Creation vs Evolution

[PhilVaz]

Newman60 << Any honest scientist would agree that it is an unproven theory. >>

All honest scientists except these 450+ Steves, and perhaps the 550 Phils, 950 Bobs, 750 Richards, 800 Michaels, you get the idea…and change proven to “well demonstrated” or “excellent evidence for”…see this article on Scientific Proof?

Project Steve

Phil P

 

[hecd2]

TheGarg:

You have completely missed the point…,

First off…

Pascal’s wager is irrelevant, if it is used to prove or justify “mumbo jumbo”, for it is not the existence of God that my statements suggests, but rather whether I am wrong or you are wrong.

I merely stated the consequences of both situations, and I’ll repeat them for your benefit.

1. Your right, and we all take a dirt nap when we die (atheist view, (if your an atheist, I really don’t know))
2. I’m right, and atheists run the risk of burning in hell (not for me to say really).

This is Pascal’s wager. It’s the same tactic that is used by every purveyor of superstition and mumbo-jumbo in history - it goes like this: I have no evidence or reason to support what I say, but I open my eyes very wide, and I fix you with a piercing stare, and I say to you ‘You’d better believe what I tell you or it will be the worse for you’ And then you wonder why I don’t shiver and immediately acquiesce.

Well the reason is that threats of Hell are entirely empty. Hell is a perverse invention of the human mind. There is as much reason to believe in the existence of hell as there is to believe in Narnia, Middle Earth or Hogwarts. It’s time for humanity to grow up and put away the childish notion of Hell and its impotent threats.

Now your only option is to accept or deny Jesus…makes you wish you were a pygmy down in New Guinea if you’re an Atheist, then you would have a reason for Not Knowing God, instead of Choosing to reject him…

I am entirely relaxed in the face of this false dichotomy. I am perfectly willing to accept the existence of a very good but rather inconvenient political person called Jesus, who was unjustly executed by the Romans for disrupting the social equilibrium (rather like heretics do), and around whom a very large cult condensed. To that extent, I accept him. However, I see no reason to go further than that - but absolutely respect the views of those who do.

However, I do wish you’d stop gleefully condemning me to eternal torment. It’s not an edifying process. Wishing that sort of ultimate ill fate on a fellow human being, just because he does not hold to your particular beliefs, does nothing to enhance the dignity and stature of human beings. It makes one rather despair of the human race.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[SCTA-1]

That very good person called Jesus talked alot about Hell for some reason.Hey, what about the wager for Jesus? Was he just a good biological accident like us all just doing good (what ever that is) or was he the SON OF GOD? Just two choices to make:The Savior or a lunatic? Or better yet,Lord or Liar. Wait a minute,I know what some folks might say: They put words in his mouth and created the Christ.And just to think,all those cowards who ran away from Jesus when he was crucified became the most heroic preachers about him within day’s.Did they see something? Don’t mean to start another thread.Sorry.

 

[TheGarg]

hecd2:
This is Pascal’s wager. It’s the same tactic that is used by every purveyor of superstition and mumbo-jumbo in history - it goes like this: I have no evidence or reason to support what I say, but I open my eyes very wide, and I fix you with a piercing stare, and I say to you ‘You’d better believe what I tell you or it will be the worse for you’ And then you wonder why I don’t shiver and immediately acquiesce.

Well the reason is that threats of Hell are entirely empty. Hell is a perverse invention of the human mind. There is as much reason to believe in the existence of hell as there is to believe in Narnia, Middle Earth or Hogwarts. It’s time for humanity to grow up and put away the childish notion of Hell and its impotent threats.

I am entirely relaxed in the face of this false dichotomy. I am perfectly willing to accept the existence of a very good but rather inconvenient political person called Jesus, who was unjustly executed by the Romans for disrupting the social equilibrium (rather like heretics do), and around whom a very large cult condensed. To that extent, I accept him. However, I see no reason to go further than that - but absolutely respect the views of those who do.

However, I do wish you’d stop gleefully condemning me to eternal torment. It’s not an edifying process. Wishing that sort of ultimate ill fate on a fellow human being, just because he does not hold to your particular beliefs, does nothing to enhance the dignity and stature of human beings. It makes one rather despair of the human race.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
There are ya happy, i let you have the last word

 

[RMP]

You know what…I think those 12 Apostles guys really dropped the ball on this one. Here they are… talking personally with our LORD…and none of them think to ask him about how it all started…OOOPs! Well at least none of them thought of it as interesting enough to write about.

