Creation or Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brian_Millar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
🙂
beeliner said:
Actually 6 days for creation, and that is exactly where they get it, completely ignoring these facts: (1) The following chapter (Gen 2, beginning in the middle of the fourth verse) gives a completely different account, with no mention of days, man (male) created very early in the process, even before the garden, animals created much later, then woman last of all - and (2) there is not the least evidence for either account being even slightly factual except that Genesis 1, if you consider the ‘days’ to be billions of years, is reasonably accurate in beginning with the elementary and gradually becoming more complex or advanced. Most ‘creationists’, though, insist that the ‘days’ were 24-hour days, even though the sun, which determines daytime, didn’t exist until the fourth day…and finally, (3) both accounts were based on pagan creation legends which may still be accessed in more-or-less their original form.
Click to expand...
Whoops, forgot God’s Day of rest. I would imagine the Almighty at times wishes creation had stopped on the 1st, or 2nd day.🙂
 
reggieM said:
Apparently, you haven’t seen any of these, or you think that there are none and I’m going to get something fabricated from a “creationist source”.

So here we see the Darwinist fraud in all its glory.

It was claimed for a long time that peacock feathers evolved through one mechanism. Then actually testing proved that prediction wrong.

A failed prediction. A “fact” that wasn’t. A good reason to doubt what is being claimed.
Click to expand...
Well, you’re right that I haven’t seen them, but I’m not a biologist and don’t really follow the literature.

Science continues to advance but is certainly not doing so in the direction of ‘creationism’! Also, while by no means questioning the reporting in the links you provided, I would be interested to see the follow-up. It seems to me that we have two sets of competing THEORIES here, neither of the earlier of which you have proven was ever claimed to be FACT, and the more recent by no means invalidates the earlier automatically. In most such cases, further study would follow, and this is science to a “T”.

A similar situation occurred with regard to the rotation of the planet Mercury. For decades it was believed that Mercury had a captured rotation, that is, it kept the same side toward its primary at all times, much like our moon, and science fiction writers enjoyed writing stories about the ‘twilight zone’ of Mercury. The stories were fiction but the zone itself was believed to have been real.

Space exploration has now shown beyond doubt that Mercury’s rotation is synchronous but not captured, the ratio being, I believe, 3 to 2, and I don’t know of ANY contemporary astronomer who still believes that the rotation is captured. That certainly does not mean that all previous astronomical research and beliefs were ‘fraudulent’, as you attempt to imply with regard to Darwin.

No such provability and disprovability exists in ‘Creationism’ - no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever change its teachings - the Bible says so, therefore it must be true, period. Calling such a mindset ‘scientific’ is really quite shameful!
 
5" pizza: $3.00

Filet mignon: $26.99

Another evolution/creation thread: priceless
 
SedesDomi said:
5" pizza: $3.00…
Click to expand...
My neighborhood Little Caesar’s is offering a 14-inch Pepperoni, carry-out only, for FIVE BUCKS!

Not really on my diet, but what the hey, that’s cheap…and delicious!
 
As Pope, he understands what is going on. His view is the correct one.

Peace,
Ed
 
Reggie << I think we see enough evidence in the paragraph that you quoted that it is, indeed, disputed. >>

That human evolution occured is not disputed in that paragraph. That we evolved from pre-human, primate ancestors is not disputed. The paragraph is acknowledging debates about the details. That goes on all the time in science, as better research, and more data is discovered. The same goes for all your quotes from journal articles about human evolution. The details, the pace, the paths, the mechanisms of evolution are debated, the fact of evolution is not.

Am I gonna have to quote large chunks of Creation and Evolution (Ignatius, 2008) and Chance or Purpose (Ignatius, 2007) once again? I will if I have to. But we don’t need or want another 25-page creation-evolution thread now do we? 😛

Phil P
 
reggieM said:
Here’s another one:

Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution

nytimes.com/2007/08/09/science/09fossil.html?_r=2&ref=world&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Click to expand...
Headline writers have a tendancy to make things appear more exciting than they really are. How many times have you read an exciting headline, only to find a dull article underneath it? Science headline writers are no exception to this rule.

