Creation vs. Evolution poll II

[Charash]

I just watched Carl Sagan (whom I deeply admire) teach the theory of evolution on Cosmos. He did an excellent job explaining how things evolved, but only on a very superficial level. He never explained where the “stuff” that evolved came from. Sure, there was a Big Bang, but where did the “stuff” that fills the universe come from? Furthermore, how do atoms–which are all comprised of helium and hydrogen in increasingly complicated forms–make copies of themselves? What is the explanation of the origin of RNA and then DNA? I can see no logical answer to this other than the fact that matter had to be acted upon by an external force/agent. I call that agent God.

All of you scientists on here trying to impress yourselves (fortunately not us) please do not say the “stuff” was always here, or I will have to walk through the “Kalaam Proof” again.

You may not believe in God, but He believes in you. The signs of God are throughout all creation, because God knows that it might be the only way that some are led to Him is through the contemplation and study of His creation, i.e., the design of the human eye for instance, or the majesty of a spiral galaxy in the interstellar gulf of space, or even the beauty of a newborn
child–that is where I see God the most: in my children…

 

[Jillian]

Christian5:

But I’m sorry to say, it cannot be PROVEN! Not yet at least. And before Oolong or anyone else refers me to “talk/orgins,” I shall let you know that I have already been there. But even that site does not clearly show and demonstrate a CLEAR-CUT proof of evolution. Although is does show alot of evidence that greatly harmonizes and gives credit to it, but stll doesn’t prove anything.

Would you mind telling us what you would consider “proof”, then? It’s kind of hard to give you “proof” without a clear explanation of what would constitute “proof”.

The MAGORITY of the fossil record does not favor evolution.

Such as?

Yes transitional forms have been found, and alot more than I think six day literalist realize, and I personaly believe those fossils are accurate transitionals, yet NONE can demonstrate a fish DIRECTLY into an amphibian, an amphibian DIRECTLY into a reptile, a reptile DIRECTLY into a bird and/or mammal, and even the hommid fossils Oolong continues to show and boast about still do not show a monkey or ape DIRECTLY into a man!

Could you give me an example of what a fossil would have to contain to “demonstrate a fish DIRECTLY into an amphibian”?

Not to mention the DNA of an ape or monkey is very simular to a human so that makes it more diffulcult to tell compared to a fish into a reptile etc.

And although the vitamin C issue Oolong mention on the other poll was intersting, it’s also common sense. What do you expect when our DNA is 95-99% simular towards monkeys?

That’s a very good point about “monkey” (actually, I think you mean chimpanzee) DNA and human DNA. Now, then, why would human and chimpanzee DNA have so much in common, even right down to the nonfunctional bits like endogenous retroviruses? hmmm… I wonder…

 

[Christian5]

Many “supposed” missing links have been reclassified as extinct apes or fully human. Not to mention there is a WIDE range of hommid fossils that show up in the wrong time period (of evolution). Even to the point of a few thousand years ago to even a few hundered years ago. For further in-depth of this I suggest you all read Marvin Lubelow’s book “Bones of Contention.” He is a creationist so please approach it without the intent to just “prove” the book wrong. Oh ya, someone earlier refered to “Bones of Contention” to another site where it showed someone who reveiwed the book claiming that Marvin has a “mis-conception” about evolution. (Usualy what the athiest wines about whenever another disagrees). I suggest that person go and re-read the book to see who has the “mis-conception.”

Now regarding the “Rhipidistians,” an extinct order of fish that “supposely” evolved into amphibians, fish that Darwinists frequently descibe as an ancestral group because they have skeletalb features resembling early amphibians such as bones that look like they “could” have evolved into legs, posses more problems than just gaps. Most Rhipidistians appear in the fossil record AFTER NUMEROUS FULLY FORMED mammals appeared. Also, regarding a fish called the “coelacanth,” believed to be extinced for seventy million years and was sited as possibly a transitional form from fish to amphibians, closely resembling the Rhipidistians. One was caught in 1938 (and many more since then). It was disected and it’s soft organ parts were studied and it was confirmed that it showed NO signs of being pre-adapted to land. That suggests the Rhipidistian fish could all be disapointing for Darwinists.

 

[edrazz]

Jillian:

It’s just that only material causes can be adequately defined, explained, and explored via the scientific method. This is the realm in which science operates.

