Creation or Evolution. What do you believe?

[Chris_W]

wildlifer:

All the evidence shows Evolution is a fact. But it is the Theory, ie the mechanisms of evolution, that is not “fact.”.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here. It has been said many times in this thread that the evidence shows evolution is possible and does not rule out other exlanations for the observations. One might look at the amount of evidence that shows evolution is possible, and form an opinion that evolution is in fact true, but that is an interpretation of the evidences. The evidence does not prove evolution is true, by the nature of science (see the earlier posts about how science cannot prove).

wildlifer:

The problem here is that you assume since scientists seek natural explanations of phenomena, they are anti-God…

You are falling into the same trouble I did when I made an assumption about PhilVaz. Your assumption is not correct. Science is a very good thing. My objection is only when people use science to make conclusions that reach beyond the scope of what science can demonstrate.

wildlifer:

For a better understanding of the many, as there is more than one, theories of abiogenesis you might look here.…

Thank you. I will review the site.

I think I asked a fair question about abiogenesis. My question is not so much how the theory might work. My question is, how is it not part of the theory of evolution? And, because the theory of abiogenesis does in fact seek to explain how life originated by natural means (without the assistance of God), How can you say the theory evolution is not at odds with theism? If I have erred in my logic about this (entirely possible), please explain it to me.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Meatros:

Chris W:

When asked why it is impossible for God to have created as described in Genesis, Oolon responded, (having positioned himself as relying purley on empirical data), “Sure, he could have. But he didn’t. He used evolution.”

Well, Oolon was wrong, it is impossible for God to have created as described in Genesis, as there are two contradictory accounts. For God to have done both would require mental gymnastics.

Here is the exchange, from post #38:

Melchior: Is ir really so hard to believe that God could create man in one single step? Or is that God not sophisticated enough?

Oolon: Sure, he could have. But he didn’t. He used evolution.

It’s surely obvious that if there were an omnipotent being, he could do it however he wanted. By definition. However, all the evidence indicates that he actually chose to do the ‘creating’ via evolution.

 

[Chris_W]

Oolon Colluphid:

Here is the exchange, from post #38:

It’s surely obvious that if there were an omnipotent being, he could do it however he wanted. By definition. However, all the evidence indicates that he actually chose to do the ‘creating’ via evolution.

I can understand your opinion. I do not dispute there is evidence that He indeed could have used evolution, nor does the Catholic Church dispute this. So long as we can agree that this is your opinion, (based on your evaluation of the evidences), I have no objection with your statement. My opinion is different than your opinion. Science (so far) cannot falsify either opinion.

 

[Jillian]

Chris W:

Since it has been said that I have misunderstood the intentions of some of the evolutionists on this thread, I would like to ask a question that could set my mind more at ease:

Is there any scientific evidence (empirical data) that can falsify the fundamental statement of faith by Catholics (as follows)?

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontious Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He decended into hell and on the third day, He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again, in glory, to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Churh, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

Obviously, there are many things stated in this creed that must necessarily fall outside the realm of scientific explanation, but is there anything contained therein which can infact be disputed by science? What I mean is, I am not challenging anyone to prove what oviously science cannot prove, but rather, trying to determine whether the Catholic faith and evolution are indeed comapable, if they do not contradict each other.

I hope this is a fair question. We are, after all, on a Catholic web-site.

Well, see, that’s the thing about an omnipotent deity - it’s a completely unfalsifiable hypothesis, so by definition science would have nothing productive to say about it, or about any occurence in the Nicene creed, since presumably such occurences would arise from the direct action of the aforementioned omnipotent deity . That isn’t to say that there aren’t other potential problems with such a concept, but luckily for us, none of them have any bearing on whether or not evolution takes place.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Chris W:

And, because the theory of abiogenesis does in fact seek to explain how life originated by natural means (without the assistance of God), How can you say the theory evolution is not at odds with theism? If I have erred in my logic about this (entirely possible), please explain it to me.

