R
Rasoleil
Guest
Excellently put! I absolutely agree with you.
- Status
R
Rasoleil
Guest
I agree with you. What gets me is that creationists say that science does not contradict the Bible, that science proves creationism, or so I believe what they think. Of course creationists believe in the literal 6 day creation story in the Bible, and also use the Great Flood as a benchmark regarding everything regarding the Earth in reference to Geology, Carbon Dating, Archaeology, Paleotology, Biology, Chemistry, etc. Not to mention anything to do with space, such as the speed of light, is one that they harp on, saying that because the speed of light is not constant, that their intrepretation ( the only truth, that is) of science proves that even stars and galaxies are no more that 6,000 years away, thus in agreement with the Young Earth belief. And of course, carbon dating, because it is not accurate, cannot disprove the Earth is less than 6,000 years old. The Flood explains geological formations, fossils, and especially dinosaurs, whom were killed in the Flood.I noticed some of those little details as well.
What would be much more difficult is if the inspired author of the Old Testament had tried to explain life from a scientific view. Could he have asked God to explain what a cell is and the function of cell organelles? What if God explained to Moses, right there at the beginning, about how the genetic code works? Could Moses have even described animals the readers would never see? That would not have worked, therefore, the bible is not meant to be a science textbook.
I believe that God, have made us intelligent, rational, with free will and the ability to reason, made in His own image, being created higher than the animals, intended for us to discover and learn about the world and the universe about us. I don’t think if that the writer of Genesis was given every truth, all knowledge, ( we don’t even know all the truth of the universe or universes ) even with every aspect of science which we know of today, which even today is in it’s infancy, would be incomprehensible, unfathomable, and even unbelievable. What would the writer of Genesis would do, and write, were he to be dropped in the world today? How would he fit every scientific discovery and explain everything in science that we collectively today, into the Bible? Why was not man given the knowledge of everything at the beginning? I believe that man, because of his intelligence and free will given to us by God, that the evolution of scientific discoveries is also, as spiritual revelation, is also a way that can bring us closer to God. Through reason (and faith) we can come to know that there is a Creator. I believe that many creationists do not believe that both faith and reason are on equal standing, or that we even have the ability to reason.
I agree with you, don’t forget! Many of my questions were rhetorical or posed to anyone who believes in the literal intrepretation of the Bible, particularly the 6 day creation story. If any creationist or anyone find anything incorrect about whaich I have written, please feel free to correct me. I know that creationists might.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I add a Catholic Church clarification regarding the domain of natural science.
One can consider that certain particular scientific discoveries are a form of “spiritual revelation.” (mentioned in post 42)
I often post that natural science is a gift from God which benefits humanity especially in the medical arena.
The Catholic Church defines human nature as an unique unification of the material world and the spiriual world. (Genesis 1: 26-27; *CCC *355-357 and following) This means that the dominance of science in today’s culture is limited to the material physical world. The primary principle of the scientific (inductive) method is that scientists are to observe nature without prejudice. Science cannot directly physically observe the spiritual world of God. Neither could the author of the first three chapters of Genesis observe God creating the world. (Genesis 1:1) As for human nature itself, we need to recognize the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26.
Because the Catholic Church is in the business of guiding souls in their journey to joy eternal in the Presence of our Creator in heaven (Beatific Vision, *CCC *Glossary, page 867) , it has to examine both the material world, that is, our decomposing anatomy of blood and guts, skin and bones, and the spiritual world of our soul, that is, our rational intellect and freedom to choose personal actions.
Refer to *CCC *1730-1732 and the section of paragraphs 355-421. CCC footnotes and the "Index of Citations "starting on page 689 are valuable sources of information. Note. CCC 20-21 explains the use of small print. Links to the Catechism are below.
Currently, the evolution model that is known as the science of human evolution directly conflicts with the Catholic docrtrine on human origin. The science of human evolution uses genetics as a means of classifying species in a hominin line which comes from a common ancestor population. This is illustrated in a cladogram (Cladistics system). Regarding the changes in physical anatomy populations in the hominin line leading from the Homo/Pan split (common ancestor) to the final extant species of humankind, the Catholic Church does not proclaim doctrines about the privious extinct material physical beings because they are in the material domain.
At the last point on the hominin cladogram, the originating source of humankind is a large indiscrimiate random breeding humanizing population in the hundreds to thousands.