Using your definition of science (which I’ll accept) then the only conclusion a scientific inquiry can make regarding our true origins is a naturalistic one. If God really did create as described in the book of Genesis (ie supernatural, instanteous acts) then objective, scientific research could never come to this conclusion - because this has been eliminated up front as an invalid cause.

Jillian:

Accusing science of having some sort of “material bias” makes as much sense as accusing religion of having a “spiritiual bias”.

This is precisely what I mean by a bias. There is nothing wrong with a bias provided that we understand our own.

 

[Christian5]

Oops, I meant to say most “amphibians” and not “mammals” are found UNDER the Rhipidistians, hehe.

Like-wise the amphibians to reptiles called the “Seymouria” along with the reptiles to mammals called the “Therapsida,” ( which Darwinists call the crown jewel of evolution transitionals) all posses numerous problems. The reptile to bird fossils are also very interesting such as the fossils found in between Archaeopteryx and moderen birds. Perhaps were closer to the DIRECT link. Yet gaps still remain. Many creationists suggest that most of these sited fossils by the Darwinists are only special uniqe odd creatures as the duck billed platypuss is, yet I think that’s highly unlikely.

Although I hope you all realize that many drawins of types of dinosaurs and a bird resembling the Archaeopteryx have been found in indian caves dating back 500-1000 years ago. The Dinosaur issue is very interesting by that good old creationist Ken Ham in his books “The New and Revised Answers Book” and “Dinosaur: Mystery Solved!”

And again, from Apes to humans there are a bundle of problems that all the experts cannot agree on. “Is it an ape, a missing link, an extinct species of ape, an altogether uniqe species of ape, a human, or a human differing from genetic diversity?” Perhaps it’s evolution, or perhaps it’s not.

It all boils down to this regarding the fossil record, even with all the numerous transitional forms found, THERE IS NO CLEAR-CUT GRADUAL STEP BY STEP DIRECT PROOF OF ONE CREATURE FORMING INTO ANOTHER. The popular saying “no transitional forms” is no myth. Gaps DOMINATE the fossils!

Another great book (who is not a 6 day literalist) Phillip E. Johnson’s “Darwin On Trial.”

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Truly an admirable attempt to sound informed, that I give you before all else. This perfunctory praise out of the way, let us examine the actually veracity of your comments about rhipidistians. First and foremost, you have consistently placed the taxonomic designation for these fishes within parantheses indicating you feel the group paraphyletic/polyphyletic, assuming that (given your attempt to use taxonomic terms) you are using this format in the proper manner. If this is the case, could you elaborate on what grounds you find rhipidistians paraphyletic/polyphyletic and which indeed you feel is the case? More seriously, you have vastly distorted either from sheer ignorance or from simple duplicity, the actual osteology of the osteolepiform rhipidistian fishes. Consider, for instance, the endoskeletal structure of the paired fins in Eusthenopteron. Please explicitly state in what manner these elements differ from those of basal tetrapods, e.g., *Acanthostega *or Ichthyostega. All morphological data indicates that the two sets of structures are directly comparable. Or, if you do not wish to discuss the paired fins and their presumed homologs, paired limbs, we could discuss the axial skeleton. The axial elements of the rhipidistians, and in particular the morphology of the centra as seen in *Eusthenopteron *and Osteolepis are directly comparable to those in “labyrinthodont” amphibians. Indeed, we find major suites of characters to link rhipidistians and basal amphibians from all aspects of the skeleton. Most curious yet, however, is your statement that rhipidistians appear in the fossil record after mammals. Do you mean therian mammals? Marsupials? And either way, the very statement seems to indicate serious misunderstanding of the temporal range of rhipidistians, to say nothing of their cladogenesis. Rhipidistian fishes have classically been divided into two orders, Porolepiformes and Osteolepiformes. Porolepiform rhipidistians appear in the Lower Devonian and are represented at this time by Porolepis (Jarvik 1972, Carroll 1988). Osteolepiforms are typified by our friend Eusthenopteron from the Upper Devonian (Jarvik 1972, Carroll 1988, Andrews & Westoll 1970a). Rhipidistians are not known from the fossil record after the Lower Permian. Mammals first appear around 225 million years ago, in the Upper Triassic, nearly a hundred million years later. In order for your claim to be taken seriously, you need to provide us with:

1. Rhipidistian remains from the Mesozoic or Cenozoic postdating the origin of mammals.
2. Mammals from Paleozoic rocks predating the origin of rhipidistians.