And to top it all off, they leave us a few …shall we say sticky notes about churches in disarray, vague references to sacraments, ways for salvation and the such…All the while, not knowing that that ALONE would be too confusing for our poor protestant brethren to interpret or understand for all the years to come.

 

[RMP]

More seriously though.

HEC2… Are YOU really sure that sin does not exist? that hell does not exist? A denial of sin is the first step man takes toward the denial of hell. If there is no sin, well then, there is no consequence. Do you really beleive there is no consequence for your actions?
I dont understand how you can, because ever day you wake up your actions during the day bring consequences, sometimes good, sometimes bad…If you do something nice, why do you feel good? If you do something bad, why do u feel guilt. If you steal, rape, or murder… you know the possible consequences. Why… or How can you deny the heaven or hell, consequences for your actions, when ever day is a testiment to this very fact that you DO.

 

[twf]

I realize that many Catholics do accept theistic evolution, but not all do, and I have major issues with the idea. First of all, contrary to what many will claim, there are many problems between current evolution theory and Sacred Tradition. Tradition tells us that Adam and Eve were two real people, and that all living humans are descendents of them. Evolutionary theory currently does not allow for the possibility of all living humans descending from two people, but from a group of perhaps several thousand out of Africa, which would themselves have come from an earl form of humanity. As well, evolution makes it difficult to allow for human immortality before the fall. Tradition strongly suggests that bodily death is a result of original sin, so how does this fit in with evolution? For example, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is based upon the reasoning that since our Lady was free from original sin, her body would not see corruption. So if physical death and decay is a penalty of original sin, then how is that reconciled with evolution? As well, even though the Catechism tells us that Genesis uses symbolic language (without directly endorsing evolution) it also says elsewhere that God cursed the earth because of original sin (which Genesis says as well). If God cursed the earth so that thorns and such appeared, then how is tha reconciled with evolution which has millions of years of suffering, bloodshed, cancer, diseases, and decay before original sin?
Well just some things to think about.
In Christ and Mary,
Tyler

 

[SocaliCatholic]

twf:

I realize that many Catholics do accept theistic evolution, but not all do, and I have major issues with the idea. First of all, contrary to what many will claim, there are many problems between current evolution theory and Sacred Tradition. Tradition tells us that Adam and Eve were two real people, and that all living humans are descendents of them. Evolutionary theory currently does not allow for the possibility of all living humans descending from two people, but from a group of perhaps several thousand out of Africa, which would themselves have come from an earl form of humanity. As well, evolution makes it difficult to allow for human immortality before the fall. Tradition strongly suggests that bodily death is a result of original sin, so how does this fit in with evolution? For example, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is based upon the reasoning that since our Lady was free from original sin, her body would not see corruption. So if physical death and decay is a penalty of original sin, then how is that reconciled with evolution? As well, even though the Catechism tells us that Genesis uses symbolic language (without directly endorsing evolution) it also says elsewhere that God cursed the earth because of original sin (which Genesis says as well). If God cursed the earth so that thorns and such appeared, then how is tha reconciled with evolution which has millions of years of suffering, bloodshed, cancer, diseases, and decay before original sin?
Well just some things to think about.
In Christ and Mary,
Tyler

The result can only be as good as the (name removed by moderator)ut. If evolution is indeed false, it must imply that something is fundamentally flawed about evolutionary biology. That is probably why so many evolutionary biologists on here take a rejection of evolution so personally.

 

[RMP]

Why is this such a difficult debate?

Without CREATION, evolution would not be possible. Evolution is just a theory, a best GUESS. Where are the facts? The only evidence for evolution is the theory itself. Is that evidence? Show me an example of evolution, NOT a guess about what could have happened. Show the observation that it DID happen.
If there is any truth in the world that is clear, It is Science is our best guess, and man usually-continually guesses wrong. Dont we call it RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
That is exactly why the incarnation of GOD was so very much needed in the world. To get rid of the guess work.
Jesus makes the way so there is no more guessing. He shows us the truth. We see,touch,hear him. In the CATHOLIC church we even get to smell and EAT him.
Science TRIES to show the way through knowledge and observation, but like most of mans habits, it is imperfect. Most of the time man cant even agree about our observations we get or the knowledge we learn. (At one point during the renasaince period mans philosophy actually tried to argue the point that we dont exist at all!)
Science can never make the claim that what it professess will always be absolutely true. So how can we absolutely trust it. If anything, science itself is the one thing in the world that proves evolution (evolution of thought). The evolution of itself.

