

    As Genesis 1:11,, the creation of fruit-bearing plants or flowering plants, is mentioned after Genesis 1:6, the appearance of land, and before Genesis 1:16, the creation of stars, it implies that the scripture highlights fruit-bearing plants should have been created after the appearance of land and before the creation of stars (Genesis 1:16).

    2)Scientific view of creation.
    What did scientists suggest the date in which flowering plants began to evolve?

    It was shown in the chart from the website address, http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-evolutionary-history-of-plants…. , that the flowering plants began to evolve between 135-65 million years ago.

    What did scientists suggest the date of formation of stars?

    The following is the extract from the website address, http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question55…. , after the sub-title, Answer:

    ‘Results from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) released in February 2003 show that the first stars formed when the universe was only about 200 million years old. Observations by WMAP also revealed that the universe is currently about 13. 7 billion years old. So it was very early in the time after the Big Bang explosion that stars formed. ‘

    As scientists suggest that flowering plants began to evolve between 135-65 million years ago, the above discovery that first stars were formed only about 200 million years ago would turn up to be that the flowering plants began to evolve after the formation of the earth (4.5 billion years) and after the formation of stars (200 million years ago).

    3)Alternative scientific view of creation.

    Let’s compare with the extract below from first paragraph of the website address, http://fossils.valdosta.edu/era_precambrian.html :

    The sun and solar system formed about 4,600 million (or, 4.6 billion) years ago from a vast cloud of interstellar hydrogen and helium, enriched with a sprinkling of heavier elements. …..LONG BEFORE OUR SUN WAS BORN, generations of STARS LIVED AND DIED, paving the road for the existence of Earth and the other rocky planets.

    When was the sun formed?

    The following is the extract from the second paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun ,

    ‘The Sun formed about 4.6 billion[b] years ago from the gravitational collapse of a region within a large molecular cloud.’

    As the earth was formed in 4.5 billion years ago and the sun was formed in 4.6 billion ago and the stars lived and died long before our sun was born, it implies that this website, supports that the flowering plants began to evolve (135-65 million years) after the formation of the earth (4.5 billion years ago) and before the formation of the stars since they were formed long before the sun was born.

    The great discrepancies about times in which the stars were formed have caused us to question how accurate the times that have been furnished by scientists.

  • zuma

    The discrepancies between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth:
    The scriptural verses about the beginning of the earth:
    Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
    Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”
    As the phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially covered with water.
    As the phrase, let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies that land should appear lately. If the land should appear first, there should not be any reason for the scripture to mention with the phrase, let the dry land appear. Besides, it would not be possible for the scripture to mention with the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, if the land should have appeared before the existence of sea. Even if one might assume that land and sea water would coexist in the beginning in the creation of the earth, why should the scripture mention with the phrase, Let the dry land appear, as if that there was no land initially on earth?
    The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html , pertaining to the evolution of the earth:
    4650 mya: Formation of chondrules in the Solar Nebula
    - 4567 mya: Formation of the Solar System
    Sun was only 70% as bright as today.
    - 4500 mya: Formation of the Earth.
    - 4450 mya: The Moon accretes from fragments
    of a collision between the Earth and a planetoid;
    Moon’s orbit is beyond 64,000 km from the Earth.[33]
    EARTH DAY IS 7 HOUR’S LONG[34]
    - Earth’s original hydrogen and helium atmosphere
    escapes Earth’s gravity.
    - 4455 mya: Tidal locking causes one side
    of the Moon to face the Earth permanently.[30]
    - 3900 mya: Cataclysmic meteorite bombardment.
    The Moon is 282,000 km from Earth.[34]
    EARTH DAY IS 14.4 HOURS LONG[34]
    - Earth’s atmosphere becomes mostly
    carbon dioxide, water vapor,
    methane, and ammonia.
    - Formation of carbonate minerals starts
    reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
    - There is no geologic record for the Hadean Eon.
    My comment: As listed above, the earth day was 7 hour’s long in 4450 mya and yet in 3000 mya, its speed reduced to 14.4 hour’s long per earth day. Thus, the spinning speed of the earth was super fast prior to 4450 mya since it took 7 hour’s long to finish its full day. In such a high speed, all the substances, such as, sea water, would fly out of the sky. Or in other words, sea water should not be in existence in beginning of the evolution of the earth.
    As listed above also, earth’s orginal hydrogen and helium atmosphere would escape from the earth’s gravity in 4450 mya. Considering the environmental condition if the whole earth was filled with water, it is impossible for the earth to emit hydrogen and helium when the land was covered fully with water.
    Besides, the rapid spinning of the earth in 7 hour’s long prior to 4450 mya would cause sea water to fly out of the earth.
    The above show the contradiction between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth.

