Conference on Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it odd that you believe that evolution is simpler than Gen 1-2. The odds are so much against evolution that I just cannot find in myself enough faith to believe it.
You shouldn’t “believe in” evolution. Science doesn’t require faith, but rather evidence. You seem to be completely in the dark about the evidence for evolution, and this is what is keeping you from accepting it.
It would be easier to believe that the universe sits on the back of a giant turtle.
Or creationism, for that matter. It’s always easier to believe the “just so” stories, than to investigate and learn what actually happens. But once you do, you will be free of such stories.
But, far be it from me to tell you what fairy tales you can or cannot believe in. Just don’t try to force your nonsense on me.
When your Pope tells you that there is a great amount of evidence for evolution, and that common descent of living things is virtually certain, it might be respectful to avoid that kind of talk.
 
Ahhh yes the soft tissue question. This shows that our understanding of fossilisation was incorrect. I believe they are reconsidering the concept and refining it. It has been along time since that discovery so they should have some published answers by now…
Actually, no soft tissue, since no cells still exist. The structures thought at first to be RBCs turned out not to be. But a bit of organic matter. Some heme (part of the hemoglobin molecule) survived. Which is not such a surprise. Leaves trapped in anoxic mud have survived for millions of years, and when exposed are still green. (quickly decaying in oxygen, however)

The heme, when injected into a lab animal, produced antibodies which most strongly reacted with the heme of birds, confirming Huxley’s prediction over a hundred years ago, that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
 
It’s not simpilar. Genisis is without the explantion of a crerator by far the most simple example. However simplicity does not mean truth. I understand evolution because I know the evidence I see the evidence and i work with the evidence. It’s all about the evidence. And genesis 1-2 has none and infact is inspite of the evidence.
Would you consider the fact that we are the evidence?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.
 
When your Pope tells you that there is a great amount of evidence for evolution, and that common descent of living things is virtually certain, it might be respectful to avoid that kind of talk.
Could it be possible that a variety of common ancestors like those of plants, birds, monkeys, bacteria, dinosaurs, insects, fish, animals, us, etc. all came from one common source which a scientist would call “common ancestor”, which is really God?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.
 
Could it be possible that a variety of common ancestors like those of plants, birds, monkeys, bacteria, dinosaurs, insects, fish, animals, us, etc. all came from one common source which a scientist would call “common ancestor”, which is really God?
As the Pope says, since all living things on Earth are genetically related, it’s virtually certain they had a common ancestor. Since God has no DNA, I don’t think He’s the common ancestor. I think He created the first living things naturally as it says in Genesis.
 
God did not create anything “naturally.” The power of His Word created. Nature has no goal, will or intelligence.

Peace,
Ed
 
As the Pope says, since all living things on Earth are genetically related, it’s virtually certain they had a common ancestor. Since God has no DNA, I don’t think He’s the common ancestor. I think He created the first living things naturally as it says in Genesis.
Barbarian, either the Holy Spirit (who is God) has DNA, or he faked DNA in the form of a semitic haploid genome at the time of the Incarnation. This genomic simulacrum could have been that of Joseph, or that of another semitic man. Or – if the Christmas cards are correct – it could have been the genome of a blond-haired, blue-eyed nordic male. In any case, it was a real haploid genome.

StAnastasia
 
God did not create anything “naturally.”
You don’t think God created you? Your body was created naturally. God says that living things were brought forth by the Earth. He does most things naturally in this world. Trust Him enough to let Him do it His way.
The power of His Word created. Nature has no goal, will or intelligence.
Neither does a hammer. But an intelligent agent can use it to make wonderfully beautiful and useful things.
 
Nature has no goal, will or intelligence. Only God’s Creation, from nothing, allows everything to come into existence.

Peace,
Ed
 
It’s not simpilar. Genisis is without the explantion of a crerator by far the most simple example. However simplicity does not mean truth. I understand evolution because I know the evidence I see the evidence and i work with the evidence. It’s all about the evidence. And genesis 1-2 has none and infact is inspite of the evidence.
I think your post is full of random mutations.

Anyway, I just remembered my policy about not taking anyone seriously who uses a silly username and thinks it’s clever. On my ignore list you go.