Abiogenesis only seeks to answer the idea of life from non-life. God isn’t really in the question. Even if Abiogenesis was proven that only would describe the mechanism used by God. Ultimately, we walk by faith.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Gosh-darn network has been down at work, so been waiting all day to post this…

Melchior:

I never confused “Proof” and “Theory”.

If you say so. But why do you keep on asking for proof, when we keep on telling you there’s no such absolute thing in science, only our best, closest approximation to it? We have facts, and we have theories to explain those facts.

One fact is that we have fossils with characteristics of now-separate groups. Feathers and furculas and teeth and bony tails; anterior foramen magnums* (magna? ) and facial prognathism** and larger-than-ape-smaller-than-human brains.

And we have two theories to explain them. Evolution predicts these creatures. Please explain them with creation.

So I too will ask: what should a transitional look like?

• the skull hole where the spinal cord meets the brain being underneath, rather than toward the back as in other apes, so that, when the head is horizontal, the spine has to be vertical, indicating bipedalism. Otherwise the critter would be knuckling along constantly staring at the ground. And with the more human-like ratio of humerus to femur length, they’d have had their bums in the air too.

(And just so everyone knows, I’m thinking above of Australopithecus africanus and co… the Homo ergaster / African erectus represented by WT 15000 is obviously more sapiens-like than things like KNM-ER 1470, OH 24, STS 5, and so many other older hominins. And for the uninitiated, those are the catalogue numbers assigned to the specimens: Kenya National Museum - West Turkana; KNM - East Rudolph; Olduvai Hominid; and something-or-other else which slips my mind, probably involving Sterkfontein. STS 5, incidentally, is nicknamed ‘Mrs Ples’. More on these and many others when Mel – or any other creationist volunteer – gets back to me about Turkana Boy.)

** sticky-out faces – longer-than-sapiens palate and mandible, etc.

Since the creationists are apparently refusing to comment on the pic which lines up a load of skulls of progressively younger date, perhaps we can be even more specific. Please tell me whether KNM-WT 15000 is ape or human.

If there are no transitionals, this should be trivially easy.





Read about it here and see a couple of bigger pictures here.

So, ape or human? It has got to be one or the other.

I am writing in english [sic].

And the links that I saw provided no observable evidence,

I have given you some pictures in this very thread. Please observe them at your leisure.

Or anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Evolution is a claim about pattern. Some pieces are more obvious than others, and you have been given some, but it’s the whole pattern you’re missing.

One fossil on its own does not make a pattern; lots of them and biochemical, anatomic, genetic, biogeographical and behavioural pieces, all together, blast a searchlight into the shadows of doubt.

Nevertheless… please tell me whether the wild young Turk (-ana Boy) above is ape or human.

Oh, and before I have to ask, please say why you think so.

I could find you several sites that toss some very convincing “evidence” out against these supposed “proofs”.

I entirely agree that you probably could, right down to the quote marks around the term evidence.

So why don’t you? If you claim to be able to refute what we say, then please do so!

So you believe in Punctuated Equilibrium? No need to answer.

Nope, I don’t. I prefer to think. And I think it’s trivial, and likely in some circumstances… but then I never thought ‘constant speedism’ was how evolution worked anyway.

Why? Please tell us what you think it is, and why, presumably, it’s unbelievable.

Incidentally, please could you explain on what grounds you accept – assuming you do! – that the earth orbits the sun. What is the evidence for it, and why do you ‘believe’ it?

TTFN, Oolon

 

[Bigwill]

Every single scientific theory in the history of history has been proven false in the course of time. Evolution is the best theory that we have for the facts that we have. But it has its limitations. If the history of science is to teach us anything, it is that within the next 200-300 years we will have enough facts that do not fit into the theory of evolution that the theory itself will have to be discarded.

 

[Jillian]

Bigwill:

Every single scientific theory in the history of history has been proven false in the course of time.

Really?