  • zuma

    Was the earth formed through several destructions that were brought forth by volcanoes, meteorites and etc.? Does it differ from scriptural point of view?

    Scriptural verses about the creation of the earth:

    Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

    Genesis 1:9-10, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”

    The phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, in Genesis 1:2, implies that the scripture supports that the earth was initially covered with water. As the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together…and let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies the appearance of land lately. Thus, the scripture supports that the land was not visible on the surface of the earth since it was covered with water.

    As the scripture mentions that the earth was covered with water, it is unlikely that volcanoes could be visible at that time since they should be under the sea water. As all the mountains were in the sea as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, how could the earth be under-attacked by volcanoes? As all the lands were in the sea water as mentioned in the scripture, how could the earth be under-attacked by meteorites? This is by virtue of meteorites would simply drop into the sea without any strong impact upon the land of the earth.

    The following is the extract from the website, http://www.universetoday.com/76509/how-was-the-earth-formed/ , in which contradiction has been found against the scripture:

    ‘This first eon in which the Earth existed is what is known as the Hadean period, named after the Greek word “Hades” (underworld) which refers to the condition of the planet at the time. During this time, the Earth’s surface was under a continuous bombardment by meteorites, and volcanism is believed to be severe due to the large heat flow and geothermal gradient. Outgassing and volcanic activity produced the primordial atmosphere. Condensing water vapor, augmented by ice delivered by comets, accumulated in the atmosphere and cooled the molten exterior of the planet to form a solid crust and produced the oceans. This period ended roughly 3.8 years ago with the onset of the Archean age, by which time, the Earth had cooled significantly and primordial life began to evolve.’

  • zuma

    The doctrine of evolution contradicts the books of New Testament:

    Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings in the past, many of them would evolve into human beings at that time. There is no reason to assume that there would only be one man to be evolved from evolution if the environmental condition would turn up to be suitable for apes to evolve. If human beings flourished in the past were the result of the evolution of many apes, the origin of human beings could not be traced back to one man, i.e. Adam. The sin of Adam would not affect all human races if their forefathers could not trace back to him but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22 mention that all fall into sin by one man? Thus, the doctrine of evolution does contradict Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22.

    The following are the extracts:

    Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
    Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
    1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

    If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them?

    Was Eve formed from Adam?

    Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
    Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
    Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

    If 1 Timothy 2:13 should be interpreted literally, why shouldn’t Genesis 2:21-23 be interpreted the same literally since both of them agree that Adam was formed prior to the existence of Eve?

    Besides, there should not be any reason for 1 Timothy 2:14 to mention the word, Adam, if this word in the book of Genesis should not be interpreted literally. As the word, Adam, is mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:14, the book of Genesis should be interpreted literally instead of treating it to be a non-existing event. The following is the extract:

    1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    If the first human beings were not made by God but evolved through nature, why should the word, made, be mentioned in Matthew 19:4?

    Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
    Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

  • zuma

    Is gap theory or the so-called, Lucifer’s flood, justifiable from scriptural point of view? Was there any living creature during or prior to the event in Genesis 1:2?

    The gap theory or the so-called, Lucifer’s flood, that could be located in the website, http://www.gotquestions.org/Lucifers-flood.html , states that it supports another human races without souls that have no connection with any genetic mutation with the plants, animals and human living today could have existed during or prior to the event in Genesis 1:2. At that time, Satan was a ruler of the earth and sin entered into the universe as a result of its rebellion that caused God to execute His judgment with pre-flood as mentioned in Genesis 1:2.

    Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and DARKNESS [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2 rejects the possibility of any light on this earth. As long as there was sunlight, the entire earth at that time should not be in darkness. As the earth was in darkness, the sun was not created at that time.