Gary
 
Biological evolution is very well understood.
Really? Understood by who?
“Biochemical evolution” is not part of the theory.
Yet it must be to make the theory complete. Without this critical step, you have no evolution. But all you have to offer is one big blank piece of paper.
But there are a number of theories that have an increasing amount of evidence for them. The evidence suggests that life was indeed brought forth by the earth as God says.
God never said the earth brought forth life. But it is very clever of you twist the scriptures which say that God brought forth life from the earth. God is the creator, not an observer of what the earth does.
You’re not a biologist are you?
I am not a biologist. I am also not a liar nor am I completely gullible or without reason.
Name one world-class biologist who doesn’t.
All of them. The world class, the nobel prize winners, the average, the below average, the well known, and the unrecognized, all of them.
You’ve been badly misled on that. Today, all sorts of research depends on the theory. Barry Hall, for example, has found a way to predict how new antibiotic resistance will evolve so that drug companies can find ways to counter it.
That is untrue. First of all drug companies haven’t produced such an antibiotic. Barry Hall and evolutionists like him use the term evolution very loosely. When he speaks about predicting the mutagenic properties of e.coli he is only referring to phenotype plasticity, not about true macro-evolutionary change where a new species arises with additional genetic information that its parents did not have the ability of expressing or producing. His e.coli are still e.coli, they didn’t turn into goldfish or anything else. The theory of soup to human evolution did not help Barry Hall in the least. The same model can be developed without any reference to the theory. I suppose that you think children who are taller than their parents are evidence of evolution. After all they can reach the higher apples on the tree.
 
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection -
Your wrong… You fail…
From you, I will take this as a compliment. You have obviously lost all sense of scientific objectivity. Theories need to be questioned that’s what they are for. Once you stop questioning scientific theories you have invented your own religion.

Good luck with your religious faith in a failed theory. You refuse to question the most obvious problems with evolution theory so I leave you to your ignorance.
 
Would you consider the fact that we are the evidence?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.
The evidence of what? Aliens using earth as an experiment on sentience… The Matrix…
Humans being humans says absolutely nothing about how we got here.
 
I think your post is full of random mutations.

Anyway, I just remembered my policy about not taking anyone seriously who uses a silly username and thinks it’s clever. On my ignore list you go.

Gary
Abbadon is in no way silly nor is it clever. Just a shout out to my favorite fallen angel. From the web comic Fallen.
 
From you, I will take this as a compliment. You have obviously lost all sense of scientific objectivity. Theories need to be questioned that’s what they are for. Once you stop questioning scientific theories you have invented your own religion.

Good luck with your religious faith in a failed theory. You refuse to question the most obvious problems with evolution theory so I leave you to your ignorance.
Did you even read the examples I found and gave. You said there is no addition of data, it just so happened we were covering duplication. You said there were no beneficial mutations I have you 15 + 3 without reference.

Of course, if we find evidence that defies the theory don’t you think scientists would rush at it? I’m not an evolutionary biologist so working out all the gaps is not my field. But I know there are scientists working on it, I’ll leave it to them. All I need is a basic understanding of the concept.

There is no faith in science. If the evidence said otherwise I would not be bothering to understand evolution and they wouldn’t bother teaching it to us. It is ridiculous to say… Oh since evolution can’t answer one specific question lets throw the theory out. We have no other workable theory that show biology as a functioning system.

Funny thing about useful mutations, my job in the future I hope will be artificially generating useful mutations.
 
All of them. The world class, the nobel prize winners, the average, the below average, the well known, and the unrecognized, all of them.
Can you name a world class biologist who rejects evolution?
 
