Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mathematician said:
Well, I am an Anglican, but unless I am very much mistaken, the official position of the Catholic Church is that the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and morals. (Not science - not least because that is demonstrably not the case.)
Click to expand...
The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals.
 
buffalo said:
The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
Well excuse me, but, with regard to the Bible, the Second Vatican Council published a document recalled Verbum Dei. I can’t quite believe that even the Catholic Church would try to maintain that the Pope’s word takes presedence over what even it refers to as the Word of God.
 
mathematician said:
Well excuse me, but, with regard to the Bible, the Second Vatican Council published a document recalled Verbum Dei. I can’t quite believe that even the Catholic Church would try to maintain that the Pope’s word takes presedence over what even it refers to as the Word of God.
Click to expand...
This is obviously a different topic, but it’s worth pointing out that in the Catholic view, the Bible is both a written document as well as the living Word of God. But one can only reach the supernatural Word through the written (or spoken) words.

In the Catholic view, the Bible is text. It does not explain itself. It does not read itself to people. Obviously, a person walking past a Bible will not hear it speaking for itself.

So, while you might be surprised by this, “even the Catholic Church” (and we got a glimpse of how little you respect it) cannot put written words above anything.

Like the so-called fossil evidence, the words require an infallible interpreter. Otherwise, there would not be an arbiter in matters of dispute and one could not reach certainty on what the Bible means. We might find some examples of how this happened among some various people who took the Bible and interpreted it privately – and lacking an authoritative voice established by God as infallible, they proceeded to create a multitude of sectarian groups. Some of those actually considered the chief authority of the Church of Christ should be the monarch of an island off of the coast of Europe, for whatever reason.

This was an odd development because that particular monarch could provide no evidence of apostolic authority (laying on of hands) which had bound the Christian Church for 16 centuries prior. But perhaps Christ suddently decided that the virtue of being the ruler of England was sufficient to impart powers of headship on the Church. Then again, it may be true that Christ will actually establish his kingdom in a similar place like Independence, Missouri, as the Mormons claim. It’s difficult to discern these things some times.

But anyway, yes – “even the Catholic Church” knows that subjective interpretation of the Scriptures leads to the kind of chaos that one can find among thousands of scattered denominations and renders the Word of God meaningless in the end.

Somewhat back to topic – I find it signfiicant that Mr. Darwin was a product of a religious culture that was ruled by subjective judgement in religious matters (after many ugly battles) since he was cut off from the apostolic roots of the faith and it was not that difficult for him to create a theory which attacked the remnants of Christianity in his own culture.
 
Evolution is simply another form of Nature Worship.

Nature (as opposed to God) can do all things. The new priests, Scientists, have been tasked with providing only natural explanations. As all Catholics know, miracles still occur, that is how people become saints. However, by painting itself into a corner, science ignores miracles. Of course, you might think, since science can’t explain it, it’s not natural. Science does not study the supernatural. But why do they ignore it? It did actually happen.

This does create a problem for Catholics who say they “believe” but do not “know.” To whom do you pray to every night? Your imagination? You have entered into a relationship with a living being. This relationship will extend beyond death when a physical being will judge you.

Take the Eucharist. Some are fond of pointing out that it’s not actual flesh and blood. But there is a circular piece of Eucharist that is flesh and blood. God knows the depth of our unbelief while living in the “real” world. That is why the Immaculate Conception has appeared on more than a few occasions. Her messages were from God.

In summary. The Biology text is the atheist holy book. It shows that something came from nothing. And further, that nothing can create life and modify it through the self-generating engine called evolution. Abiogenesis is taken purely on faith, with all faith invested in the scientist-priests that only - ONLY - a natural explanation will be found.

Already, I’ve noticed some inconsistensies in the dogmatic statement that “evolution is change over time.”

Virues > ----------- > billions of generations later > ------------- > still Viruses

Bacteria > ------------ > billions of generations later > -------------- > still Bacteria

Dogs > ----------------- > after numerous generations of interbreeding > --------- still Dogs

Peace,
Ed
 
The oldest horseshoe crab fossil was found in Canada last year – dated at 445 million years old. It’s indistinguishable from a modern horseshoe crab. The body plan was unchanged, it has the same compound eyes, same jointed appendages. These fossils apppear fully-formed, without transitional ancestors and then the supposedly all-powerful forces of evolution changed nothing in those organisms for nearly a half a billion years.
 
edwest2 said:
Already, I’ve noticed some inconsistensies in the dogmatic statement that “evolution is change over time.”