Show me how one species becomes another…oh, you cant. well keep trying then. Show me how mold developes a conscience, and when does this occur? HAsnt been done yet? go figure.

All I am saying is, to beleive in evolution, dont you HAVE to beleive in creation? To beleive in creation, u dont have to beleive in evolution…

 

[ISABUS]

It would be nice to explore the proof of the existance of God prior to continuing this debate about ‘Creation vs Evolution’. Perhaps we could examine the methods of proving that God exists. And proving at what point in evolution did man have a conscience. (As science means knowledge, conscience etymologically means self-knowledge.) I have been told by many priest who are friends of mine that the human soul is one’s conscience.

I know God exists through my conscience, i.e., from the fact, attested by experience, that I have by nature a sense of right and wrong altogether distinct from God’s knowledge that certain actions are hurtful to others, or hurtful to or unworthy of God. This gives me a true conception of God as just, holy, and merciful.

It is from pure reason, apart from revelation, that God exists; and this may be proved from a consideration of created things. "For since the creation of the world, " Saint paul says, “his invisible ATTRIBUTES are clearly seen – his everlasting power also and divinity – being understood from the things that are made” (Rom. 1:20).

The Fathers of the Church put forth many arguments. St. Thomas gave five arguements.

Food for thought ~

 

[hecd2]

SCTA-1:

That very good person called Jesus talked alot about Hell for some reason.Hey, what about the wager for Jesus? Was he just a good biological accident like us all just doing good (what ever that is) or was he the SON OF GOD? Just two choices to make:The Savior or a lunatic? Or better yet,Lord or Liar…

False dichotomy. How about rather self-obsessed, rather spikey, very politically incovenient, but basically good man called Jesus, who was a genetic accident to the extent that we all are? How about him being a man of his time who talked about the theological concepts of his time, such as hell? Why do you want to set up these false extreme choices?

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

RMP:

More seriously though.

HEC2… Are YOU really sure that sin does not exist?

I am really sure that sin or evil does exist. Really sure. How can anyone live in the world and deny the existence of evil - it’s not possible

that hell does not exist? A denial of sin is the first step man takes toward the denial of hell. If there is no sin, well then, there is no consequence. Do you really beleive there is no consequence for your actions?

There is no logical connection between the existence of evil and the existence of hell. We all have a sense of justice, and that sense leads us to create the concept of a place where evil is punished and virtue is rewarded. Unfortunately, the evidence for such a scenario is wanting. Our actions do have consequences, but those consequences touch us and those who are connected with our legacy directly in this world.

I dont understand how you can, because ever day you wake up your actions during the day bring consequences, sometimes good, sometimes bad…If you do something nice, why do you feel good? If you do something bad, why do u feel guilt.

That is a consequence of the evolutionary origins of virtue

If you steal, rape, or murder… you know the possible consequences. Why… or How can you deny the heaven or hell, consequences for your actions, when ever day is a testiment to this very fact that you DO.

The consequences of these evil actions are in the here and now - not in some imagined spiritual torture chamber or pleasure dome. And all the more powerful for being felt prresently rather than delayed to some future state.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

The result can only be as good as the (name removed by moderator)ut. If evolution is indeed false, it must imply that something is fundamentally flawed about evolutionary biology. That is probably why so many evolutionary biologists on here take a rejection of evolution so personally.

But evolution is not false and there is no fundamental flaw in evolutionary biology. Perhaps you can be specific about exactly how evolutionary biology is flawed. If you do a really good job, and support your ideas about the fundamental flaws of evolutionary biology with evidence and logic, you’ll get to publish one or more papers in Science or Nature, and you’ll become famous and feted.Good luck!

