Creation or Evolution. What do you believe?

[Melchior]

Oolon Colluphid:

That’s nice. Let’s see your findings then.

Take a look at that pic I posted… :banghead:
Please explain.
Irrelevant.
LOL! Oh yes, a real palaeoanthropologist…

Apart from Cro-Magnons being H sapiens sapiens… what’s wrong with them?
Heehee! I see you’ve done your creationist homework. Please cite one modern work on the subject that even mentions it. Over-zealous journalism does not make it into Nature, Science, or books like Klein, Lewin, Tattersall etc.
Creationism has a list of deliberate misunderstandings and misinformation that it refused to correct, no matter how many times it’s told.
Sure, he could have. But he didn’t. He used evolution.

Oh dear. I mispelled a word in my haste. That must make everything I wrote wrong. But I don’t blame you for laughing, that was a terrible mispelling. Sounds like a handgun for bird hunting or something. Must have been when I was trying to type and engage a three year old at the same time.

So how are any of them irrelevant? How does you chart of skulls prove anything? Is evolution the only explanation? I know we are still discovering many extinct and humans. I would love to see a skull of a grown Australian Aborigine next to one of an Irish child. I bet they would look quite different. Or how about the elephant man? I bet if someone found his skull they would say “look a different species!” Sorry but there are nummerous explanations that are plausible outside of evolution.

Apart from Cro-Magnons being H sapiens sapiens… what’s wrong with them?

All have been disproven! It is a fact if history and science. What’s worse is that they were all discredited years ago. If you do not know that or deny it you are simply ignoring common knowledge and I will definately not continue this discussion if you cannot acknowledge this as it removes all credibility. Don’t forget Peking Man. Perhaps you should look these up before we continue.

Mel

 

[NilNisiTeDomine]

Hey all and God bless!

I just thought I’d throw in my two cents.

There’s simply too much evidence against intra-species evolution and old earth for me to believe anything but that the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years and that intra-species evolution is wrong.

In Christ,
“Nil Nisi Te, Domine” - St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[Richard_Lamb]

that it does not matter. God did it either way…and that we should be open to the truth no matter what it is…Since the truth will set us free…

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Melchior:

Since you are a non-Christian Rationalist according to your bio you are stepping in over your head.

If you say so. I was just trying to be nice to all the normal Christians – trying to suggest that though I am unpersuaded by their beliefs, I have no argument with them.

I take the Bible literally as far each Biblical genre is concerned. Poetry, Allegory, Narrative, Letters etc. I read it like I would read any other piece of literature - within it’s genre.

Okay… so from where did you get the idea that it is a science textbook? Didn’t someone once say that it tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go?

Ah whatever. You may witter about theology all you want, and I’ll not argue. It’s when and if you state scientific falsehoods that I become interested. If I’m in over my head with theology, then you’re apparently in the Marianas Trench with science.

The number one weapon in the arsonal of non-theisitc Evolutionists like you is psuedo-intellectual scorn for opposing views. Victory by insult.

I’m sorry if I seemed scornful; I was attempting to be as accommodating to theists as possible. Ho hum, another lesson learned.

I will be happy to address some of your other issues as soon as you actually engage an argument directly instead of using vocabularic evasion.

I’ll bear that phrase in mind. In my experience of dealing with creationists, I suspect it’ll come back to haunt you.

Further I would love to see you take on some of the logical problems and the scientific method problems as well. I think if you would study logic a bit you may find that evolution has some serious systemic problems in light of logical coherence.

Ooh yes! Let’s see… natural selection is a tautology, evolution is only a theory, it hasn’t been proved, it cannot be falsified, it cannot be replicated, it is ambiguously defined, scientists find what they expect to find, it cannot be replicated, it is a religion, scientific findings are always changing… did I leave any out?

You cannot make leaps in logic and then try to establish your points on the finding of those leaps. …] That is the exactly the evolutionary science works it builds this elaborate system with many plausible theories but it never bothered to actually start with the scientific method. It not begin with anything observable and build from there.