Virues > ----------- > billions of generations later > ------------- > still Viruses

Bacteria > ------------ > billions of generations later > -------------- > still Bacteria

Dogs > ----------------- > after numerous generations of interbreeding > --------- still Dogs

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Unless you’ve been tracking every single organism and virus on the planet, you can’t say that the first two are even true. There are even modern day examples of organisms capable of surviving on their own or working together (lichens for example). Even the mitochondria in our own cells are a symbiotic relationship that’s completley merged at this point.

As for dogs… compare a great dane with a bulldog. At what point are you going to call them a different species? You want them to grow wings or something? Plus, it’s only been thousands of years for that, and it’s been towards human goals not survival goals so it’s been bounded.
 
reggieM said:
The oldest horseshoe crab fossil was found in Canada last year – dated at 445 million years old. It’s indistinguishable from a modern horseshoe crab. The body plan was unchanged, it has the same compound eyes, same jointed appendages. These fossils apppear fully-formed, without transitional ancestors and then the supposedly all-powerful forces of evolution changed nothing in those organisms for nearly a half a billion years.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. Unfortunately for the point you’re trying to make, one specimen like that doesn’t suddenly make all the thousands of changing fossils found not count.
 
j1akey said:
What I would like to see is Mr. Conleigh question and debate a real evolutionary scientist and not a fake transcript that was made for the purpose of dramatic impact in an attempt to add validity.
Click to expand...
Evolutionary scientists avoid debates like the plague. The ones that show up are made to look like the fool in the fictitious debate. Perhaps j1akey or cerad could answer the questions: How did the immune system evolve? How did eyesight evolve? Which came first, blood, veins or capillaries? And why? Please, enlighten us!
 
buffalo said:
The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals - ONLY when he is speaking *ex *cathedra; the rest of the time he can be as wrong as the rest of us.
 
KEVIN_WILCOX said:
The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals - ONLY when he is speaking *ex *cathedra; the rest of the time he can be as wrong as the rest of us.
Click to expand...
I would caution against making statements like that. Pope Benedict was a University Professor which I doubt applies to the rest of us.

Peace,
Ed
 
liquidpele said:
That’s interesting.
Click to expand...
More than interesting. It one of many, many facts that cannot be reconciled with the claims of evolutionary theory. One half billion years – no change. No transitional ancestors. No evolutionary path in sight. No further developments from the so-called power of mutations. The organisms didn’t grow fins, more streamlined shape, water wings, snorkels … nothing.

The response from the evolutionary world is just like yours. Ignore the contradictions that pop up and point to things that they think “fit the theory better”.

Supposedly, this theory is “more certain than gravity”. Perhaps engineers should just overlook the anomalies involved in bridge building. “This bridge might hold the appropriate weight most of the time”.

Now how many things like the non-evolving horseshoe crab would it take to falsify the theory?

Experience shows that evolutionists can ignore quite a lot of evidence.
 
Evolution presupposes developmental change toward (what Teilhard de Chardin referred to as) the Omega point. A state wherein all things have been perfected and Marxism is Christianity, the coalescence of all things.

*‘The synthesis of the Christian ‘God’ on high and the Marxist ‘God’ of the future is the only God we can adore in spirit and in truth’ (op. cit.)

*It is possible to agree on change without accepting ‘evolution’.

Then I suppose it comes down to: How does one interpret Scripture? On a literalist or figurative basis?
A literalist interpretation presents more than a few challenges.

Fundamentalism or liberalism?
 
liquidpele said:
Unless you’ve been tracking every single organism and virus on the planet, you can’t say that the first two are even true.
Click to expand...
That is a strange way to offer evidence for evolution. In other words, the belief is that somewhere in the world, bacteria are evolving into more complex life forms but nobody has found them yet. That’s claiming evidence from imagination.