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[SCTA-1]

hecd2:

I am really sure that sin or evil does exist. Really sure. How can anyone live in the world and deny the existence of evil - it’s not possible

There is no logical connection between the existence of evil and the existence of hell. We all have a sense of justice, and that sense leads us to create the concept of a place where evil is punished and virtue is rewarded. Unfortunately, the evidence for such a scenario is wanting. Our actions do have consequences, but those consequences touch us and those who are connected with our legacy directly in this world.
That is a consequence of the evolutionary origins of virtue
The consequences of these evil actions are in the here and now - not in some imagined spiritual torture chamber or pleasure dome. And all the more powerful for being felt prresently rather than delayed to some future state.What about the folk’s who never suffered the consequences of their actions and got away with murder and died peacefully? They murdered,tortured and committed the most heinous acts toward their fellow humans and never got caught.Now they are out of existence and at rest,never to answer for their actions and the poor souls who were on the receiving end of the injustice return to the dirt equal to the tormentors.But the tormentors get away with it,never to face judgement.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[SCTA-1]

hecd2:

I am really sure that sin or evil does exist. Really sure. How can anyone live in the world and deny the existence of evil - it’s not possible

There is no logical connection between the existence of evil and the existence of hell. We all have a sense of justice, and that sense leads us to create the concept of a place where evil is punished and virtue is rewarded. Unfortunately, the evidence for such a scenario is wanting. Our actions do have consequences, but those consequences touch us and those who are connected with our legacy directly in this world.
That is a consequence of the evolutionary origins of virtue
The consequences of these evil actions are in the here and now - not in some imagined spiritual torture chamber or pleasure dome. And all the more powerful for being felt prresently rather than delayed to some future state.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

What about all the individuals who murdered and tortured the innocent and never suffered the consequences of their actions and died peacefully? They enjoyed inflicting pain and suffering on the innocent and never got caught and in some cases the incidents were never known.Now they are out of existence and at rest and never have to face all the injustices they committed.Meanwhile,the other individuals who received all the injustices just die and return to dirt just like their tormentors but their tormentors get away with it and tough luck for the folk’s who got brutalized.This sounds ok with you?

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

But evolution is not false and there is no fundamental flaw in evolutionary biology. Perhaps you can be specific about exactly how evolutionary biology is flawed. If you do a really good job, and support your ideas about the fundamental flaws of evolutionary biology with evidence and logic, you’ll get to publish one or more papers in Science or Nature, and you’ll become famous and feted.Good luck!

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

Would you agree: Science contains a body of growing yet incomplete knowledge about the natural universe and how it works which is always developing as new discoveries are made. Would not science writers like Sagan or Feynman claim this part of the thrill of new discovery in science?

Is every discovery or law put forth from science complete in every way and in no need of further research and development?

At what point in time and by whom is evolution deemed fact and not theory?

Could the notion of evolution be open to new developments from scientific research or is it a closed door?

 

[hecd2]

SCTA-1:

What about all the individuals who murdered and tortured the innocent and never suffered the consequences of their actions and died peacefully? They enjoyed inflicting pain and suffering on the innocent and never got caught and in some cases the incidents were never known.Now they are out of existence and at rest and never have to face all the injustices they committed.Meanwhile,the other individuals who received all the injustices just die and return to dirt just like their tormentors but their tormentors get away with it and tough luck for the folk’s who got brutalized.This sounds ok with you?

You illustrate my point that hell is a construct of the human mind - a mind which yearns for absolute justice. Hell is postulated to account for those evil people who live perfectly comfortable lives and who die having escaped punishment during life. That is an affront to our sense of justice, so we create a place of punishment for them so that we can feel comforted that justice will be done.Your sense of aggrieved unfairness arises from just this source. For similar reasons, we create a post-mortem paradise to reward the just whose natural lives have been difficult, painful and unrewarding.

Unfortunately these concepts, however compelling our sense of justice might make them, entirely lack any rational basis for their existence (thankfully, in the case of the Catholic concept of hell, which is, I must say, one of the most appallingly cruel concepts that the perverse mind of man has ever created).

A major reason for believing in God, is this sense of justice. I think it is a carry over from our childhood when we were able to appeal to adults to correct the injustices we experienced. As adults ourselves, we feel we have no person to turn to assuage our feelings of injustice,so we create a God, a heaven and a hell.