To Cassini: You misrepresent the Conference on evolution as if it had the authority of the Magesterium and folks like us are bucking the Church. It doesn’t, and we aren’t.
The poetry of the Bible is indeed beautiful, but not nearly as awesome as beholding the incredible complexity of creation when it aligns perfectly with scripture. For instance, Genesis speaks of light and day and night before the formation of suns. Science is finally speaking of this as the Hubble telescope showed huge bodies of light (gaseous formations) out of which stars are forming. Genesis also speaks of 4 kinds of humanoid creatures in chapter 6: sons of God, daughters of men, the Nephilim, and their children who were different again. Science just now tells us (after a few mistakes) about Homo Sapien, Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensus and Neandrathal man, who all co-existed. Religion isn’t dead and science alive. They both are very much alive, and both are consistant too, when you treat them as two sides of the truth coin.
Patrick, hope you enjoyed your Christian named Saint’s day on Tuesday. Now to business. As usual, all threads that mention the word evolution end up as a vehicle to show all the ‘proofs’ for evolution - and let us get our terms correct, for evolutionism is the ideology that thinks kinds turned into other kinds (like whales emerged from the water and became elephants, or was it the other way around, elephants took to the water and became whales). It also becomes a vehicle for amateur theologians to show just how wrong all the popes, Fathers, Doctors and saints of the Church were in interpreting the Holy Scripture for eighteen centuries. Thank God however, there are one or two who still have the faith and are not intimidated by intellectual pride that permeates throughout the Modernism that has engulfed a chaotic Church that doesn’t know a bee from a bull’s foot (literally).

as regards your idea that this conference, and that is what this thread is supposed to be about, is harmless to the faith because it doesn’t represent the magisterium of the Church, well how naive you are. First it is under the auspices of the word PONTIFICAL which means it is connected directly with the Church by way of association. Here is a list of the organisers and the committee of honour whatever that is.
Organizing Committee
Rev. Prof.Marc LECLERC SJ,
Director of the Conference, Professor of Philosophy of Nature,
Pontifical Gregorian University
Prof. Gennaro AULETTA,
Vice-Director of the Conference, Assistant Professor in Philosophy
of Sciences, Pontifical Gregorian University,
Scientific Coordinator of the STOQ Project
Dr. Valeria ASCHERI,
Researcher in Philosophy of Science,
Pontifical University of the Holy Cross
Dr. Paolo D’AMBROSIO,
Doctoral Candidate, Pontifical Gregorian University
Prof. Saverio FORESTIERO,
Assistant Professor of Zoology, University of Rome, “Tor Vergata”
Prof. Ludovico GALLENI,
Professor of Zoology, University of Pisa
Rev. Prof. RafaelMARTÍNEZ,
Professor of Philosophy of Science,
Pontifical University of the Holy Cross
Prof. GeraldMcKENNY,
Professor of Christian Ethics,
University of Notre Dame (USA)
Rev. Prof. Rafael PASCUAL LC,
Professor of Philosophy of Nature,
Pontifical Athenaeum “Regina Apostolorum”
Prof. Pietro RAMELLINI,
Professor of Biology,
Pontifical Athenaeum “Regina Apostolorum”
Prof.Massimo STANZIONE,
Professor of Philosophy of Science, University of Cassino
Rev. Tomasz TRAFNY,
Executive Coordinator of the STOQ Project,
Pontifical Council for Culture.

Committee of Honor
Archbishop Gianfranco RAVASI,
President of the Pontifical Council for Culture,
President of the Committee of Honor
Cardinal Georges COTTIER OP,
Emeritus Pro-Theologian of the Pontifical Household
Cardinal Paul POUPARD,
Emeritus President of the Pontifical Council for Culture
Cardinal Christoph SCHÖNBORN OP,
Archbishop of Vienna
Archbishop Jean-Louis BRUGUÈS,
Secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education
Archbishop Luis LADARIA,
Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
ArchbishopMarcelo SÁNCHEZ SORONDO,
Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Archbishop JózefMirosław• ZYCIŃSKI,
Archbishop of Lublin
Prof.Werner ARBER,
Nobel PrizeWinner, Professor ofMolecular Genetics,
University of Basel
Prof. Nicola CABIBBO,
President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Prof. Jean-Michel DERCOURT,
Secretary of the Académie des Sciences
Rev. Prof. José FUNES SJ,
Director of the Vatican Observatory
Rev. Prof. Gianfranco GHIRLANDASJ,
Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University
Rev. Prof.Michał HELLER,
Templeton PrizeWinner, Fellow of the Pontifical Academy
of Sciences, Professor of Philosophy,
Pontifical Academy of Theology, Cracow
Sir Brian HEAP,
Vice President of the Royal Society
Prof. Robert J. RUSSELL,
Founder and Director of the Center for Theology
and the Natural Sciences, Berkeley.