That’s odd. My holy book ( ) On the Origin of Species does precisely what you say evolutionary science doesn’t. Weird.

Well I have to get back to work now. I can honestly see this going on forever if we let it.

I’ll continue to refute you with evidence as long as you continue spouting antiscientific rubbish.

TTFN, Oolon

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Melchior:

Oh dear. I mispelled a word in my haste. That must make everything I wrote wrong.

It makes it suspect, because nobody with even a passing familiarity with the material in question would mis-spell it. Typos, yes. Mis-spellings?

But I don’t blame you for laughing, that was a terrible mispelling. Sounds like a handgun for bird hunting or something. Must have been when I was trying to type and engage a three year old at the same time.

In that case, it’s a perfectly reasonable mistake (he says, trying to type while his five-year-old keeps calling out from her bedroom (it’s 8pm here)…

So how are any of them irrelevant?

In a nutshell:

*H neandertalensis *is represented by a heap of fossil material; it was distinct enough to be (probably) a distinct species to our own… and is irrelevant because it was not a direct ancestor of H sapiens sapiens.

Piltdown was a hoax. It was also a hoax uncovered, not by creationists, but by other scientists. It was also a doubtful find right from the start, and has been irrelevant since at least the 1950s. It is a footnote.

Cro-Magnons are us: Homo sapiens sapiens. So not ancestral to anything else. What is the problem?

‘Nebraska Man’ was reconstructed from a pig tooth by overzealous journalists. I’ve just checked Klein’s Human Career, Tattersall’s The Fossil Trail, and Lewin’s Human Evolution, and it doesn’t even rate a mention. A pretty good definition of ‘irrelevant’, if you ask me.

Got to go, dinner awaits me downstairs. More anon.

TTFN, Oolon

 

[Lurker]

I’m for evolution. I see no reason why God couldn’t have used methods so incredibly complex that we’re just now figuring them out. If anything, it increases my faith to see how incredibly complex the creation process was.

To me, the important thing isn’t HOW God created us, but the mere fact that it was God who did the creating. I simply disagree with the young earth creationists on the methods he used.

 

[James_2_24]

How is it that the days of creation were 24 hour periods when dinosaurs were on earth before man for millions of years?

 

[kwitz]

Lurker said: "I’m for evolution. I see no reason why God couldn’t have used methods so incredibly complex that we’re just now figuring them out. If anything, it increases my faith to see how incredibly complex the creation process was.

To me, the important thing isn’t HOW God created us, but the mere fact that it was God who did the creating. I simply disagree with the young earth creationists on the methods he used. "

An excellent way to sum up what I think. Thanks.
Kris

 

[S_Corda]

(I didn’t vote on this.)

“Creation or Evolution. Do you believe?”
Yes!

Although there are problems with any scientific theory,
I like my friend’s suggestion that “maybe God created evolution.”

(She also likes to say that maybe just maybe God clapped His hands and thus began the Big Bang.)

I prefer as always to go along with the Holy Father.

 

[PhilVaz]

Oolon << I’ll continue to refute you with evidence as long as you continue spouting antiscientific rubbish. >>

Good job, I’m in company with a rationalist and a Wiccan who are both TalkOrigins fans too! Uh oh. Yeah, the evidence is on the side of evolution (micro and macro), whether or not one believes in God, the scientific evidence still stands. So its no use for a Christian to attempt to fight against that, as I see some in here doing.

Many interpretations of Genesis are possible for the Catholic, and the two big Catholic scientists involved in this debate (Ken Miller and Mike Behe) have no problem with the evolution of mankind. See my other note in the “Catholics and Evolution” thread quoting both Behe and Miller.

