Creation vs Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter flick427
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

flick427

Guest
Here is a link a priest sent me, it is a long video, but it points out many flaws in Darwin’s theories (which it is only a theory, not a law).
As he said, a match can’t strike itself. It is a good video, but very long…so watch when you can. I am not a biologist, but stuff like this is apologetically useful.
uctv.tv/library-test.asp?showID=6466
What can’t make any sense with evolution:
The FIREFLY…what would make a bug somehow change (adapt) to its environment by growing a blinking “light”. Does a bug just decide “Hey it sure is dark here! I think I am going make the cells in my rear end change into a light over the period of several thousand years, that way, we can see in the dark” That is nonsense! If I was stuck in a dark room the rest of my life and thought I needed some light, would my decendants have their “bums” all lit up like a lighthouse or what?
 
Evolution is not a conscious decision. It is merely “survival of the fittest”. Those that are able to adapt to there environments will survive. It has nothing to do with an animal, plant, protist, or bacterium “thinking” that it wants to change. The species will survive who can pass on their genetic material. Simple as that. By the way, Darwin’s theory is simply that species evolve (change) over time (He supports this in his book “The Voyage of the HMS Beagle” from the similarities and differences between birds on mainland South America and birds on the Galapagos Islands.) I am quite sure the Church has no official stance on creationism vs. evolution, only that science can probe the depths of evolution and theology tackles creation. Either way, it was God who willed all of evolution and in doing so created every plant, animal, and human on Earth and throughout the cosmos. Personally, as a scientist, I find that science only unveals more of God’s splendor when used correctly.
 
Oh, yes, I know that evolution is meant to be a adaptation/survival type thing…but that is still not a very good justification for having a flashlight for a rear end.:whacky: heh heh!

Seriously though, I’d be interested if you watched the video to hear what you think of it in since it appears you study science or are indeed a scientist.😉
 
They used to say to say to scientists, ‘Do you believe in God?’ and they would reply, ‘No, I’m a scientist.’ Today, we ask scientists ‘Do you believe in God?’ and they would answer ‘Of course, I’m a scientist!’
 
With regard to this subject, I highly recommend Lee Strobel’s new book, The Case for a Creator. It’s a very in-depth collection of research (in the form of interviews of experts in this and related fields) showing the overwhelming evidence of God in creation on all levels.

Lee Strobel is the author of The Case For Christ, another great book backing our faith with logic, fact, and reason.
 
40.png
flick427:
I am not a biologist, but stuff like this is apologetically useful.
Click to expand...
Sigh.

Since this is a Catholic board, can somebody please explain the Pope’s position on evolution to me?
40.png
flick427:
but that is still not a very good justification for having a flashlight for a rear end.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the firefly’s bioluminescense serves as a source of illumination?
 
I have come to the conclusion, that all the evidence of the Evolution going way back is both God’s Doing and errors in DNA over a long period of time, also there are not as far as I know alot of Bones of early man or Dinosaurs out there. There are a few bones scattered around the world.

I do believe in the Creation, but with some evolution mixed in also. With the increadible Deep space photos out there, I know that the universe is very old, since we can peer millions of light years out from Earth with very big telescopes. You can find on the internet Hubble’s Ultra Deep Field Survey, which was previously just a blank part of the sky seen by earth based telescopes.
hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/

I think that whatever Evolution that we can see in this world may indicate the order of God’s Creation, for he has made many things that are not in the bible exactly. Not much detail in the Book of Genesis.

I like to look at the Big Bang Creation that God performed to make the universe.
 
40.png
flick427:
Here is a link a priest sent me, it is a long video, but it points out many flaws in Darwin’s theories (which it is only a theory, not a law).
Click to expand...
The 2nd “law” of thermodynamics, often used as an argument against evolution, is also “only” a theory :rolleyes:.
Non-scientists should be very careful to use scientific terms in an argument.
 
Evolution is valid up until a point. Creatures will adapt to their surroundings but kind will continue to reporduce after it’s kind. A mutant would be rejected by it’s peers and unlikely be able to mate. Even if it did mate, it is extremely difficult to believe that it’s line would survive for more than a few generations and ultimately become dominate.

For example, if you take a village where everyone has black hair (as is the case in the far east) and introduce someone with red hair. It is possible for one or two off-springs to be born witn red hair. And even for some of their off-spring to have red hair.

But generation after generation will eventually cause the red hair gene to disappear from the village. The same truths apply to evolution – the mutated line would eventually die off after mixing over and over again with the pure line. It would not become the dominate line – yet that is what evolution teaches.
 
Your example lacks an important point in evolution. If red hair was a survival advantage, like red-haired people are not eaten by tigers or less likely to get cancer, red-haired people would soon outnumber the black-haired.
 
From a strict evolution viewpoint.Does that mean at some point a homosexual should be capable of reproduction from within his/her own sex?

Dax
 
40.png
dax:
From a strict evolution viewpoint.Does that mean at some point a homosexual should be capable of reproduction from within his/her own sex?

Dax
Click to expand...
From a strict evolution viewpoint: If there is a homosexual who mutated into the other sex for a start, (and you start killing all other homosexuals,) provided homosexuality is genetic - then YES.
 