    As we know plants needed sunlight to perform photosynthesis. Without sunlight, carbon dioxide could not be able to divert to oxygen through photosynthesis. Without sunlight, all the oxygen on this earth would be diverted to carbon dioxide due to the respiration of all living creatures even if oxygen would have existed in Genesis 1:2. How could there be any animals, especially another human race, to be able to survive in Genesis 1:2 at the absence of sunlight since they needed oxygen to breathe in? How could animals be able to evolve from one to another at the absence of sunlight for a prolonged period, such as, million years, due to oxygen would entirely be consumed without a chance to be diverted to oxygen at the absence of sunlight? Thus, it is impossible to have another human race to have existed in Genesis 1:2. As it is impossible to have another human race to have existed in Genesis 1:2, how could it be that Genesis 1:2 was treated to be God’s judgment in bringing flood?

    • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

      Zuma, I don’t know what your purpose is, but the Bible is not a science text book and the Church does not take it to be so.

  • zuma

    Big Bang Theory contradicts the teaching of the scripture.

    The following are the extracts from the website, http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html :

    ‘About 400 million years after the Big Bang, the universe began to emerge from the cosmic dark ages during the epoch of reionization. During this time, which lasted more than a half-billion years, clumps of gas collapsed enough to form the first stars and galaxies, whose energetic ultraviolet light ionized and destroyed most of the neutral hydrogen.
    Although the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity, about 5 or 6 billion years after the Big Bang, a mysterious force now called dark energy began speeding up the expansion of the universe again, a phenomenon that continues today.
    A little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang, our solar system was born.’

    My comment: The stars were formed about 400 million years after the Big Bang and yet our earth was formed a little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang.

    Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

    As the phrase, darkness was upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that there was no light on earth. If stars were created at that time, starlight would still be visible at that time especially the sea water would reflect the starlight from the sky.

    The following is the extract from the website, http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html, that states that stars do give off light:

    ‘Stars do give off light, that’s why we can see them far away. The Sun, which is just an ordinary star, gives off the light that allows life to exist on Earth. Stars give off light the same way the filament in a light bulb does. Anything that is hot will glow. Cool stars glow red, stars like the Sun glow yellow, and really hot stars glow white or even blue-white.’

    As stars could give off light by themselves and yet the earth was filled with water initially as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, the sea water would reflect the starlight and would cause the earth no longer to be in darkness if stars would be assumed to be created prior to the formation of the earth. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2, implies the absence of light especially the starlight in the sea that reflects the light from stars in the sky. As the scripture mentions with the word, darkness, there is no reason to assume that stars could exist in Genesis 1:2 at the presence of the earth or else the sea water would not be in darkness instead, there should be many spots of starlight. Or in other words, the scripture places the stars’ creation to be in Genesis 1:16 after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:2, should be considered in sequential order since the stars should be created after the formation of the earth or else the earth would not be in darkness as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 since it would reflect the starlight. However, the Big Bang Theory supports the reverse and that is stars should be formed prior to the formation of the earth.

  • zuma

    Both Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory support that this entire universe would take billion years to be formed and yet the scripture supports a short while.

    What did the scripture describe about the timeframe of God’s creation?

    Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (King James Version)
    Psalms 33:7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
    Psalms 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
    Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

    The phrase, By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, as mentioned above implies that the heavens were created at the time of His speech. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 implies that the creation of heaven was speedy so much so that the heaven was created at the time of His speech.

    Let’s link up Psalm 33:6 and 33:9 with Genesis 1:1, it would come to the conclusion that God should have created the heaven and the earth speedily in Genesis 1:1 since, at His speech, the heaven and the earth stood fast and they were created in the beginning of the first day.

    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Big Bang Theory supports the heavens have not been finished in its evolution since they support that they are still in construction currently that have led to current view of speedily expansion of this universe. Or in other words, Big Bang Theory supports the unceasing generation of new planets as well as the extension of the universe. The scripture supports otherwise since the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9. As the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9, it implies that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was on construction or on evolution, He had not finished His creation of heavens and that would have led to the current expansion of the universe as a result of His continuous work in construction of the heavens by expansion and forming more new planets. Nevertheless, the scripture supports that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech.

    The phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, in Psalms 33:6 implies whatever things that were in this heaven were created by His spoken words. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 refers the same that all the host of them, such as, stars and living creatures, were created instantaneously at the time of His speech.

    Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. When Genesis 1:3 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be the light stood fast on the first day.

    When Genesis 1:6 has been read with Psalms 33:7 and Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the division of water, such as, ocean or clouds or whatever, was created speedily at the time of His speech and this fell on the second day.

    Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

    When Genesis 1:9 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the land appeared on earth speedily after His speech on the third day.

    Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

    When Genesis 1:11 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that all the plants were created instantaneously at the time when God has finished His speech on day three.

    Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    The instantaneous creation of all living things should apply the same throughout Genesis 1 since the phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, is mentioned in Psalms 33:6. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was in construction or evolution, He did not have the power to create things instantaneously at the time of His speech but would take ample time, i.e. million or billion years to accomplish His creation.

    From the above explanations, it would come to conclusion that God had created the heavens and the earth within six days literally and they were done but Big Bang supports the heavens have not been finished their construction and that has led their assumption of the continuous expansion of the universe currently. If the heavens were not done in their creation, they need further construction work so as to expand. If the heavens were done in their creation in the beginning, current movement of galaxies away from the earth does not imply God has not finished His construction. Instead, it implies the movement of galaxies in which this universe could be created already in infinity.

    Is God omnipotent?

    Revelation 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
    Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
    Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
    Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
    Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

  • zuma

    Strong evidence of Noah’s ark in the past.
    Refer to the website, https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist257s02/students/Anna…. Many theories were established in the past pertaining to the formation of mountains and they were The conflagration Theory, Halley’s Theory and The Geologic Theory.

    However, all these theories fail to explain the discovery of many seashells on the top of mountains since how they could reach up to the top of mountains unless the presence of sea waves that would have caused the seashells to be pushed up from the seabed to the top of mountains. The mountains are a few thousands meters above the ground. In order for seawater to be increased and to be raised up to the top of the mountain, the sea level has to be increased. As the sea level increased, the whole wide world would be in the water since all the plain lands of this earth in which inhabitants dwell are very much lower than the top of the mountains. Even if the sea level would reach 1/5 of the high of the mountains, the entire earth would be in the flood since none of the plain lands of this earth would have such a high. Even though there might be floods in the past, it was mainly caused by rains instead of from the rise of sea level. There is no way for rains to bring forth sea creatures but from seas. The mountains are most of the time located more than a few hundreds or thousands miles far away from the sea. As mountains are very far away from the sea, it is impossible for any crisis of Tsunami that would bring forth from the sea to reach out to the high of mountains. There is no way for sea creatures to be deposited in the mountains unless the sea water would rise. If the sea water would rise above the plain lands in which inhabitants dwell, many of them could not survive and not even the survivals of edible plants, such as, carrots, tomatoes and etc., or even living animals. Even if they would survive, they would have to live on boats and could not grow edible plants, such as, tomatoes, carrots and etc., for their consumption.

    There is no reason to assume that seashells could climb their way up to the top mountains so as to have their rest there.

    The existence of seashells on top of mountains is a strong evidence to prove the presence of Great Flood in Genesis 6-7. It was with this Great Flood that covered the entire earth that was accompanied with great sea waves as a result of continuous rain that would have caused the seashells to be pushed up on top of mountains.

    The following are the websites to prove the discovery of sea creature fossils in the mountains especially the undeniable truth, the presence of seashells on top of mountains:
    https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=edible%20vegetables&bav=on.2
    https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=edible%20vegetables&bav=on.2

  • zuma

    Plate Tectonics Theory has been found to be illogical to the formation of mountains. The only possible reason for the existence of sea creature fossils on top of mountains should be none other than Noah’s ark.

    The following is the extract from the website, http://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Earth-Science/6/The-Origin…, pertaining to the origins of plate tectonic theory under the subheading, Ongoing Evidence for Plate Tectonics:

    ‘Today, much of the evidence concerning plate tectonics is acquired with satellite technology. Through use of the global positioning system (GPS) and other satellite-based data collection techniques, scientists can directly measure THE VELOCITY (or speed and direction of movement) OF PLATES on Earth’s surface. SPEEDS RANGE FROM 10 TO 100 MM PER YEAR, confirming the long-held belief that plates move at a slow but constant rate (see our module on Linear Equations for more detail on how to calculate rates of plate movement).
    The Himalayas, as it turns out, started forming about 40 million years ago when the Indian Plate collided head-on with the Eurasian Plate, shoving and folding rocks that had formed below sea level into lofty peaks. Because the Indian Plate is still moving northward, the Himalayas are still rising at a rate of about 1 cm per year. We no longer need to invoke a shrinking, wrinkled Earth to explain the marine fossils at the top of these tall mountains; it is the process of plate tectonics that continues to lift seafloor rocks to the sky.’

