Age of the Earth and Evolution

[rossum]

No… That’s circular … It’s not a fact…

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, just like gravity.

• Gravity-as-fact: things fall down.
• Gravity-as-theory: things fall down because …

The “because …” part changes as the scientific theory changes, as from Newton to Einstein. The fact part changes through observation.

Evolution is the change in genomes of an interbreeding population over time. This is observed, as with insects becoming genetically immune to insecticides. Evolution-as-theory is our current best explanation of why population genomes change over time.

Evolution-as-fact is true, as true as the MRSA in too many hospitals. The theory of evolution has been changing since 1859 and will continue to change in future. Theories are not “true” in an absolute sense, they are always provisional – the best explanation we currently have. They can always be replaced by a better theory, as Newton was replaced by Einstein for gravity.

 

[rossum]

I don’t see how that can be unless you assert that the claimed common ancestor - just a few thousand years back - were the only humans on the planet at the time, which is clearly not the case.

The Pope talks about “true humans”. To me that means humans with a human soul. Since souls do not fossilise and do not show up in DNA then science cannot tell whether or not a particular fossil had a human soul or not.

Any other Homo sapiens on the planet would not have had souls, but would have been biologically compatible with souled humans. Hence, any matings would have been open to life, and God could give a soul to the new offspring.

 

[EndTimes]

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, just like gravity.

No…

That olde hatt canard does not work…

The Law of Gravity and Darwin’s argument
… which Darwin acknowledged was unproven -
can never be counted as being scientifically Equivalent via playing that “theory” card.

Since you appear to be potentially up on ‘science’ rather than ‘blind faith’ in the say-so of some others.
show me some of your bio-science acumen… from off the top of your head…?

 

[goout]

Rau:

I don’t see how that can be unless you assert that the claimed common ancestor - just a few thousand years back - were the only humans on the planet at the time, which is clearly not the case.

The Pope talks about “true humans”. To me that means humans with a human soul. Since souls do not fossilise and do not show up in DNA then science cannot tell whether or not a particular fossil had a human soul or not.

Any other Homo sapiens on the planet would not have had souls, but would have been biologically compatible with souled humans. Hence, any matings would have been open to life, and God could give a soul to the new offspring.

This is a key point that seems to be always missed.
The Pope is speaking about humanity in a whole sense: as a unity of body and soul. “True humans”.
God infuses the soul, right?
God can infuse a soul as God wishes.

 

[goout]

rossum:

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, just like gravity.

No…

That olde hatt canard does not work…

The Law of Gravity and Darwin’s argument
… which Darwin acknowledged was unproven -
can never be counted as being scientifically Equivalent via playing that “theory” card.

Since you appear to be potentially up on ‘science’ rather than ‘blind faith’ in the say-so of some others.
show me some of your bio-science acumen… from off the top of your head…?

Just so you know, the overwhelming position of Catholic theologians, philosophers, scientists, etc…does not agree with yours.
Just something to ponder. That ought to be important to a Catholic, right?

 

[EndTimes]

Just so you know, the overwhelming position of Catholic theologians, philosophers, scientists, etc…does not agree with yours.
Just something to ponder. That ought to be important to a Catholic, right?

That’s not science… . It’s a false non-specific vague ad populum argumentum ,
which drifts from Catholic Source Teachings re: the Origin of Man…

Can you not even support eg., Natural Selection via an example ?

 

[goout]

goout:

Just so you know, the overwhelming position of Catholic theologians, philosophers, scientists, etc…does not agree with yours.
Just something to ponder. That ought to be important to a Catholic, right?

That’s not science… . It’s a false non-specific vague ad populum argumentum ,
which drifts from Catholic Source Teachings re: the Origin of Man…

Can you not even support eg., Natural Selection via an example ?

I posted resources upstream from Fr Robert Spitzer and Bp Robert Barron. As of a day later not one person had clicked on them, which tells me about all I need to know about the integrity of the discourse.

 

[EndTimes]

I posted resources upstream from Fr Robert Spitzer and Bp Robert Barron. As of a day later not one person had clicked on them, which tells me about all I need to know about the integrity of the discourse.

As in side-stepping away from showing any science?