40.png
flick427:
The FIREFLY…what would make a bug somehow change (adapt) to its environment by growing a blinking “light”. Does a bug just decide “Hey it sure is dark here! I think I am going make the cells in my rear end change into a light over the period of several thousand years, that way, we can see in the dark” That is nonsense!
Click to expand...
Fireflies use their lights to attract mates. Attracting a mate is a good way to ensure that you have offspring in the next generation. The flies that didn’t attract mates didn’t leave any descendants. There was no decision, as others have said that is not the way evolution works. The light also has other functions that help survival such as warning predators that this is a nasty tasting insect and not worth eating: the light making chemicals do not taste good.

For more details see this webpage.

–oo000oo–
40.png
wolpertinger:
Since this is a Catholic board, can somebody please explain the Pope’s position on evolution to me?
Click to expand...
Try of Sciences concerning the relationship between Revelation and theories of evolution
Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubet”; Encyclical Humani generis, AAS 42 [1950], p.575).
Click to expand...
As I read this the Pope is saying that our physical body evolved from earlier non-human organisms, “pre-existent living matter”, but that our soul was directly created by God.

rossum
 
Sir Knight:
A mutant would be rejected by it’s peers and unlikely be able to mate.
Click to expand...
Ah, no. That is a flawed understanding of evolution.
40.png
dax:
Does that mean at some point a homosexual should be capable of reproduction from within his/her own sex?
Click to expand...
Homosexuality is not limited to humans, nor is it particularly rare in other species. I recall reading that about 10% of humans are homosexuals; even if that number is somewhat exaggerated, human homosexuals are large minority – if that makes any sense.

For a trait to propagate within a population, the net benefit should be positive (or at worst insignificantly negative). In other words, even though homosexuals may or may not propagate their own genes, their particular trait would have long since disappeared across all species if there were no offsetting evolutionary advantage to it. I’m not personally aware that there is an agreement what this benefit is, but regardless of where you stand on this issue there is no apparent contradiction to the evolutionary process.
 
Just as a note, a scientific “theory” is the epitome of knowledge on a topic, e.g., Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, or the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, or the atomic theory, or evolutionary theory. “Theory” (scientifically) does not mean in question or an opinion, as in vernacular.

Also, the second law of thermodynamics is not a law, per se, but more a statement of statistics and probability, that, on average, the total entropy (disorder) of a system increases with time.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
Non-scientists should be very careful to use scientific terms in an argument.
Click to expand...
I have to echo this. In Science the term theory does not mean speculative. A scientific theory is something for which no significant alternatives have stood up to scrutiny. Scientific theories have been rigorously tested and subjected to observations. In the case for evolution the theory has been tested by comparing DNA evidence, observing fossils and the fossil record, observing and explaining vestigial structures, and studying the Earth’s changing environment and what mechanisms would be needed to insure the continuity of life.

Evolution does not have to be disbelieved by Catholics. As a scientifiv theory it holds up to every meaningful observation and test ever done. The Church has no problem with evolution, with some important (and difficult) caveats. The most important being that it not be used to somehow alter the Church’s belief in the original sin of Adam and Eve. For most Catholics who study evolution objectively, this comes down to an article of faith that we accept in obedience to the Church. Fortunately, our Church encourages us to have faith, so believing isn’t as hard as it might appear!
 
oh no, not this again…

there have been too many threads on this topic already and no one has changed their minds yet. can’t we just agree to disagree and figure it out in heaven? I’m sure that this is a question God would love to answer in paradise (although i’m also sure it’s not the first one that will jump from your lips).
 
40.png
rossum:
Try The Message of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy
Click to expand...
Code: 
		  			  				  http://www.christiananswers.net/0.gif
			  				  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/pope_w_crowd.jpg  				  			  		    **O**n October 23, 1996, Pope John Paul II made a formal statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that "fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis." The Pope stated that creation and evolution can work together without any conflict, as long as it is maintained that only God can create the human soul. The news media seemed to proclaim this statement as a triumph over creationism. Many throughout the world have been asking what significance this statement has on Catholic and Protestant theology. The following are a few thoughts on this topic:         Did the Pope really say that evolution was 'more than a hypothesis'?   It's probable that the secular media misinterpreted the Pope's address.

 The original French address says:
‘Aujourd’hui, pres d’un demisiecle apres la parution de l’encyclique, de nouvelles connaisances condesuisent a reconnaitre dans la theorie de l’evolution plus qu’une hypothese.’
Code: 
 In English:
‘Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical [Humani generis, 1950], new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution.’
The trouble is, the French word 'une' can mean 'a' or 'one'. The secular media translated it 'a' hypothesis, while the official RC newspaper *L'Osservatore Romano* translated it as 'one'. This information comes from the Polish RC (Roman Catholic) creationist and eminent scientist Maciej Giertych, who has published over 90 scientific papers. It was published in his private publication *Opoka* (The Rock), December 1996, and we were told 'feel free to publish it if you find it useful'.
 
The site I referenced www.jesuitsinscience.org has a foornote in the section you quoted.
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led us to realise that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis (1). It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of works that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
Click to expand...
The footnote referenced at (1) reads:
Footnote 1: The English text in italics is a translation of the French text of the original: “à reconnaître dans la théorie de l’évolution plus qu’une hypothèse”. The English rendering of this Fench text by L’Osservatore Romano, viz. “to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution”, seems to be a significant misunderstanding of the French original.
Click to expand...
There is obviously a real debate over the exact meaning of the text, though the longer quote I have given may be indicative of the way the Vatican is moving.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top