    My comment: As mentioned above, the velocity of plate tectonic is at a very slow speed with 10 to 100mm per year. Besides, the phrase, the Himalayas are still rising at a rate of about 1 cm per year, as mentioned above implies scientists support the continuous rising of mountain Himalaya with the speed of 1 cm per year.

    Let’s assume that the mountain Himalayas would be rising from 1 cm per year is true. As the mountain Himalaya would rise from 1 cm per year, the plain land in which living creatures reside would rise 1 cm as well. There is no reason why the plain land would remain the same high despite its nearby mountain could be risen by 1 cm. As the plain land would increase the same high as the same as the nearby mountain, the person that would stand at the mountain to measure its high would find no discrepancy even million years later. Thus, there is no reason why scientists would presume the continuous increase in high of mountain except the rising of sea level due to the simultaneous increase in high for both the mountain Himalaya as well as the plain land nearby. Indeed, the sea level all the while remains about the same high has proven the assumption of the continuous increase of mountain to be erroneous.

    The following are the extracts from website, http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology.html:

    ‘Soon afterwards, about 65 million years ago (Upper Eocene Period), came the second phase of mountain building. The bed of the Tethys started rising again. The sea retreated, and the sea bed was elevated into high mountain ranges.
    Later, about 25 million years ago (Middle Miocene Period) came another mountain building period which led to the formation of the low Shivalik ranges. After this, periodic mountain building phases occurred as the Indian plate pushed against the Eurasian plates which led to the Himalayan ranges rising further. The last major phase occurred 600,000 years ago.’

    My comment: As the speed of plate tectonic is at 10 to 200 mm per year as mentioned earlier, how could this slow speed have great impact upon lands to cause sea bed to be elevated into high mountain ranges? Unless the speed would be fast, the impact upon the land would be weak to cause seabed to be elevated. With such a slow speed to act upon seabed, it would be impossible for plate tectonic theory to be workable upon it to cause it to form mountains.

    Even if one would assume that the speed of plate tectonic upon the seabed would be fast so as to cause the rise of mountain, it might cause the concrete that is underneath the seabed to crack and turns up to have two layers of seabed and one is the upper seabed and another is the one that is underneath. The continuous exerting of pressure to cause the upper seabed to rise would result the hollow that is underneath to be formed after the crack to become broader to the ultimate collapse of the upper seabed. Thus, it seems to be that the formation of mountain through plate tectonic might seem to be unrealistic.

    As the plate tectonic theory seems to be illogical to be used to support the existence of seashells that were found on top of mountains, the only reason that we would rely upon is the existence of Noah’s ark that would have caused sea creature fossils to be deposited on mountains.

  • Gene

    Stacy I believe you are putting way too much emphasis on the Theological Commission. They are not the magisterium. This is personal opinion. Pope Pius XII approved of “research and discussion” in regards to evolution. But Pope Pius XII goes on to say, “However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter WERE ALREAD COMPLETELY CERTAIN and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”

    There are no fossils that show one species becoming another species. True science must be observable and testable. No one has observed evolution.

    They also must address the fact that it is a teaching of the ordinary Magisterisum that Eve was taken from the side of Adam which means that Eve did not evolve. Pope Leo XIII encyclical on Christian Marriage states that Eve was drawn “miraculously from the man’s side as he slept.”

    SInce Eve was miraculously created by God why would Adam have sub-human beasts for parents? Eve is the” mother of all the living” and since we all came from Eve we did not evolve from beasts.
    There are a lot of questions to be answered before one can say the Church believes in the evolution of man from sub-human beasts.

    • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

      I didn’t say they are the Magisterium. I didn’t call it dogma or doctrine. I was careful to distinguish the “science” from Darwinian atheistic ideology. I didn’t remotely hint that speciation is understood.

      But you are flat out wrong that no one has observed evolution. That has been observed in natural and controlled experiments. Living things evolve.

      • Balaam’s Ride

        The Catechism teaches that “our first parents” were created in a state of original justice and holiness and that they would not suffer or die as long as they “remained in the divine intimacy” (CCC #375-376). How does that fit in with the theory of theistic evolution?

      • David Ulmer

        Living things adapt and change but no reverse intropy has ever been documented. One simply has to make a distinction between the evolution within a kind and the leap of changing into more complex and organized systems.