You have done neither.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

And in closing, in the finest creationist form, you have brought poor, poor, Latimeria into the argument. First and foremost, you conveniently forget to note that Latimeria is a Recent genus, not represented in the fossil record. Secondly, and most comically, you appear to be operating under the assumption that coelacanths are rhipidistians, which is not the case. Coelacanthiformes or Actinistia, are an entirely separate radiation of sarcopterygian fishes and besides tetrapods, are the only extant sarcopterygians. Perhaps you meant to include both rhipidistians and coelacanths within a single order, Crossopterygii, but even so, coelacanths would not be rhipidistians. At any rate, I was not aware that it had been postulated that coelacanths were anything but the highly autapomorphic sister clade of porolepiform rhipidistians, and thus one can only wonder why they would display any characters indicating any close affinity with tetrapods. Could you provide the relevant citation to the peer-reviewed literature in which this claim has been made? Moreover, you discuss the anatomy of the extant coelacanth, and out of curiosity, I wonder which account you have. Millot & Anthony (1958, 1965, 1978)? Andrews (1977) on the axial skeleton? McCosker & Lagios (1979)? Northcutt, Neary & Senn (1978) on the EQ and endocranial anatomy? If you could just specify which one of those you have so we can directly compare notes on actinistian morphology and physiology, that would be sublime. Last, but not least, it would be interesting to compare the endoskeletal morphology of *Latimeria *with an exemplar Paleozoic or Mesozoic actinistian such as Diplurus (after Schaeffer 1952). Since you seem to imply that *Latimeria *has not evolved at all, could you explicitly compare the endoskeletal morphologies of these two forms and point out the similarities which indicate that *Latimeria *is a “living fossil?”

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Jillian]

edrazz:

Using your definition of science (which I’ll accept) then the only conclusion a scientific inquiry can make regarding our true origins is a naturalistic one. If God really did create as described in the book of Genesis (ie supernatural, instanteous acts) then objective, scientific research could never come to this conclusion - because this has been eliminated up front as an invalid cause.

Not at all. If God had created life in supernatural, instantaneous acts as per a literal reading of Genesis, then we’d expect to see certain things. We’d form hypotheses based on this idea, and see how they held up against reality. How would we do that?

Well, for starters, Genesis says that God made us from dust. Dust tends to have a lot of silicon in it. Therefore, a reasonable hypothesis would be that people who are made from this dust would have a lot of silicon in them. Unfortunately for this hypothesis, you don’t tend to find much silicon in people - at least, not without surgical assistance.

Here’s another one…Genesis says that God made fish on the fifth day of creation, and humans on the sixth day. Seeing as one day is a negligible amount of time regardless of whether you measure the age of the earth in billions or thousands of years, another reasonable hypothesis would be that you would find fossil humans which are contemporaneous with any fossil fish that you would find, because fish and people are equally ancient. The fact is that you don’t. Even if you reject the absolute dates established by geochronology for the oldest fish as being around half a billion years ago, you should still reasonably expect to find human fossils in the same strata as these agnaths, and you just don’t. I’ve drawn a reasonable hypothesis from the claims put forth in Genesis, and it just isn’t supported by the data. This is problematic for you.

Then there’s the one which I’ve actually heard people claim is really, really true: the whole rib thing. Personally, I think it would be a specious hypothesis at best, but I’ve actually heard people say that women have one more rib than men, which is evidence of the literal accuracy of the Genesis account. I’m not going to waste your time debunking this, because I’m sure it makes you cringe just as much as I do to hear someone say something this silly.

The important thing to note here is that none of this somehow “disproves” God, or even rules out the ability for God to have had some sort of supernatural involvement in life on Earth. All it says is that as a literal, naturalistic explanation, Genesis comes up short.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Christian5:

Oops, I meant to say most “amphibians” and not “mammals” are found UNDER the Rhipidistians, hehe.

Primitive tetrapods are found below terminal taxa within the rhipidistian assemblage, you are correct. However, all stem-taxa postulated as basal to the tetrapod lineage antedate the origin of tetrapods (e.g., Eusthenopteron).

