B
bpbasilphx
Guest
<>
Some paleontologists will debate this with you. Some have claimed to find transitional forms.
Some paleontologists will debate this with you. Some have claimed to find transitional forms.
- Status
M
melensdad
Guest
I am not sure why Catholics would not accept creation as a message/fable and simultaneously accept evolution as a reasonable theory (and currently only a theory).
The problem I see is that by rejecting the science is that we are opening ourselves up to ridicule and rejecting a lot of viable evidence that even religious scholars consider to be reasonable and viable. When we ignore science then we lose credibility. Last time I checked, God created science, God created evolution, so why can’t creationism and science/evolution go hand in hand? I think they can.
Now I’m not saying that evolution is fact, I’m just saying that it is not unreasonable for the theory of evolution to fit into the teachings and theology of the Church.
The problem I see is that by rejecting the science is that we are opening ourselves up to ridicule and rejecting a lot of viable evidence that even religious scholars consider to be reasonable and viable. When we ignore science then we lose credibility. Last time I checked, God created science, God created evolution, so why can’t creationism and science/evolution go hand in hand? I think they can.
Now I’m not saying that evolution is fact, I’m just saying that it is not unreasonable for the theory of evolution to fit into the teachings and theology of the Church.
A
abu_kamoon
Guest
Some paleontologists will debate this with you. Some have claimed to find transitional
forms.
I am sure if they had, we would have all heard about them, seen them, and the media would have been screaming about the “proof” of evolution. The truth is, there should be MORE transitional forms than static forms if evolution were true.
If animals were continuting to evolve, there should be an unbroken stream of creatures in various states of developement. Where are they? If evolution were going on today, we should see animals with developing organs and appendages, still to undeveloped to function. But we don’t, do we?
All of thoses fruit flies that were exposed to radiation in the Fifties ought to be developing into some more advanced insect form by now. But that dosen’t seem to be the case.
So why do people cling to the idea of evolution? Why is it so dogmatically defended when true science tends to disprove it? Why do some beieve that random mutations can bring about change for the better when experience shows them to be harmful?
forms.
I am sure if they had, we would have all heard about them, seen them, and the media would have been screaming about the “proof” of evolution. The truth is, there should be MORE transitional forms than static forms if evolution were true.
If animals were continuting to evolve, there should be an unbroken stream of creatures in various states of developement. Where are they? If evolution were going on today, we should see animals with developing organs and appendages, still to undeveloped to function. But we don’t, do we?
All of thoses fruit flies that were exposed to radiation in the Fifties ought to be developing into some more advanced insect form by now. But that dosen’t seem to be the case.
So why do people cling to the idea of evolution? Why is it so dogmatically defended when true science tends to disprove it? Why do some beieve that random mutations can bring about change for the better when experience shows them to be harmful?
O
Orogeny
Guest
Here you go. Now you can’t say that you haven’t heard about them.
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
There are, we just haven’t found them all nor will we ever. However, you are absolutely incorrect. It only takes one transitional form to support evolution.
True science understands that evolution is a fact. And I am willing to bet that you have zero experience that would show that random mutations cannot “bring change for the better”.
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
There is no such thing as true science. All reputable scientific organizations call it the Theory of Evolution. I think more Christians need to study God’s Word and understand that He created. The power shown by Jesus Christ indicates that God can raise the dead, give sight to the blind and calm the wind right away, That’s what God demonstrated He can do.
Evolution is the justification of the unbeliever. A Theory that claims to have evidence, but I question the interpretation of all of it. Science, at one time, was with God, now it is no miracles allowed. Those who think or want to accommodate with evolution ‘science’ and religion need to realize that evolution teaches human beings are animals and not created in the image and likeness of God. Evolution teaches that a series of fortuitous events brought us here, nothing else; God Not Needed. Again, God Not Needed. The Theory is judged complete with no outside God force involved.
God created,
Ed
Evolution is the justification of the unbeliever. A Theory that claims to have evidence, but I question the interpretation of all of it. Science, at one time, was with God, now it is no miracles allowed. Those who think or want to accommodate with evolution ‘science’ and religion need to realize that evolution teaches human beings are animals and not created in the image and likeness of God. Evolution teaches that a series of fortuitous events brought us here, nothing else; God Not Needed. Again, God Not Needed. The Theory is judged complete with no outside God force involved.
God created,
Ed
M
melensdad
Guest
Well that is ONE interpretation of the theory of evolution. However our priests, and in fact our Pope, interprets the theory of evolution somewhat differently. While I may not speak absolute canon here, basically the Church takes the position that evolution is a creation of God. No evolution could exist without God. Science has yet to link modern man to apes, to fish, to single cell organisms. And the Church would likely not support that type of linkage. However, to simply dismiss scientific theory is folly. As a theory, evolution can fit within the teachings of the church in harmony.