The discovery was indeed interesting and changed the way we saw a part of out family tree. To illustrate:
Code: 
Old Version
-----------

H. habilis ---> H. erectus ---> H. sapiens


New Version
-----------

Either:

H. habilis ---+---> extinct
              |
              +---> H. erectus ---> H. sapiens

Or:
 
          +---> H. habilis ---> extinct
          |
H. ??? ---+---+---> extinct
              |
              +---> H. erectus ---> H. sapiens
It is a truism of science that all conclusions are provisional and may be changed by later evidence. This is a case in point.

rossum
 
edwest2 said:
“Evolution cannot be proven.” - Pope Benedict

romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/04/pope_benedict_x.html

I think he knows what he’s talking about.

Hello, I think you left out a few words, like “finally”?

From an excerpt:

Pope Benedict XVI, “in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin’s theory cannot be FINALLY proven and that science has “unnecessarily narrowed” humanity’s view of creation.”

“The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science,” the pope said.
He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said SCIENTIFIC AND PHILISOPHICAL REASON MUST WORK TOGETHER in a way that does not exclude faith.

“I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science,” the pope was quoted as saying in the book, which records a meeting with fellow theologians the pope has known for years.

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Science has learned a lot in the past 100 years and is still discovering new methods, theories etc. It is a process like all life, not a destination.

]
Click to expand...
 
edwest2 said:
“Evolution cannot be proven.” - Pope Benedict
Click to expand...
Uh…sorry, that is a paraphrase, composed by the editor of the article. Putting it in quotes with the pope’s name is deceptive, but then, you already knew that.

The previous poster gave several actual quotes, none of which make such a claim. Here is another:
“I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science.”
Click to expand...
Not exactly the same thing, and I agree with that entirely as, I think, would many scientists.

Even if, however, he had completely condemned evolution in the strongest terms, as some of our Fundamentalist Protestant brethren are wont to do, that would make it no less factual, nor would such a proclamation impose the least obligation on a Catholic’s intellect or conscience.

Faith and morals are one thing - or two things - the laws of science are another. As pope, and as an intelligent human being, he understands that too.
 
“Evolution cannot be proven.” – Pope Benedict XVI

“[We are] virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” – Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) and his ITC 2004 statement on the topic

“We cannot say creation or evolution…[Genesis] does not in fact explain how human persons come to be, but rather what they are…the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments…we are faced here with two complementary…realities…[we need to] grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason…” – Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) and his 1986 book on the topic

I agree with the Pope too. Me and the Pope leave the “proofs” for alcohol and mathematics.

actual quote: “All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities. But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason.” (In the Beginning…)

And I haven’t even begun to quote from his latest Creation and Evolution conference book yet. 👍

Phil P
 
edwest2 said:
“Evolution cannot be proven.” - Pope Benedict

romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/04/pope_benedict_x.html

I think he knows what he’s talking about.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
I do not wish to stir up any great controversy over this, but would just point out that Popes in the past also declared that the earth was the center of the universe and that everything else revolved around it.
I believe there was even a trial or two attached to teaching otherwise.:whistle:

Science, our knowledge of our history, philosophy, theology - All of these things evolve. All anyone can do is make the “best guess” based on the available information.

Peace
James
 
PhilVaz said:
The details, the pace, the paths, the mechanisms of evolution are debated …
Click to expand...
Well, I see that as a very good foundation for doubting, questioning and/or outright rejecting the “fact” of evolution.

“Evolution” does not exist – at least as the ambiguous term you’ve given here. “Evolution” is a theory about how things developed, supposedly. Again, the details, pace, paths and mechanisms are all in question, all subject to doubts, and many are overturned and “shrouded in mystery”.

To say that in spite of this, “evolution” (whatever that means) is “a fact” is stretching credibility (at least for me). It’s covering up the significant problems and giving the pretense that there is nothing to question about the theory of evolution itself.

You posted a news story about a group of “superstar scientists” who are meeting to “create a new theory of evolution” – because for them, the old one is obviously inadequate (a nice term for “false”).

Again, to pose the notion that “evolution” is a theory that admits no doubts or serious questions does not seem to be a very scientific or objective approach to me.
 