Like-wise the amphibians to reptiles called the “Seymouria” along with the reptiles to mammals called the “Therapsida,” ( which Darwinists call the crown jewel of evolution transitionals) all posses numerous problems.

I am scarcely an expert on the origin of Mammalia, but mammals are synapsids–and Synapsida diverged from Diapsida (parent clade to Reptilia) at the base of the amniote adaptive radition. Thus, in actual systematic work, there is no transition from reptiles to mammmals and the paraphyletic pelycosaurs and therapsids are referred to as “mammal-like reptiles” only by the uninformed.

The reptile to bird fossils are also very interesting such as the fossils found in between Archaeopteryx and moderen birds. Perhaps were closer to the DIRECT link. Yet gaps still remain.

First and foremost, modern phylogenetic systematics does not postulated orthogenic, linear ancestor/descendant relationships but rather explicit hypotheses of shared ancestry via unifying clades as sister groups on the basis of synapomorphic characters. You need to update your account of systematic biology. Moreover, the fossil record of archaic birds overwhelmingly corroborates an archosaurian origin of the class Aves, and you have presented no data to suggest otherwise.

Although I hope you all realize that many drawins of types of dinosaurs and a bird resembling the Archaeopteryx have been found in indian caves dating back 500-1000 years ago.

There are pictorial representations in Indian caves from the past 500-1000 years of Archaeopteryx lithographica? Does this mean that Archaeopterygidae are extant? Where? And where are these caves? What Indian tribe is attributed with them? What peer-reviewed archaelogical/anthropological journal details these findings?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Christian5]

Now anyone who claims (which many in here have) that the Bible is a book of myths and has little or no credit due to it is completly ignorant of Christianity! In this day and age Archeology has confirmed and given HIGH CREDIT toward the Bible. Many critics have gone silent to their old typical claims as archeology continues to show the acuarcy of the Holy Scriptures. I am not saying this “proves” the Bible, but it GREATLY harmonizes with it!

As for the creation story of Genesis, and all the common typical claims such as “it’s only another mythology trying to explain creation,” I suggest again to read the book “The Science of God” by Gerald L. Schroeder. Just go ahead and see how scientific the bible really is. See how it is possible that Genesis in the original language is possible it could have been billions of years with sub-humans and pre-adams exsisting before Adam and Eve. Please also note that according to the Bible, it’s our souls that make us human and in God’s image, not our bodies. We live in a natural world, not spiritual. God has created everything to be natural. I also believe that the reason why there are so many numerous simular stories of Adam and Eve along with the creation and the flood of Noah (whether it was local or global), all come from a historical account that got passed down and changed and corrupted by human tradition like many things always do. I suggest the book “The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict Book 1 and 2,” by Josh Mcdowell.

So the point is anyone who claims the Bible is mere myths is either engaging in propaganda or is unimformed of information. Catholicism Christianity is so in-depth, so beautiful and full of wisdom. The Bible also posseses scientific facts long before we knew. It also uses phenomenalogical (if I spelled it right) language in many cases. God seperating light from dark, the sun sets and sunrise as we still use that saying today well knowing that’s not technicaly correct, it only appears that way. The Holy Communion of the Church appears and tastes like bread and wine, yet it’s the body and blood of Christ. Nature to man has many spiritual meaning and I suggest again for all to read C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christanity,” especialy the last chapter where he compares evolution to becoming a Son of God in such a beautiful way. Evolution harmonizes with the Bible, every part of it when understood right. Yet COUNTLESS people are arrogant, prideful, and ignorant yet God warns us of this. Spiritual things to the unbeliever are foolishness to him.

And some have said to believe in God is childish like santa clause and now they have grown up, yet they do not grow up, they become a fool (I say this in love). To deny God or any god I believe is completly foolish, and by looking at creation we have no excuse to not believe in God. And what is the reason not to? Is it because you all say He hasn’t shown Himself, or because of all the suffering around the world, even in nature? Or is it really evolution?