The Catholic Church proclaims and maintains that the originating source of humankind is a population of two, lovingly known as the biblical Adam and Eve.
Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
One can consider that certain particular scientific discoveries are a form of “spiritual revelation.” (mentioned in post 42)
I often post that natural science is a gift from God which benefits humanity especially in the medical arena.
The Catholic Church defines human nature as an unique unification of the material world and the spiriual world. (Genesis 1: 26-27; *CCC *355-357 and following) This means that the dominance of science in today’s culture is limited to the material physical world. The primary principle of the scientific (inductive) method is that scientists are to observe nature without prejudice. Science cannot directly physically observe the spiritual world of God. Neither could the author of the first three chapters of Genesis observe God creating the world. (Genesis 1:1) As for human nature itself, we need to recognize the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26.
Because the Catholic Church is in the business of guiding souls in their journey to joy eternal in the Presence of our Creator in heaven (Beatific Vision, *CCC *Glossary, page 867) , it has to examine both the material world, that is, our decomposing anatomy of blood and guts, skin and bones, and the spiritual world of our soul, that is, our rational intellect and freedom to choose personal actions.
Refer to *CCC *1730-1732 and the section of paragraphs 355-421. CCC footnotes and the "Index of Citations "starting on page 689 are valuable sources of information. Note. CCC 20-21 explains the use of small print. Links to the Catechism are below.
Currently, the evolution model that is known as the science of human evolution directly conflicts with the Catholic docrtrine on human origin. The science of human evolution uses genetics as a means of classifying species in a hominin line which comes from a common ancestor population. This is illustrated in a cladogram (Cladistics system). Regarding the changes in physical anatomy populations in the hominin line leading from the Homo/Pan split (common ancestor) to the final extant species of humankind, the Catholic Church does not proclaim doctrines about the privious extinct material physical beings because they are in the material domain.
At the last point on the hominin cladogram, the originating source of humankind is a large indiscrimiate random breeding humanizing population in the hundreds to thousands.
The Catholic Church proclaims and maintains that the originating source of humankind is a population of two, lovingly known as the biblical Adam and Eve.
Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
T
Techno2000
Guest
If evolution is true, there should be at least ONE brand new animal… coming down the pike.
R
rossum
Guest
Not “brand new”, but a new close relative of an existing animal (or plant, fungus, eubacteria, arche).If evolution is true, there should be at least ONE brand new animal… coming down the pike.
MRSA, and some Dalmatian lizards are obvious recent examples.
Evolution involves common descent, so apart from the very primitive initial life, all species have evolved from earlier species.
rossum
H
hasantas
Guest
- We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in Six Days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us. (Qaf:38)
- He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then established Himself on the Throne. He knows what enters within the earth and what comes forth out of it, what comes down from heaven and what mounts up to it. And He is with you wheresoever ye may be. And Allah sees well all that ye do.(Al-Hadid:4)
- Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds. (Fussilat:9)
Islamic scholars interpret in that way: The creation is not stopped that mean the action of God is going on. Some stars emerged and some dissolved. The wolrd revolve around Sun in a year. The sun revolve around center of Milk Way for about 225 million years. So 225 million years is 1 year for Sun. All galaxies turn around center of universe. So there are very diffrent times for dinstinct circumstances.
The creation is a progressively process. So we can recognise that 6 days as all time of universe. In Fussilat 9 it is mentioned that the world was created in two days(in last two of six as a process). The age of universe is about 13,5 billion years. The age of world(the sun system) is about 4,5 billion years. 13,5/6= 2,25 and 2x2,25=4,5
İn the Bible or Koran God does not mention only world. And the Bible is not a scientific book. So there should not be detailed scientific knowledge but there are main laws and knowledge because the speech of God involve all times for general. Remember God is infinite.
In Hadiths it is said that the life-span of human is about 7000 years. ıf we start from now and go back in population of human then we can reach the time of Adam and Eve as first humans. But if we assume that first man was about 60000 years ago then the current population would must be much more than 7 billions.
So the science and observation show that the evolution theory should not be true and we have not to accept that theory as a scientific law because of I mentioned in previous.
T
Techno2000
Guest
So what’s the deal about Dalmatian lizards, what was it before it was a Dalmatian lizard ?
M
Mount_Carmel
Guest
IMHO, the creation vs evolution debate has become much like the God vs science debate, often ill understood and with narrow and entrenched perspectives.
I personally believe firstly that God is the God of the gaps AND of those former gaps that science has to one degree or another now filled.
