B
- Status
L
liquidpele
Guest
L
liquidpele
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
buffalo;5855306:
good…
Sure we had to poof into existence from nothing. Sounds like magic to me.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Even if atheists did hold that position (I don’t know any who do), it’s no worse than speculating that God created the universe ex nihilo as you do. Something coming from nothing and a being “acting” to make something come from nothing are both equally absurd. But naturally, people are foolish, and they respect what they don’t understand, so your “explanation” continues to be preferred by the uncritical masses.good…
Sure we had to poof into existence from nothing. Sounds like magic to me.
To quote Bill Maher: “Faith makes a virtue out of not thinking.”
B
buffalo
Guest
Share with me then what atheists hold about the beginning.
That is so bogus. It is an insult to the many just here alone on CAF that are thinking very hard. Invite Maher here and he can see for himself.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Me? I don’t know. That’s it: we just don’t know. Most people aren’t comfortable with admitting that they don’t know, but none of us do, whether we have faith or not.
And while they’re thinking, they’re not having faith in the matter being questioned. It’s very understandable. I wouldn’t want to be an unquestioning sheep either.
B
buffalo
Guest
Right - we don’t know, but with enough time, money and storytelling we will think we know…
Just a little FYI - there are more than a few ex-atheist and agnostics here. I guess they like the grass on this side better.
Catholics have faith indeed. It is simple. Opening one’s heart and mind to God. We know certain things because they have been Revealed. So it is true that we have faith in the truth of Revelation. Now God could have chosen not to Reveal anything at all and let us do it all on our own. But He gave us the visibility of His creation as well as its intelligibility to study. Revelation gives us a pointer on where to look.
I will point out one other thing - Catholics are to test everything as St Paul teaches -
But prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
S
Sideline
Guest
It would have been nice if you had read my post before answering.
Stasis, in the punctuated equilibrium model, refers to periods of little change species.
Most skeletons are not fossilized, and they breakdown over time. It has nothing to do with the rate of evolutionary change, but rather the conditions needed for fossilization.
Think about it, billions of people have lived since the beginning of humanity. We haven’t found most of their skeletons. Do you think that means that people don’t exist?
R
rossum
Guest
Ladies and gentlemen, we have here a perfect example of the YE creationist style of argumentation known as the “Gish gallop”. Notice that it is such a common occurrence that it even has a name.
In post #17 Bob posted a list of 20 points. These 20 points were criticised and many refuted. Bob failed to acknowledge that any his points were refuted. He failed to present any defence of those points. Instead he raises a 21st point and starts the whole process again.
I suspect that the reasoning behind this common YE creationist tactic is to try to make people forget that the original points were refuted or shown to be irrelevant. By continually raising new points, and never returning to defend the old points, the creationist tries to give the impression that he has a valid argument. This is false, all YE creationists have is a list of already refuted points (Points Refuted a Thousand Times - PRATTs). They keep posting them in the hope that someone will think that they have a valid argument. Well, they don’t. There is no scientific support for a young earth.
It is also worth noting that they have so little faith in the Bible that they have pretty much stopped using Biblical arguments - a tacit admission that science is a superior source of knowledge.
You are merely showing your ignorance of all the new feathered dinosaur fossils coming out of China. Go and learn about evolution, and I do not mean the YEC caricature of evolution. You would not want to learn about Christianity from an atheist website so you should not learn about evolution from a YEC website.
rossum
E
edwest2
Guest
To rossum -
I’ve been using Biblical arguments.
Adam and Eve, real people. It’s from the Library of this site. Our first parents. The anti-theist response? No. Science says there was a population. You can’t believe in just two people being there.
Buffalo has been listing Church teaching over and over and over again. Which is based on what? The Bible.
Why did Jesus have to die on the Cross? For a couple of hominids?
Original Sin? That’s when I start getting the “well, science is silent about that stuff.”
Well “science” is certainly not silent here.
Peace,
Ed
I’ve been using Biblical arguments.
Adam and Eve, real people. It’s from the Library of this site. Our first parents. The anti-theist response? No. Science says there was a population. You can’t believe in just two people being there.
Buffalo has been listing Church teaching over and over and over again. Which is based on what? The Bible.