Germs don’t cause disease?
Living things aren’t composed of cells?

I can’t believe I just wasted fifty bucks on a biology textbook that still has these theories in it when they’ve been proven false.

Any chance you could link me to a website offering a credible critique of cell theory, or are you just making this up as you go along?

 

[Bigwill]

Jillian:

Really?
Any chance you could link me to a website offering a credible critique of cell theory, or are you just making this up as you go along?

You’re right, I misspoke. I shouldn’t have included currently-accepted theories. For more information, feel free to read and/or research Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

BTW, the “or are you just making this up as you go along” was uncalled for. Why the animosity?

 

[Chris_W]

MichaelTDoyle:

Abiogenesis only seeks to answer the idea of life from non-life. God isn’t really in the question. Even if Abiogenesis was proven that only would describe the mechanism used by God. Ultimately, we walk by faith.

It seems to me that this would be to say God created matter, but not life (life then somehow came about by natural means later). Of course most theists (I think) believe God is the source of life as well as matter. I certainly do.

So I must still conclude that abiogenesis seeks to disprove God. And since I also still maintain that abiogenesis is a part of the theory of evolution, I still conclude the theory of evolution is at odds with theism.

 

[Chris_W]

Jillian:

Well, see, that’s the thing about an omnipotent deity - it’s a completely unfalsifiable hypothesis, so by definition science would have nothing productive to say about it, or about any occurence in the Nicene creed, since presumably such occurences would arise from the direct action of the aforementioned omnipotent deity . That isn’t to say that there aren’t other potential problems with such a concept, but luckily for us, none of them have any bearing on whether or not evolution takes place.

I agree. It is indeed proper then, to state that science cannot falsify anything in the creed. That is good. I can continue to tell my atheist brother-in-law that religion has nothing to fear from science.

 

[mfaber]

brianberean:

Ric:

Young Earth Creation!

Six 24 hour period days and one 24 hour period of rest!

Brother Ric, I wholeheartedly agree!

Brian

PART 1:
Then you can explain just how you can have a “24 hour day” WITHOUT the sun…

The Bible says that in the “Days” creation story that plants were created on the 3rd “day” (Gen. 1 (KJV):12-13) and the sun was created on the 4th “day” (Gen. 1:16-18).

A creationist who claims that God created the universe in 6, 24-hour days, based on a story told by scientifically-unsophisticated, Bronze Age Middle-Eastern nomads who claimed that God didn’t create the SUN UNTIL THE FOURTH “DAY” have a number of problems…

QUESTION: “Our clock time is based on the Earth’s rotation with respect to the sun from solar noon to solar noon. This is a solar day, and it is divided into 24 hours.” (From Earth’s Rotation and Apparent Daily Motion) ]How was “time” calculated without the sun? In other words, how can one have a “24 hour day” with a morning and evening without the sun?

QUESTION: Plants were created on DAY THREE. Plants need the sun to perform photosynthesis, how did they survive without the sun? If you are correct, then the Genesis story shouldn’t contradict known scientific facts. Plant photosynthesis is dependent specific wavelengths of light generated by the sun (not all “light” is up to the task). Please don’t try a favorite YEC cop-out and try to claim that God just created seeds which “waited” for the sun to be created…Genesis doesn’t say seeds, it says “plants”.

Of course that brings up yet another problem (PART 2)

 

[mfaber]

brianberean:

Ric:

Young Earth Creation!

Six 24 hour period days and one 24 hour period of rest!

Brother Ric, I wholeheartedly agree!

Brian

PART 2… The Light Question (Just what is Genesis describing)

This brings up another problem… It is quite obvious that the ancients did not have a clue about the nature of “light” and thought that “light” and “dark” were mutally exclusive, i. e., darkness was the “absence” of light. This is NOT true. Light has a specific definition:

What is light?
Light, in it’s commonly assumed form, is simply a name for a range of electromagnetic radiation that can be detected by the human eye. What is electromagnetic radiation, then?