As for science and evolution, well, for me it depends on how far evolutionists take the idea. Darwin observed genetic variances due to adaption to changes in environment, and the consequences of ‘survival of the fittest’.
As for the idea that life evolved from non-life to primitive life and onwards and upwards to the human mind by means of some ‘blind watch maker’, in effect by a form of magic and chance, well I don’t buy it on a number of levels.
For one there has simply not been enough physical and temporal time for such to happen, that it is rationally and logically impossible for total nothingness {not the ‘quantum vacuum’, which is actually the consequence/outcome of something], to produce something, ever.
Then there are the extreme fine tunings expressed all over the universe.
Genomes are very complex, with the human genome being in effect a massive word that after studying semiotics speaks to me of a great intelligence behind it that requires a notable element of intelligent and purposeful (name removed by moderator)ut. Even some of the most eminent atheist and former atheist mathematicians, biologists, chemists, and astrophysicists are beginning to conclude that evolution, and more particularly Godless evolution faces some massive hurdles that time and increasing knowledge appear to make more and not less problematic.
I personally believe firstly that God is the God of the gaps AND of those former gaps that science has to one degree or another now filled.
As for science and evolution, well, for me it depends on how far evolutionists take the idea. Darwin observed genetic variances due to adaption to changes in environment, and the consequences of ‘survival of the fittest’.
As for the idea that life evolved from non-life to primitive life and onwards and upwards to the human mind by means of some ‘blind watch maker’, in effect by a form of magic and chance, well I don’t buy it on a number of levels.
For one there has simply not been enough physical and temporal time for such to happen, that it is rationally and logically impossible for total nothingness {not the ‘quantum vacuum’, which is actually the consequence/outcome of something], to produce something, ever.
Then there are the extreme fine tunings expressed all over the universe.
Genomes are very complex, with the human genome being in effect a massive word that after studying semiotics speaks to me of a great intelligence behind it that requires a notable element of intelligent and purposeful (name removed by moderator)ut. Even some of the most eminent atheist and former atheist mathematicians, biologists, chemists, and astrophysicists are beginning to conclude that evolution, and more particularly Godless evolution faces some massive hurdles that time and increasing knowledge appear to make more and not less problematic.
R
rossum
Guest
A different species of Dalmatian lizard. There are a lot of small islands off the Dalmatian coast, with many different species and subspecies of lizards. Islands are a good place to observe reasonably fast speciation because it is easy for small isolated populations to form.
rossum
N
Nixbits
Guest
Rossum, aren’t you afraid that you’ve broken some forum rules by making reference to actual evidence in this discussion? Are you sure that’s allowed?
T
Techno2000
Guest
What evidence, his answer is vague.
R
rossum
Guest
There is a limit to the size of posts here. If you want the detail, then you need to read the scientific literature on the subject, for example: (Lacertidae)Podarcis melisellensis.
I get over 600 results on Google Scholar for “Dalmatian lizards”. The detail is there if you want it.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
Yes, details in your own words please.
R
rossum
Guest
- There is a size limit on posts here.
- There is a ban on evolution threads here, so we need to be careful what we post or the thread will be closed.
- Evolution 101.
- Dalmatian lizards
- Evolution in a nutshell: “If your parents didn’t have any children then the chances are that you won’t either.”
T
Techno2000
Guest
Explaining major evolutionary change
Changes in the genes controlling development can have major effects on the morphology of the adult organism. Because these effects are so significant, scientists suspect that changes in developmental genes have helped bring about large-scale evolutionary transformations. Developmental changes may help explain, for example, how some hoofed mammals evolved into ocean-dwellers, how water plants invaded the land, and how small, armored invertebrates evolved wings.
R
rossum
Guest
If you want absolute certainty, study mathematics. Science is provisional – all of it. Every scientific theory can be replaced by a better one, just as Newton’s theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein’s general relativity.
The parable of truth goes something like this…
When truth was born, it was visited by a magical fairy and blessed with three qualities: the ability to be absolute, the ability to be objective, and the ability to refer to the external world. The condition for this blessing was that truth could only exhibit a maximum of two of those qualities simultaneously. Therefore it could be absolute and objective, but not refer to the external world (mathematical truth). It could be objective and refer to the external world, but not absolute (scientific truth). Finally, it could be absolute and refer to the external world, but not objective (aesthetic truth).
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
Winston S. Churchill -
“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
- Status