According to the theory, ALL forms of life are in transition ALL the time. Therefore all you have to do is look at your pet dog, cat, fish or parakeet to see a lifeform that is currently in transition. However with the theory of evolution, it takes 10s of thousands of years to SEE a change, and since we mortals are on this planet for a mere 60 to 80 years, we would not see visible proof of transition.
E
edwest2
Guest
Have you missed all of the posts here about evolution? You do know about all the so-called “pre-human” types? Anyone who believes in evolution will tell you that man began as a primitive organism in the ocean, then a tree dwelling mammal, and then, gradually, homo sapiens sapiens. It’s in all the textbooks.
Look here: clcbio.com/index.php?id=46
What caused Jesus Christ to appear on earth and die for our sins?
God bless,
Ed
Look here: clcbio.com/index.php?id=46
What caused Jesus Christ to appear on earth and die for our sins?
God bless,
Ed
M
melensdad
Guest
Not so. Some will say that. Some will not.
A
avflf
Guest
There are many scientists who do not accept the evolutionary theory but unfortunately the majority are too concerned in maintaining the status quo i.e. generous grants to pay their reseach, coupled with good salaries and most important the acclaim of their fellow scientists and the popular press. Those courageous enough to speak out become later day John Baptist crying in the wilderness. No scientific journal will publish their work, their grants are cut, they face becoming unemployed and unemployable, and suffer the derision of those that keep their mouths shut, their thought to themselves and swim with the current.
I wrote once a poem on evolution and would like to share with the members. Here goes
Of Fools and Horses
Those of an evolutionary persuasion,
Who can’t see design in anything,
Maintain that a natural explanation
Accounts for the life of each being.
From rocks dissolved by copious rain
A rich primordial “soup” came to be
And from it, they solemnly maintain,
Evolved the first ancestor of all you see.
Trillions of molecules in flotation
With billions of years in hand
Hit on a successful combination
And formed an organic strand.
The path to life now open-wide
Spurred “Chance” on its way
And a few million years aside
Brought complex forms to play.
These in turn “specialized”
And together they became fish
But much later “Chance” realized
Land would be their perfect niche.
So a mechanism – “mutation”
Began to provide the beat
That gave a neat explanation
How fins turned to legs and feet.
Thus came to be the reptile,
That from amphibians descended,
And then it evolved, after a while,
To mammals, as “Chance” intended.
Then appeared the mighty whale
(Scales to skin on body and brow)
And along the evolutionary trail
Came the hide to dress the cow.
Further speciation came to pass
And thru selection of the fitter
A branch would feed on grass
Another would eat the grass eater.
Reptiles, too, gave birth to birds,
And though the prototypes couldn’t fly
A few of the genes’ four letter words
Made some to rise and soar the sky.
Then the primates came to be
First with tails, but along the way
They’d drop off, and eventually
Homo erectus ruled the day.
From “erectus” to “sapiens” was fast,
A couple of million years or so,
And “sapiens sapiens” can now at last
Know how it all began long ago.
Professing to be wise they stoop
To this fairytale of a theory
That teaches that primordial “soup”
Brought forth the likes of you and me.
18 January 2006
I wrote once a poem on evolution and would like to share with the members. Here goes
Of Fools and Horses
Those of an evolutionary persuasion,
Who can’t see design in anything,
Maintain that a natural explanation
Accounts for the life of each being.
From rocks dissolved by copious rain
A rich primordial “soup” came to be
And from it, they solemnly maintain,
Evolved the first ancestor of all you see.
Trillions of molecules in flotation
With billions of years in hand
Hit on a successful combination
And formed an organic strand.
The path to life now open-wide
Spurred “Chance” on its way
And a few million years aside
Brought complex forms to play.
These in turn “specialized”
And together they became fish
But much later “Chance” realized
Land would be their perfect niche.
So a mechanism – “mutation”
Began to provide the beat
That gave a neat explanation
How fins turned to legs and feet.
Thus came to be the reptile,
That from amphibians descended,
And then it evolved, after a while,
To mammals, as “Chance” intended.
Then appeared the mighty whale
(Scales to skin on body and brow)
And along the evolutionary trail
Came the hide to dress the cow.
Further speciation came to pass
And thru selection of the fitter
A branch would feed on grass
Another would eat the grass eater.
Reptiles, too, gave birth to birds,
And though the prototypes couldn’t fly
A few of the genes’ four letter words
Made some to rise and soar the sky.
Then the primates came to be
First with tails, but along the way
They’d drop off, and eventually
Homo erectus ruled the day.
From “erectus” to “sapiens” was fast,
A couple of million years or so,
And “sapiens sapiens” can now at last
Know how it all began long ago.
Professing to be wise they stoop
To this fairytale of a theory
That teaches that primordial “soup”
Brought forth the likes of you and me.