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Christian5:

As for the creation story of Genesis, and all the common typical claims such as “it’s only another mythology trying to explain creation,” I suggest again to read the book “The Science of God” by Gerald L. Schroeder. Just go ahead and see how scientific the bible really is. See how it is possible that Genesis in the original language is possible it could have been billions of years with sub-humans and pre-adams exsisting before Adam and Eve. Please also note that according to the Bible, it’s our souls that make us human and in God’s image, not our bodies. We live in a natural world, not spiritual. God has created everything to be natural. I also believe that the reason why there are so many numerous simular stories of Adam and Eve along with the creation and the flood of Noah (whether it was local or global), all come from a historical account that got passed down and changed and corrupted by human tradition like many things always do. I suggest the book “The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict Book 1 and 2,” by Josh Mcdowell.

So the point is anyone who claims the Bible is mere myths is either engaging in propaganda or is unimformed of information. Catholicism Christianity is so in-depth, so beautiful and full of wisdom. The Bible also posseses scientific facts long before we knew. It also uses phenomenalogical (if I spelled it right) language in many cases. God seperating light from dark, the sun sets and sunrise as we still use that saying today well knowing that’s not technicaly correct, it only appears that way. The Holy Communion of the Church appears and tastes like bread and wine, yet it’s the body and blood of Christ. Nature to man has many spiritual meaning and I suggest again for all to read C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christanity,” especialy the last chapter where he compares evolution to becoming a Son of God in such a beautiful way. Evolution harmonizes with the Bible, every part of it when understood right. Yet COUNTLESS people are arrogant, prideful, and ignorant yet God warns us of this. Spiritual things to the unbeliever are foolishness to him.

But…but…I thought you wanted to talk about rhipidistian and amniote phylogeny and paleontology?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Christian5]

The first two questions, if asked, come from people who do not understand what the Bible or Christianity teaches. As for evolution, as I have already daid, it harmonizes with it. Perhaps if there were not so many Protestant Creationists there wouldn’t be so many probles of science and religon. Nothing in evolution goes against the Bible. Nothing! Not creation, Adam and Eve, the flood of Noah (global or local), etc. And it’s important to realize that the making of Eve for Adam has deep spiritual meaning to it regarding marrige and Christ. It’s symbolic, yet really happened. Catholicism is beautiful. The Bible is beautiful and there’s so much more to it then the typical critic knows. He approaches it with a bias or darkend heart so he will remain living a lie. I was once an Athiest, yet after alot of study, (I was a critic) I came to realize the Bible is the Word of God and the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. I was once foolish BECAUSE I did not believe in God, yet now I have grown up bECAUSE I believe in God.

Now I will end with a little fun humor…Blows the smoke from the barrel of her gun hehe, praise the Lord and God bless!

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Christian5:

The first two questions, if asked, come from people who do not understand what the Bible or Christianity teaches. As for evolution, as I have already daid, it harmonizes with it. Perhaps if there were not so many Protestant Creationists there wouldn’t be so many probles of science and religon. Nothing in evolution goes against the Bible. Nothing! Not creation, Adam and Eve, the flood of Noah (global or local), etc. And it’s important to realize that the making of Eve for Adam has deep spiritual meaning to it regarding marrige and Christ. It’s symbolic, yet really happened. Catholicism is beautiful. The Bible is beautiful and there’s so much more to it then the typical critic knows. He approaches it with a bias or darkend heart so he will remain living a lie. I was once an Athiest, yet after alot of study, (I was a critic) I came to realize the Bible is the Word of God and the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. I was once foolish BECAUSE I did not believe in God, yet now I have grown up bECAUSE I believe in God.

Now I will end with a little fun humor…Blows the smoke from the barrel of her gun hehe, praise the Lord and God bless!

Umm…but…the rhipidistians…the amniotes…their phylogeny and paleontology…I thought…<<sighs and puts away his lovely papers by Jarvik, and Coates, and Clack, and the others>>

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Chris_W]

Vindex Urvogel:

This is mainly for Chris, who on the original thread, now most unfortunately closed, was asserting that abiogenesis is a fundamental part of evolution but who never actually demonstrated to us in explicit terms where and why abiogenesis is a nomological statement underlying evolutionary theory. I merely wondered, being the curious person I am, if Chris was going to be so good as to do that for us, or if his silence on the matter indicates that he has abandoned this argument.