Electromagnetic radiation has a dual nature as both particles and waves. One way to look at it is as changing electric and magnetic fields which propagate through space, forming an electromagnetic wave.

Not all electromagnetic radiation is detectible by the human eye (infra-red, x-rays, radiowaves, gamma rays)

• *“Light” that the ancients understood would have been those wavelengths detectible by the eye ONLY. *
• There is actually “light” in the form or x-rays, radiowaves, infra-red in the “darkness” of outer space (“dark” to our eyes)===>This is why there is really no such thing as separation of “light” from “darkness”.
• ** “Darkness” is relative in that it a term defined by our inability to perceive certain spectra without the aid of special instrumentation.
• • In reality, there is no such thing as “darkness’” if one tries to define it as the absence of “light”.***

ALL light has a SOURCE:

Sources of Light

There are two basic types of light sources.

1. • Incandescence involves the vibration of entire atoms.
   • Luminescence involves only the electrons.

1. 
   

   Incandescent light is produced when atoms are heated and release some of their thermal vibration as electromagnetic radiation. It is the most common type of light that you see everyday sunlight, regular light bulbs (not florescent) and fires are all incandescent sources of light…
   
   Unlike incandescence, **luminescent light occurs at lower temperatures, **It turns out that electrons like to have energy at specific “energy levels.” Thus, when an electron jumps down to a lower energy level, it will release a specific amount of energy which becomes a photon, or light of a specific color. Therefore, continued luminescence requires something to continuously give the electrons a boost to a higher energy level to keep the cycle going. This boost may be provided by many sources: electrical current as in florescent lights, neon light, mercury-vapor street lights, light emitting diodes, television screens and computer monitors; chemical reactions as in Halloween light sticks and fire-flies; or radioactivity as in luminous paints, to name just a few examples.
   The problems with Genesis with respect to “light” are these: (summing up)…
   
   First, “light”(incandescent light) creating the day had to have a SOURCE. Where did the “light” mentioned Genesis come from for the “morning and evening” of the “days” (light sources NOT created until late in the game)
   
   Second, Genesis says that God separated the “light” from the “darkness”. That is also erroneous because “darkness” is NOT the absence of light. “Darkness” is simply an term that illuminates the fact that we are blind (in the dark) to certain types of light.
   
   Last, not least, you do know that there are Genesis has TWO creation stories and they conflict with each other?** (The “6-DAY” Priestly story versus the Yahwist “Adam/Eve” story?** ) How do you explain this?

 

[Jillian]

Bigwill:

You’re right, I misspoke. I shouldn’t have included currently-accepted theories. For more information, feel free to read and/or research Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

BTW, the “or are you just making this up as you go along” was uncalled for. Why the animosity?

Well, you have to admit, the “every theory has been disproven” bit sounds like a prime bit of internet trollism, and I have to admit that I’ve developed a taste for troll over the last few years. No harm done, though.

The little I know of Kuhn doesn’t really impress me that much - his Structure kind of reminds me of the Punk Eek of philosophy of science…a basic understanding inflated way out of proportion by its proponent. And it’s his fault that no one can say the word “paradigm” with a straight face anymore, as well.

I’m a bit confused by what you mean with the attempt to exclude “currently accepted theories” from your prior comment. After all, all theories are “currently accepted” at some point in time, and if “currently accepted theories” aren’t subject to Kuhnian paradigm shifts, then such shifts would never take place at all. It would be like being your own grandpa, I’d think.

 

[usherMike]

I remember from long ago Darwin (in his writings) said, “if the missing link is not found this whole theory is worthless.” And so far there is no missing link. However, science is always proving things in the bible have happened e.g. the flood of Noah, the cities of Sodem and Gomora, and the ruins of many Egyiption chariots at the bottom of the red sea. .

 

[Jillian]

Chris W:

I agree. It is indeed proper then, to state that science cannot falsify anything in the creed.