However, the world is not an inherently just place. There is no guarantee of reward for the just, or punishment for the guilty. We have to turn to human social and judicial structures that reward the just and the co-operative, and that punish the malfeasants and the defectors. That is what maturity means for humanity.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

Would you agree: Science contains a body of growing yet incomplete knowledge about the natural universe and how it works which is always developing as new discoveries are made. Would not science writers like Sagan or Feynman claim this part of the thrill of new discovery in science?

Absolutely correct. I agree 100% with this observation.

Is every discovery or law put forth from science complete in every way and in no need of further research and development?

Well, apart from the quibble that the ‘development’ part of ‘research and development’ has nothing to do with pure science but refers to technological development, particularly around New Product Development, I agree that there are no laws that are immune to future refinement. A law describes a phenomenon. Newton’s law of gravity states that the force between two objects is proportional to the product of their masses and falls off as the square of the distance between their centres of mass.

At what point in time and by whom is evolution deemed fact and not theory?

There is a fact of evolution AND there is a theory of evolution and they are not the same thing. The fact of evolution is that evolution occurred (and by evolution we mean the fact that the current diversity of species is explained by common descent from one or a small number of common ancestors). It is deemed to be a fact when the scientific community as a whole no longer have any reservations about the fact that evolution occurred. In spite of the fringe protests of, generally unqualified dissenters, the vast overwhelming bulk of the scientific community has accepted evolution as a fact for more than 100 years. The *fact *of evolution is no more an issue in science than the *fact *of gravity. I have not seen a single challenge within the scientific community to the fact of evolution in the last 30 years.

The theory of evolution is an entirely different thing. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Darwin’s theory was flawed in one major respect, and that was that he never had any idea of the mechanism by which the variation from one generation to the next arose. It took the New Synthesis of the 1930s, led by Ernst Mayr, Sewall Wright, Theodosius Dobzhanky, Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane and others, to come up with a mechanism that combined genetics and Darwinism. There have been many refinements to neo-darwinism since the 1930s from biologists such as Gould and Eldredge and from molecular biologists like Kimura. The *Theory *of evolution - that is, the mechanism by which evolution occurs - continues to be refined today with major discoveries in molecular biology, biogeography, phylogenetics and cladistics, epigenetics and developmental biology. That understandiing will continue to be refined. There is no week when major papers in the journals fail to appear. There are even disagreements about basic things such as whether the unit of selection is the genome, the individual, the population or the species. However, the fact of evolution is not in question.

Could the notion of evolution be open to new developments from scientific research or is it a closed door?

Yes, it is open to discoveries about its mechanisms and these discoveries, some of which are quite fundamental, are being made all the time. However the fact that evolution occurred is regarded as a fact by the entire scientific community owing to the overwhelming evidenc in support of it. That has been a settled question these 100 years.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[PhilVaz]

hecd << In spite of the fringe protests of, generally unqualified dissenters, the vast overwhelming bulk of the scientific community has accepted evolution as a fact for more than 100 years. >>

Another point in evolution’s favor is that it has been “declared dead” by various fringe dissenters for over 100 years, but still keeps on trucking.

See The Longest Running Lie in Creationism by Glenn Morton

Phil P

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

There is a fact of evolution AND there is a theory of evolution and they are not the same thing.

Okay based on what you said, please forgive me but here is the problem that I am still having understanding evolution as fact vs. theory.

Newton and gravity: He happpened to make some observations about falling objects, did some experiments, came up with some ideas based on those observations, described those ideas precisely with mathematics, those ideas + mathematical description = gravity. So gravity is a man-made framework or concept that is functional up to a point in this universe (the perhillion shift of mercury for example) Gravity is considered fact or law in so far it predicts the phenomena in its framework. Would you agree with this foundation so far? Please correct me if need be.

Darwin and evolution: Someone interested in plants and animals, takes a boat ride along the H.M.S. Beagle and comes up with a way to explain the variation in the different phenomena he observes such as lizards and finches. He has a great idea based on observations that other biologists would agree with. He calls this way to describe variation, evolution, but does not use mathematics to describe its mechanism.

**Question: **

Ideas originating from Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Engineering, Astronomy, all use mathematics to frame the theories that they come up with, as bizzare as the theory at the time may seem.

To what extent is mathematics included or discluded in evolutionary theory, and how does it impact the theory of evolution’s provability?