Vindex Urvogel

Nope, not abandoned. But I have come to the realization that we were mis-communicating, as often happens when people are coming from such different world views. I think your frustration on the matter is that you wish only to speak about biological evolution. With your narrower definition of evolution (limiting it to the biology of living organisms) you would be correct that abiogenesis is not part of biological evolution. However, I did some looking around to see if I was really so far off base to assert that the theory of evolution encompasses more than biological evolution. Sure enough it does,and abiogenesis, while not included in your more limited definition, certainly is part of the theory of evolution. Doubt me? Search the internet for abiogenesis (don’t limit yourself to talkorigins.com). Or search for evolution. Either way, you will find both discussed together. In fact, your beloved talkorigins.com couldn’t even describe abiogenesis without describing how the chemicals supposedly “evolve[d]”. The sites that exclude anything other than biology, almost always refer to it as evoluntionary *biology * (they make the distinction that I did not).

So, to settle your “curiosity” I concede that, while abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution, it would not properly be included in biological evolution (which is also part of the theory of evolution, albeit a larger part).

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Chris W:

Nope, not abandoned. But I have come to the realization that we were mis-communicating, as often happens when people are coming from such different world views. I think your frustration on the matter is that you wish only to speak about biological evolution. With your narrower definition of evolution (limiting it to the biology of living organisms) you would be correct that abiogenesis is not part of biological evolution. However, I did some looking around to see if I was really so far off base to assert that the theory of evolution encompasses more than biological evolution. Sure enough it does,and abiogenesis, while not included in your more limited definition, certainly is part of the theory of evolution. Doubt me? Search the internet for abiogenesis (don’t limit yourself to talkorigins.com). Or search for evolution. Either way, you will find both discussed together. In fact, your beloved talkorigins.com couldn’t even describe abiogenesis without describing how the chemicals supposedly “evolve[d]”. The sites that exclude anything other than biology, almost always refer to it as evoluntionary *biology *(they make the distinction that I did not).

So, to settle your “curiosity” I concede that, while abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution, it would not properly be included in biological evolution (which is also part of the theory of evolution, albeit a larger part).

As far as I was aware, I hadn’t made reference to any webstite at all, in any post of mine, on this entire website. I derive most of my information from the primary source literature. This aside, let us examine these most recent comments. You seem to be stating, ad hoc, that evolutionary theory is not simply a biological model for the origin of morphological novelties and the diversity of life. If this is the case, please define explicitly the full construct of evolutionary theory with an exact enumeration of its underlying nomological statements. Last I was aware, there is only one, very specifically demarcated theory of evolution, and that is strictly a biological theory. If you could perhaps refer me to where in the standard literature (e.g., Mayr 1942, Williams 1966, Maynard-Smith 1975, etc.) I might be able to reference this fuller, more inclusive evolutionary theory of which the biological component is merely that, I would be most appreciative. Once you have explicitly defined this more generalized theory of evolution, I would then ask that you show where and how abiogenesis is a nomological statement underlying that theory.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Vindex Urvogel:

Umm…but…the rhipidistians…the amniotes…their phylogeny and paleontology…I thought…<<sighs and puts away his lovely papers by Jarvik, and Coates, and Clack, and the others>>

Vindex Urvogel

There are difficulties with looking in the distant past and there are some difficulties in interpreting Scripture. I am not convinced monogenism is neccessary for Genesis to be accurate in the senses of the Scripture the way the divine Author intended. There are great spiritual truths in Genesis and a great literal truth that the first (Adam) Man turned from God. I do not know if God intended us to be privy to the mechanisms of all creation via Scripture as a means. Scripture is for our spiritual salvation. He might have wanted science to be the means we discover the mechanics of the physical world. I think there is a false dichotomy promoted in the idea that Creationism is versus evolution. They could be complementary. Just some thoughts.

peace

 

[Chris_W]

Vindex Urvogel:

QED. This to me, is what is most interesting about the opposition amongst self-proclaimed Catholics on this board, who resist evolutionary biology… In rejecting evolutionary biology, they are in effect contravening Papal law…, which has… stated that evolutionary biology… is perfectly compatible with the Catholic faith.
Vindex Urvogel

This is a good illustration of the flaws I see in the logic of evolutionists. The person starts with a belief (in this case a belief that the Catholic church says evolution and Catholocism are [necessarily] compatible). The person then seeks evidence to support his belief. Assumptions are then made, and an opinion is formed. The opinion is then presented to the world as fact.