And ignoring Source Catholic Teachings in connection with Origin of Man, Evolution Theories?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Hi goout,

I have listened to Robert Barron’s video and am already familiar with Robert Spitzer’s. I agree with them. The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution.

 

[rossum]

The Law of Gravity and Darwin’s argument
… which Darwin acknowledged was unproven -
can never be counted as being scientifically Equivalent via playing that “theory” card.

The Theory of Gravity was never ‘proven’ either. That is why Newton’s theory was replaced bt Einstein’s theory, which in turn will be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity. Yes, we already know that Einstein’s theory is incomplete in certain situations.

Similarly Darwin’s original theory has been greatly modified by the incorporation of Mendel’s work, the discovery of DNA sequencing, Kimura’s neutral theory and other advances since Darwin.

You still have antibiotic resistant bacteria, so you need to find a replacement explanation for why they exist.

If you want to see evolution in action, then watch The Evolution of Bacteria. That shows bacteria evolving to tolerate 1,000 times the dose of antibiotic that would have killed their forebears.

Evolution happens. The theory explaining it changes, but that does not stop evolution happening all the time.

 

[EndTimes]

The Theory of Gravity was never ‘proven’ either.

It’s considered Law … And it’s verifiable / reproducible Physics. AKA Empirical Science…

Evolution happens? Circular …

Paleontology is mostly Historical science - not Empirical

Even Evolutionist Gould had a big laugh
over Darwin’s demand re: The Fossil Record
as being necessary to keep on sifting through it
so as to finally verify his 'theory" .

Non-verifiable / Non-reproduceable

What is Natural Selection?

What causes … What actually are… Mutations?

Teach us… Show us?

_

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Catholic Source Teachings re: the Origin of Man

Hi EndTimes,
What do you think are these Catholic Source Teachings? I would suggest the Catechism, Humani Generis, and the International Theological Commission’s Communion and Stewardship. None of these speak against evolution, and the more recent ITC report goes some way to correct Humani Generis’s less informed assumptions about the origin of the human race. Do you disagree with them? And if so, what Catholic Source Teachings do you follow?

 

[EndTimes]

Hi EndTimes,
What do you think are these Catholic Source Teachings?
I would suggest the Catechism, Humani Generis –

They’re Fine, Hugh… I’ve been familiar w/them for eons.

As is St. JPII’s MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: ON EVOLUTION Pope John Paul II Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution for It Involves Conception of Man Message delivered to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 22 October 1996 To the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in plenary assembly:

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Well, that’s splendid. I think we agree. The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution, including the evolution of man, and most recently, including a polygenetic origin for humans. The book of Genesis cannot be interpreted literally, in its description of the creation of the universe, its occupants, and man, but expresses different truths about God’s, and man’s, relationship with his creation.

 

[tafan2]

Don’t read too much into.it. I rarely click on videos that are linked as part of a discussion. It takes too much time to watch. I might go back and watch one later at night if it looks interesting, but never during a discussion.

 

[EndTimes]

The book of Genesis cannot be interpreted literally

The fundamentals re: Creation are accepted all throughout Scriptures

As well as Adam and Eve as First Parents of Man

• according to The Magisterium of The Catholic Church:

 

[tafan2]

most recently, including a polygenetic origin for humans

Could you please post source material regarding this?

 

[Dan123]

It’s considered Law … And it’s verifiable / reproducible Physics.

The law of gravitational attraction only describes what gravity does. The theory attempts to explain why. The theory is incomplete.

 

[EndTimes]

The law of gravitational attraction only describes what gravity does.

The theory attempts to explain why. The theory is incomplete.

Gravitational Attraction Formulae appear to be solid as a Rock

The Separate Question… What IS Gravity? Is an ongoing question.

I’ve given it some thought.
_

 

[rossum]

It’s considered Law … And it’s verifiable / reproducible Physics. AKA Empirical Science…

It is not a “Law” any longer, not since Eddington’s observations in 1919 showed that Newton was wrong and Einstein correct.

You need to learn more about how science works if you want to argue about science.

Science works with a series of approximations. Newton’s theory was a good approximation. Einstein’s theory is a better approximation. Quantum Gravity (when we have it) will be an even better approximation.

The same is true of evolution. The approximation has been getting better since 1859. If you want to replace evolution then you need to find a better approximation to replace it.