Now Patrick, can you not see that this lot have the ear of the pope, or is it the other way around, for benerdict XVI invented his own evolutionary theology when rising through the ranks of the MODERN Church. The idea that today’s pope would give creationism a minutes hearing is a mutation in itself. That is why I say creationism is DEAD in the MODERN Church,
finally your own ‘science’ based exegesis of Genesis above is but another version of the theistic-evolutionist kind. ‘gaseous formations out of which stars are forming.’ This is evolution talk. They find Gas in the sky and then interpret it as stars FORMING. What it could not be are stars after BLOWING UP because that does not support evolution think.
Given that we KNOW stars do blow up the latter explanation is the only scientific one. The other is philosophical or ideological, no propaganda.

Then there is your four kinds of humanoid, oh God help spare us from such nonsense.
 
It is important to remember Gary that when we observe something that is 500 000 light years away, what we are actually observing is light from 500 000 years ago. So when we see that event occurring what we are actually witnessing is history.
Here abbadon is another example of human thinking coming before God’s revelation in Genesis. Genesis tells us God created all within six days. The only Father of note to disagree said it was all created immediately together. So, to ALL the Fathers God created the stars VISIBLE to man. Thus there is no 500,000 years difference IF those stars were created 500,000 or 50,000,000,000 light years distance.

Space-time then does not exist for man in a creationist faith. Light does take time to travel so all events we see in the sky occured withing the creationist existence of the earth which is revealed as 6,000 years.

No doubt the uniformitarians will come out with their ‘proofs’ for ages, but once examined they will be proofs for nobody but their own consensus, just like their proofs for heliocentricism and evolutionism. Any who stand by the Fathers of the Church can be assured that the Church has never led anyone astray in faith or science because Her way to knowledge or wisdom has a Queen, theology.

All that exists outside God was, in its whole SUBSTANCE, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide)

No creature can, as Principle Cause, that is, from its own power, create something out of nothing. (Sent. communis)

According to a decision of the Biblical Commission the literal historical sense is to be adhered to in regard to the formation of the first woman out of the first man (D.2123) CF Ecclus 17.5 (Vulg) “Out of him He (GOD) created a helper similar to him.”

So, do you think anyone at the evolution convention will take any notice of the Church’s traditional teaching? Will they HELL…
 
Any who stand by the Fathers of the Church can be assured that the Church has never led anyone astray in faith or science because Her way to knowledge or wisdom has a Queen, theology…So, do you think anyone at the evolution convention will take any notice of the Church’s traditional teaching? Will they HELL…
Cassini, you speak of the Pontifical Council’s conference as if it is in the future. It concluded more than a week ago. The Church’s traditional teaching was abundantly evident through thirty-five hours of lectures and discussion.

StAnastasia
 
As the Pope says, since all living things on Earth are genetically related, it’s virtually certain they had a common ancestor. Since God has no DNA, I don’t think He’s the common ancestor. I think He created the first living things naturally as it says in Genesis.
BTW I put common ancestor in quotes because the idea of DNA had to come from…

We can understand that genetically related means that there are shared genomes.
It is my humble observation that there could be another reason for shared genomes. It would be the common source for the life’s building blocks, themselves.

For example. When my kids made figures out of play dough, the second to the tenth figures were made separately so they did not evolve from the first figure. Yet, each of the figures were related by the properties of play dough. Anyone who has ever given kids three different colors of play dough knows what happens when the tenth separate figure is squished and then made into new figures. It’s something like evolutionary divergence with the new figures still sharing the properties of play dough but now in new colors and shapes.

The common source of original building material, the play dough, still accounts for the shared properties of the individual first figure with those which had evolved from the separate tenth figure. From an analytical point of view, so far I’ve seen nothing which would directly contradict the idea of common source materials, what composes living cells, as being the cause of an unity in creation.

Blessings,
granny

All human life comes from God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top