What the popes actually said is that the chuch does not forbid evolutionary research or the the discussions about the theory. Furthermore, they have said that it is remarakable that so many scientists have accepted the theory, and that there is enough evidence that seems to support the theory that it is therefore worthy of consideration as more than just a hypothesis.

What the popes did *not * say, is that Catholics should not question the implications of the theory of evolution, which is what I am doing. Similarly, the evidence suporting the theory of evolution does not prove that evolution is in fact true, but merely suggest that it is possible.

Nevertheless, it seems to me a worthwhile endeavor to ask how the theory of evolution can be reconciled with Christianity (including Catholicism). So far, I cannot see how the two are compatible. So, I continue to seek answers to my questions. Many people answer my question, with assertions that Christianity* is* compatible, but this does not answer my question. I am looking for the explaination of how.

 

[Chris_W]

Continuing then, in my pursuit for an answer as to how evolution and christianity might be compatible…

If we say that God created the first living organism and then evolution provides for the diversity of life we have today, then I can only think of two possiblities of how christianity can claim God created man.

1. God, at some point in evolutionary history, insterted a new species that we cal man. I think this would be objected to by evolutionists because the theory of evolution claims to have found the ancestors of man. A new species insterted in time, should not have these ancestors. So I doubt this possibility will work to reconcile christianity and evolution.
2. God, at some point, used a species that came about by evolutionary means, and merely breathed life (created a soul) in one (two actually…Adam and Eve) of those beings. This poses a problem for me because it would seem that there would be several generations in time where mankind, and the souless creatures from which man came, would be physically the same. It would also mean that the split between man and the species from which he was taken, would be the result of this new difference between them (soul, perhaps including intellect?). I would ask the evolutionists for their comments about this possibility.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Christian5:

Many “supposed” missing links have been reclassified as extinct apes or fully human.

By whom? Certainly not by palaeoanthropologists.

Please, no ‘classification by name’, whereby because Australopithecus translates as Southern Ape and Homo means man, the fossils in question are either ‘ape’ or ‘human’. Come on: who are these black-n-white, either-or taxonomists? Creationists, by any chance? Funny thing is, though, they can’t seem to agree on which fossils are which.

Not to mention there is a WIDE range of hommid fossils

What’s a hommid?

that show up in the wrong time period (of evolution).

Cite examples.

Even to the point of a few thousand years ago to even a few hundered [sic] years ago.

Cite examples.

For further in-depth of this I suggest you all read Marvin Lubelow’s [sic] book “Bones of Contention.”

No, you are making the claim, so you cite examples. And if you’ve read it, you’ve no reason to get the guy’s name wrong. It’s Lubenow.

He is a creationist so please approach it without the intent to just “prove” the book wrong. Oh ya, someone earlier refered [sic] to “Bones of Contention” to another site where it showed someone who reveiwed [sic] the book claiming that Marvin has a “mis-conception” about evolution. (Usualy [sic] what the athiest wines

Athiest wines? Chateau Down House 1859 was rather athy, and the Huxley 1870 was athier, but Dawkins Creek 1986 was the athiest of the recent Oxford vintages.

about whenever another disagrees). I suggest that person go and re-read the book to see who has the “mis-conception.”

How about you read this and this (was it one of these?) and tell us what’s wrong with their critique of Lubenow?

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Also, regarding a fish called the “coelacanth,” believed to be extinced [sic] for seventy million years and was sited [sic] as possibly a transitional form from fish to amphibians, closely resembling the Rhipidistians.

Nonsense. No modern species is transitional to anything else (except its descendants).

One was caught in 1938 (and many more since then). It was disected and it’s soft organ parts were studied and it was confirmed that it showed NO signs of being pre-adapted to land.

Whoopee-do. If we’re bandying books around, hie thee to a library and grab a copy of Jenny Clack’s Gaining Ground, pronto.

That suggests the Rhipidistian fish could all be disapointing for Darwinists.

That suggests you are floundering in the Indian Ocean wrt… damn near everything, it seems. Care to explain why Acanthostega gunneri is not transitional? Do you know your jugal from your palatial? Or your coccyx from your olecranon?

Sheesh.