Why did Jesus have to die on the Cross? For a couple of hominids?
Original Sin? That’s when I start getting the “well, science is silent about that stuff.”
Well “science” is certainly not silent here.
Peace,
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
Bear in mind that I am Buddhist. For me the Bible is not a scriptural source.
I have no problem with that. Adam and Eve were the first two people with human souls. Science tells us that there were other members of the same biological species alive at the time who did not have souls. The Bible is silent on this point, unless the Nephilim (Genesis 6:1-4) were such. Science can say nothing of souls since souls are immaterial; they do not fossilise and cannot be found in DNA. There is nothing science can say about God picking two members of an existing hominid species and giving them souls. The official line of the Catholic Church is that there is no doctrinal problem with humans’ material bodies having evolved.
But it is not based on the words of the Buddha, so I do not see it as automatically authoritative. If the teaching can be found in the Tripitaka then I will see it differently.
Jesus died for “all men”. Since all men are hominids then I am sure you can make the logical inference.
Agreed. Sin is a Christian concept. It does not feature in Buddhism, science or plumbing. There are many fields of knowledge where sin does not feature at all.
Scientists will react against unscientific nonsense. They will react very strongly against attempts to insert unscientific nonsense into science lessons in schools.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
What “populations” of animals are in the process of evolving/changing RIGHT NOW… Millions of years have gone by…I guess we’ll have to wait Millions more to find out.Touchstone is right, all living species are evolving.
I am not sure how much you already know about the subject, so forgive me if some of this is teaching you ovisuction.
Individual animals do not evolve; they are hatched/born, live, reproduce and die. It is populations of animals that evolve. Evolution is something that happens to populations, not to individuals. Over time the genes in a population of animals, plants, bacteria etc. will change. Some genes will become more common. Some genes will become less common. Some new genes will arise due to mutations. Some genes will disappear completely. The gene pool of each species changes over time. That change over time is evolution.
Hence all living species are evolving all the time. Individuals reproduce, populations evolve.
The theory of evolution is our current best explanation as to how the gene pools of populations change over time.
As well as the video liquidpele suggested in post #36 you might also want to look at Evolution 101.
Oh yes, you owe me 5 quatloos royalties for the dolphins in your post #45.
rossum
S
StAnastasia
Guest
We spent some time in the office today wondering whether this might in fact be the stupidest-of-all-possible-creationist-arguments. We did not reach consensus, however, as others argued that there are even stupider arguments, such as,
“If humans cam from monkeys, then why do lemurs exist?”
S
StAnastasia
Guest
His preaching inevitably led to a collision with the political powers of the day, ending in his betrayal and crucifixion.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Your question has already been answered by three people including myself. I’m going to have to assume that you’re not interested in reading much less understanding the answers. In one last ditch effort, I will make it blunt.What “populations” of animals are in the process of evolving/changing RIGHT NOW… Millions of years have gone by…I guess we’ll have to wait Millions more to find out.
All animal populations are changing RIGHT NOW, because genetic changes happen with just about every single reproduction. Every time a new animal is created, it has some kind of genetic mutation/gene-inhibition/etc. Most of them don’t do anything, some are harmful (see human genetic diseases), but sometimes things improve. Because changes can ONLY occur during reproduction, things happen very slowly. This is why in the last century, most of the natural evolution witnessed as been small changes like color. This is also why the fossil record is so important because it lets us see back in time over millions of years so you can actually look at evolution happening.
I hope that answers it this time. If you understand the topic but disagree, that’s fine, just say so. Asking the same questions with sarcasm thrown in as your argument does not do the topic justice though.
G
Greebus
Guest
here you goWhat “populations” of animals are in the process of evolving/changing RIGHT NOW… Millions of years have gone by…I guess we’ll have to wait Millions more to find out.
geneticarchaeology.com/research/Study_catches_2_bird_populations_as_they_split_into_separate_species.asp
Sorry to burst your bubble
T
Techno2000
Guest
Question: If a man could live to be say 1 million years old, and could monitor every animal on the planet would He see some animals start to evolve into some new ?
C
carinapir
Guest
Yes! That was easy.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Yes, it would be very likely that over 1 million years he would see many species diverge.
- Status