Various Interpretations of Genesis

God and Evolution

Here is a defense of the Day-Age interpretation

And of course there are the writings of Fr. Stanley Jaki who allegorize much of Genesis. What the Catholic is required to believe is that there was an original set of human parents (Adam/Eve), who were infused with a soul and there was an original sin and a Fall (which are theological concepts), much else in Genesis can be interpreted figuratively or allegorically (as implied in the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Phil P

 

[Lance]

God created the Earth and the whole universe out of nothing (Big Bang theory). Then He created a living single cell from chemicals and elements, so why sould He have a problem creating man from a single cell organism? I vote for evolution guided by God.

 

[darwindidntknow]

My friend is a macro-biolgist or something and I recently heard her speak on young earth creation vs. evolution. The chances that evolution (without God’s hand in it) could have happened is this microscopic percentage. When you study the complexity of the human body and stuff, it becomes very apparent that we have a Supreme Creator.

My vote goes to young-earth creation btw…
Devyn

 

[Churchmouse]

brianberean:

Brother Ric, I wholeheartedly agree!

Brian

Oh! Brian’s here and since that is the case, I was going to say that I am a strict creationist, but now I change my mind. I believe that Packer fans evoluted from monkeys.

You know I love you anyways

Peace,
CM

 

[Chris_W]

Ric:

Young Earth Creation!

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

You said it…my stance exactly!

 

[Lance]

At least Packer fans evolved, Bear fans have not!
Just kidding. All you Bear fans are welcome to come out to Geneva next week and celebrate Swedish Days, stop by the Knights of Columbus booth for some good food and fellowship.

 

[Chris_W]

PhilVaz:

Yeah, the evidence is on the side of evolution (micro and macro), whether or not one believes in God, the scientific evidence still stands. So its no use for a Christian to attempt to fight against that, as I see some in here doing.
Phil P

Yeeeaaaah, Okay. The scientific evidence points to evolution (hardly!). When something is sufficiently scientifically proven, isn’t it called a Scientific Law (I.e. The Law of Biogenesis)? Or perhaps evolution hasn’t been proven…yet, but it is in the* process * of being proven, right?

In the meantime, Creation is the only answer to the origin of the universe that does not contradict current scientific law. If they overturn the Law of Biogenesis, evolution could become a possibility.

Until then, the evolutionist still has to make the following statement: “I believe, by faith, that contrary to current scientific law, evolution somehow occurred.”

That religion (atheistic evolution) requires too much faith for me.

 

[Melchior]

Oolon Colluphid:

It makes it suspect, because nobody with even a passing familiarity with the material in question would mis-spell it. Typos, yes. Mis-spellings?


In that case, it’s a perfectly reasonable mistake (he says, trying to type while his five-year-old keeps calling out from her bedroom (it’s 8pm here)…
In a nutshell:

*H neandertalensis *is represented by a heap of fossil material; it was distinct enough to be (probably) a distinct species to our own… and is irrelevant because it was not a direct ancestor of H sapiens sapiens.

Piltdown was a hoax. It was also a hoax uncovered, not by creationists, but by other scientists. It was also a doubtful find right from the start, and has been irrelevant since at least the 1950s. It is a footnote.

Cro-Magnons are us: Homo sapiens sapiens. So not ancestral to anything else. What is the problem?

‘Nebraska Man’ was reconstructed from a pig tooth by overzealous journalists. I’ve just checked Klein’s Human Career, Tattersall’s The Fossil Trail, and Lewin’s Human Evolution, and it doesn’t even rate a mention. A pretty good definition of ‘irrelevant’, if you ask me.

Got to go, dinner awaits me downstairs. More anon.

TTFN, Oolon

Oolon,

Misspelled, misspelled, misspelled. I am really going to look like a jerk if I blame my kids for that one too.

Look we disagree. But I don’t like the tone of my posts towards you one bit. You have my apologies. I don’t agree with you, but I also was trying to engage Theistic Evolutionists. I should have stayed on topic. I let the heat of a good debate get the best of me and after reading my posts I took some unintended cheap shots. I don’t know you and I had no right. I am usually not one for defending my position at all costs.