18 January 2006
O
Orogeny
Guest
What do you care what they call it? You won’t accept what they say about it anyway. Bottom line is that evolution is a fact. How evolution occurrs is the theory part.
I study scripture every day (or almost every day). I believe that He created everything. Nothing in that statement denies evolution.
You have been claiming that for quite a while now, but it is wrong. If you think that evolution is the reason for athiesm, you are truly kidding yourself. People don’t believe for a variety of reasons. I accept evolution because the evidence is so overwhelming for it. I’m not a biologist, so I don’t understand the intricacies of the theory or much of the evidence, but I am a geologist who does understand the fossil record and, unlike Peter Wilders and his friend Guy Berthault, understands geology well enough to know that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
And yet, in a direct refutation of many of your posts, this is a very concise statement of what I believe:
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/prayers/nicenecreed.cfm
Now, if you dispute what I am saying, please give the scientific evidence you have, not some YEC rhetoric. If you dispute that I am sincere about my faith, you will in fact be calling me a liar.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Then they are cowards for not standing up for what they believe. Bottom line is that they are quiet because they know don’t have any science to back up their faith.
Funny thing is that if they actually had any real alternative theory and valid science to back them up, they would become much more famous that Darwin is. Grant money would not be a problem.
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
“People don’t believe for a variety of reasons.” I know of only two:
God bless,
Ed
- “God? Show me God and I might believe in him.”
- After I asked, Do you believe in God? Reply “I believe in evolution.”
God bless,
Ed
M
melensdad
Guest
Can you cite a reference source for that piece of information?
The Gallup organizations would suggest your statement is generally false in several polls taken over several years (including this year), although some data conflicts with other data: galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847
Also, what about other nations beyond America’s borders, what do they believe?
A
avflf
Guest
The only alternative theory is creation isn’t it? But no one can prove creation beyond doubt. What makes them not accept evolution is the sheer improbability that life came from non-life. In the middle-ages people believed in “spontaneous generation” and it was proven wrong but it seems that this belief is back in vogue with evolutionists. A step backwards, I’d say.
And no, they would not to rise to Darwin’s popularity because
modern science has no room for a creator and to accept one would mean going back to square one on the theory issue.
Grant money is the crux of the matter; ask those scientists that dared disagree with the “big bang theory”.
S
spangler1982
Guest
The world’s largest Creation Museum (before this new one) is located only about a 5 minute drive from the Catholic Answers office: icr.org/index.php?module=discover&action=index&page=discover_museum
E
edwest2
Guest
Here’s the reference:
usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-evolution-debate-centerpiece_x.htm
I would like to point out that I know academics and people who work in science. I am not a caricature or stereotype. However, it is the Father in Heaven that draws people to Christ, the Holy Spirit that bears witness of Him and Christ Himself that is the Savior of the world.
Evolution cannot be used as a tool for evangelization as it is presented here.
God bless,
Ed
usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-evolution-debate-centerpiece_x.htm
I would like to point out that I know academics and people who work in science. I am not a caricature or stereotype. However, it is the Father in Heaven that draws people to Christ, the Holy Spirit that bears witness of Him and Christ Himself that is the Savior of the world.
Evolution cannot be used as a tool for evangelization as it is presented here.
God bless,
Ed
A
Ahimsa
Guest
:yawn:
M
melensdad
Guest
Interesting that USA Today, which you used as a source, used the Gallup Poll data that I provided which refutes the USA Today data.
Dig into the data and the story is pretty interesting. But I am a Creationist-Evolutionist. I believe that God created everything, and God created man, but I also believe that it is possible that man and animals may have slowly evolved into what exists today. My belief seems to be in concert with the teachings of the Church and the recent declaration of our Pope.
E
edwest2
Guest
I have no reason to believe USA Today would not do fact checking.
There is no evidence that any creature turned into another. If you breed a dog, you get a dog. The same with a horse, etc. Evolutionists don’t seem to understand that the genetic lottery is not going to give a creature novel organs, or change a four legged tree dwelling creature into an upright walking man. It’s wishful thinking.
In fact, based on my reading of the available literature, Intelligent Design makes more sense, but not with long ages.
God bless,
Ed
There is no evidence that any creature turned into another. If you breed a dog, you get a dog. The same with a horse, etc. Evolutionists don’t seem to understand that the genetic lottery is not going to give a creature novel organs, or change a four legged tree dwelling creature into an upright walking man. It’s wishful thinking.
In fact, based on my reading of the available literature, Intelligent Design makes more sense, but not with long ages.
God bless,
Ed
B
Benedictus
Guest
If people really stop believing because of evolution, it is only because far too many Christians have opposed evolution far too loudly, creating the impression that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. They are not. St Thomas famously said that there is no conflict between true science and true religion. Evolution is true science. Creationism is neither of the two.
- Status