The bacteria that has been tracked for billions of generations (those can occur in a very short period of time) remain as bacteria. That’s the observed evidence. Everything else is wishful thinking.
 
liquidpele said:
That’s interesting. Unfortunately for the point you’re trying to make, one specimen like that doesn’t suddenly make all the thousands of changing fossils found not count.
Click to expand...
There may be many that suggest change due to evolution, but still there has been no direct observation of the kinds of change that are said to have happened. And most of the fossils show sudden appearence followed by stasis. The majority of fossils suddenly appear and remain unchanged. The fossils which are millions of years old are identical to the modern living specimens. Only a small percentage are thought to have “changed”.
 
reggieM said:
That is a strange way to offer evidence for evolution. In other words, the belief is that somewhere in the world, bacteria are evolving into more complex life forms but nobody has found them yet. That’s claiming evidence from imagination.

The bacteria that has been tracked for billions of generations (those can occur in a very short period of time) remain as bacteria. That’s the observed evidence. Everything else is wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t saying it was evidence for evolution, I was pointing out that his point was not evidence. Besides, comparing evolution of bacteria and multicellular organisms (which is what you’re doing) shows a lack of understanding of the matter.
 
geometer said:
There may be many that suggest change due to evolution, but still there has been no direct observation of the kinds of change that are said to have happened. And most of the fossils show sudden appearance followed by stasis. The majority of fossils suddenly appear and remain unchanged. The fossils which are millions of years old are identical to the modern living specimens. Only a small percentage are thought to have “changed”.
Click to expand...
Consider that for a fossil to ever be created, the specimen has to die in very VERY specific places. Then, we probably are unlikely to find the fossil after that. It’s amazing we have the fossils we do honestly. This is why I shake my head at those demanding missing links as if all one had to do was start digging.

A specimen that went unchanged for a long period of time is interesting, but nothing more. Evolutionary theory rewards what helps reproduction. It’s perfectly fine for things not to change if no changes improve it’s design. This is especially true for sea creatures, since the ocean changes far less than the land.
 
edwest2 said:
I would caution against making statements like that. Pope Benedict was a University Professor which I doubt applies to the rest of us.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict (abbreviated biography):
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith;
President of the Biblical Commission;
President of the Pontifical International Theological Commission and
President of the Commission for drafting the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

And he is a private theologian - one whose opinion can be as wrong as everyone else’s. He is not right all the time; propagating a belief that whatever personal viewpoint the pope holds as above reproach is divisive and antagonistic.
Indeed on numerous occasions Pope Benedict has encouraged us to exercise our intellect as (rational) students. He sets an example he encourages us to follow. In fact one can read his (private) development of thought throughout his writings.

On the other hand, if you are implying variety of capability I tend to agree.
In his position as Pope when Pope Benedict speaks from that position with papal authority in matters of faith and morals he is unquestionably infallible.

St Therese of Lisieux filled a thimble and a glass with water and asked her sister which was more full. They are both full to maximum capacity, this is how God would have each of us with His Grace.
 
liquidpele said:
It’s perfectly fine for things not to change if no changes improve it’s design.
Click to expand...
There are a few problems here because if it was perfectly fine for things not to change, then how could the power of mutations and natural selection be assessed? Addititionally, this leaves us with the natural selection tautology – namely, that whatever survived was the fittest for survival (leaving descendents). There is nothing predictive about that.

In 450 million years, an organism shows no evolutionary change. This cannot be dismissed as simply part of evolutionary theory. A much better explanation than simply “they were perfectly suited to their environment” is needed – given the parallel claims that other organisms changed radically (whales supposedly evolving from fish to mammals and then back to fish).

There are many others. Ctenophores (comb jelly) appear in the lowest fossil layer, fully formed and identical with modern forms. This is an organism that is dated to the Cambrian era – the oldest known fossil of which is 540 million years old. No evolutionary changes appear in over a half a billion years. Again, there are no known ancestors, no transitionals before or after.

So again, it’s not enough to merely say that these organisms “didn’t need to change”. Again, the time span is massive. How is it possible that with changes in temperatures, access to food and other supposed evolutionary processes occurring around these organisms that they show zero change – even micro-evolutionary adaptations?

Evolutionary scientists are genuinely baffled by this. They do not have the answers. This is data which does not fit the theory. Mutations are claimed to be so powerful that they produced the overwhelming variety in nature – in far shorter periods of time then a half billion years.

Again, when a theory makes a claim, then the discoveries and new data should fit the theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top