Feel free to continue in the discussion. Your (name removed by moderator)ut is appreciated. I am going to bow out until I have had 8 hours sleep and an attitude adjustment. It’s not that I am running from a debate because I don’t have answers, so I hope you don’t think that. But this has the potential to be a bigger distraction than I want and as someone with little ones you can appreciate my need to focus on providing for them by getting my **** back to work.

I will do my best to be more charitable in the future.

In Peace,

Mel

 

[Melchior]

PhilVaz:

Good job, I’m in company with a rationalist and a Wiccan who are both TalkOrigins fans too!

Shouldn’t that alone make you want to reconsider your position?

Just kidding… sort of.

Peace,

Mel

 

[Meatros]

Chris W:

Yeeeaaaah, Okay. The scientific evidence points to evolution (hardly!). When something is sufficiently scientifically proven, isn’t it called a Scientific Law (I.e. The Law of Biogenesis)? Or perhaps evolution hasn’t been proven…yet, but it is in the* process *of being proven, right?

I’ll say this, you just showed your hand that you aren’t scientifically literate. Nothing in science is ‘proven’. “Proofs” are for math and alcohol. Science rests on reasonable certainty. In any event, Laws and Theories are completely different entities in science. Laws describe general phenomenon while Theories tell us why the phenomenon occurs (basically). Theories are the end points of science, not the beginnings. What you are actually thinking of is called a ‘hypothesis’, not a theory.

After all, we have many theories in science. The theory of gravity, of relativity, germ theory, and atomic theory (which came in handy during WWII).

So no, it’s not in the process of being proven. In fact, the general thought among scientists is not whether evolution occured or not, which has been verified so thoroughly we might as well define it as a ‘fact’, instead scientists are discussing the rate of evolution (punctuated equilibrium v. gradualism, etc).
Chris W:

In the meantime, Creation is the only answer to the origin of the universe that does not contradict current scientific law. If they overturn the Law of Biogenesis, evolution could become a possibility.

Um…Please explain this one. Creation postulates an ex-nihilo event. BTW-what is this ‘law’ of biogenesis?
Chris W:

Until then, the evolutionist still has to make the following statement: “I believe, by faith, that contrary to current scientific law, evolution somehow occurred.”

Cite? Also, what scientific law does evolution violate? If you mention the second law of thermodynamics I think I’ll rupture my spleen laughing…
Chris W:

That religion (atheistic evolution) requires too much faith for me.

Ah, so in addition to not knowing much about science (I think your poor definitions of ‘theories’ and ‘laws’ attest to that) you also have a bad definition of what a religion is.

Interesting.

 

[PhilVaz]

Melch << Shouldn’t that alone make you want to reconsider your position? Just kidding… sort of. >>

I would if I saw the scientific evidence pointing in the direction of a young earth, or even an old earth with separately created species (like Hugh Ross old earth creationism). However, I see the scientific evidence pointing toward an old earth and macroevolution. How one interprets Genesis is a separate issue, the scientific evidence stands on its own apart from the Bible. Which is why you see Catholics, Christians, agnostics, atheists, Wiccans and various other religions who hold to evolution.

And I have studied both sides, materials and web sites from the various creationist groups out there, along with the TalkOrigins stuff, much of that I have printed out over the years. Dembski is who I am currently reading, his Intelligent Design (1999) and his more recent Uncommon Dissent (2004). Read everything you can, and be open-minded. Science (nature) cannot be harmful to faith (revelation) if you accept both ultimately have their source in God. Truth cannot contradict truth.

Most of the critics of evolution I have seen on the Catholic Answers board so far either (1) know nothing about evolution which is quite evident from their many misunderstandings and misconceptions of evolution, and/or (2) have been fed a lot of misrepresentations from various creationist sources. Read both sides as fairly and as comprehensively as you can, that’s my advice.

Phil P