The evidence for the evolution of the species looks to me decidedly like the evidence you would have for how a ford mustang "evolved’ from a model T.

Chuck
 
Reggie << You posted a news story about a group of “superstar scientists” who are meeting to “create a new theory of evolution” – because for them, the old one is obviously inadequate (a nice term for “false”). >>

Ah yes I remember that. Headed by Massimo Pigliucci, the "Woodstock of Evolution" conference at Altenberg. To be fully accepted, any “new” theory of evolution would have to explain the data better than any “old” theories of evolution. That we evolved was settled and accepted by science 150 years ago. How we evolved is constantly under discussion and debate. No one is saying “yep, scrap the whole thing and go back to 17th century creation science.” Science is constantly being updated, improved, and refined along the way, getting closer and closer to truth about the natural world. That’s how science works. I’ll let Rossum and Barbarian explain it to you, our resident “evolution experts.” 😛

Phil P
 
PhilVaz said:
No one is saying “yep, scrap the whole thing and go back to 17th century creation science.”
Click to expand...
True, but some are saying “let’s scrap what does not work and move forward to 21st century Intelligent Design science” – as Cardinal Schoenborn and the Holy Father would support as well.
That’s how science works. I’ll let Rossum and Barbarian explain it to you, our resident “evolution experts.” 😛
Click to expand...
I would stick my tongue out at that suggestion also, at least for one of the members on that list of “experts”.
 
SedesDomi said:
Proof is for mathematics.
Click to expand...
You are correct, it’s mainly the law of averages combined with the time frame the planet has been in existance. We should find a formula that combines the two and places them within a realistic context, ie. it takes X amount of time for X dna pattern to assemble itself to coordinate X evolutionary process to occure. We should also do the math in regards to determining the diversity along a creationist system and stand in awe of the complexity divine intervention has put into place.
 
reggie << as Cardinal Schoenborn and the Holy Father would support as well >>

They support intelligent design lower-case variety. Me too. 👍 The kind supported by Vatican Council I and Romans 1:19-20 (Wisdom 13:1ff). While it did seem Cardinal Schonborn in his original July 2005 NY Times editorial supported the upper-case ID variety of the Discovery Institute, you’ll find he clarified himself and changed his mind in his book and in the Pope’s conference book on the subject. They don’t want to debate or dispute with the science, they accept the science. What they debate, discuss, and dispute is philosophical ideas sometimes associated with the science. Schonborn specifically had in mind folks like Will Provine, Julian Huxley, and Peter Atkins (he quotes them specifically) who are atheists.

Phil P
 
elts1956 said:
edwest2;3768465 said:
“Evolution cannot be proven.” - Pope Benedict

romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/04/pope_benedict_x.html
Click to expand...
I think he knows what he’s talking about.

Hello, I think you left out a few words, like “finally”?

From an excerpt:

Pope Benedict XVI, “in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin’s theory cannot be FINALLY proven and that science has “unnecessarily narrowed” humanity’s view of creation.”

“The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science,” the pope said.
He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said SCIENTIFIC AND PHILISOPHICAL REASON MUST WORK TOGETHER in a way that does not exclude faith.

“I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science,” the pope was quoted as saying in the book, which records a meeting with fellow theologians the pope has known for years.

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Science has learned a lot in the past 100 years and is still discovering new methods, theories etc. It is a process like all life, not a destination.

]

Sad that “science” has changed to mean “evolution.” My studies in electronics involved zero use of evolutionary theory.

You focus, again, Only on the science, while ignoring the most important part “Scientific and philosophical reason must work together IN A WAY That DOES NOT EXCLUDE FAITH.”

It is very sad when the mind of man is exalted above God, the rational mind behind Creation. Apparently, or so it is claimed, the Church cannot say anything about science. It can only talk about faith and morals. But whenever this subject is brought up, non-believers are EXTREMELY interested in hearing what the Church has to say. Why? Go back to your scientists. Meditate on their findings daily. I don’t know why non-believers should be concerned at all about what the Church thinks regarding this. After all, if the facts are in, no problem.

“Evolution cannot be proven.” Pope Benedict

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top