Sure. Trying to falsify omnipotence is like trying to falsify last Tuesdayism. Life is too short to waste time on such things, imo.

That is good. I can continue to tell my atheist brother-in-law that religion has nothing to fear from science.

I dunno if I’d go that far, but I am comfortable saying that religious people have nothing to fear from evolution. And isn’t that ulitmately what this whole discussion is about?

 

[Jillian]

usherMike:

I remember from long ago Darwin (in his writings) said, “if the missing link is not found this whole theory is worthless.” And so far there is no missing link. However, science is always proving things in the bible have happened e.g. the flood of Noah, the cities of Sodem and Gomora, and the ruins of many Egyiption chariots at the bottom of the red sea. .

Without any citations, a person can’t really respond to this, as it’s basically just your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions…

Which of “Darwin’s writings”? Where and when have “things in the bible” been proved? And what the heck does proving or disproving anything in the bible have to do with whether or not evolutionary theory is fruitful, novel, robust, or parsimonious?

 

[wildlifer]

usherMike:

I remember from long ago Darwin (in his writings) said, “if the missing link is not found this whole theory is worthless.” And so far there is no missing link.

Which “missing” link? Because every transitional that has been found, has created two more “missing” links.
And IIRC, Darwin’s statement was if no transitionals are found.

]However, science is always proving things in the bible have happened e.g. the flood of Noah, the cities of Sodem and Gomora, and the ruins of many Egyiption chariots at the bottom of the red sea. .

HUH? You’re joking right? You have to be, because all the SCIENTIFIC evidence show a global flood NEVER happened.
But I’ll require some evidence for your other claims.

 

[wildlifer]

Chris W:

Not sure I understand what you are saying here. It has been said many times in this thread that the evidence shows evolution is possible and does not rule out other exlanations for the observations. One might look at the amount of evidence that shows evolution is possible, and form an opinion that evolution is in fact true, but that is an interpretation of the evidences. The evidence does not prove evolution is true, by the nature of science (see the earlier posts about how science cannot prove).

Again science doesn’t deal in “proofs.” Evolution is the only viable inference from the evidence. If you wish to posit your god of choice as the mechanism of evolution, you won’t get much of an argument from me other than what mechanisms are theorized, and if they are valid inferences from the evidence. I mean even the hardcore creationists have been forced to accept “micro” evolution based on the evidence. Where they try to hedge their bets is in declaring a quantative difference between it and macroevolution, when the only difference is time.

You are falling into the same trouble I did when I made an assumption about PhilVaz. Your assumption is not correct. Science is a very good thing. My objection is only when people use science to make conclusions that reach beyond the scope of what science can demonstrate.

Or maybe your statement and objection was too general?

I think I asked a fair question about abiogenesis. My question is not so much how the theory might work. My question is, how is it not part of the theory of evolution? And, because the theory of abiogenesis does in fact seek to explain how life originated by natural means (without the assistance of God), How can you say the theory evolution is not at odds with theism? If I have erred in my logic about this (entirely possible), please explain it to me.

Well I’m sure a theistic evolutionist would tell you their god works through natural means.
Other than statements like God did it, or poof, how would you scientifically discover and explain origins influenced by a deity? Is moment and avenue of Divine Creation empirically detectable?
It’s not scientists leaving gods out of the equation, gods have left themselves out of the equation. Their materials and methods are unknown quantities, and can’t be factored in.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

usherMike:

I remember from long ago Darwin (in his writings) said, “if the missing link is not found this whole theory is worthless.” And so far there is no missing link.

I agree. There are no missing links.

But I guess you mean that there’s no fossils linking humans to ape-like creatures. Therefore, that’s an unsupported assertion.

(You do realise what ‘unsupported assertion’ means, yeah?)

But since you claim it anyway, I insist that you answer my questions in post #246.

Is ‘Turkana Boy’, KNM-WT 15000, ape or human?

And any other creationists here are free to answer that too. Come on you lot, out with it!