Creationism an Option?

[Pete_1]

But now I have another question: Is it a permissible view for a Catholic to believe in Preadamites or the Preadamite World? Not that I necessarily do.

No i think this is a heresy called polygenism (more then two original humans) as it conficts with the idea original sin.

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
   The above article is from:
   vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

I may be wrong please don’t take my word for it please read the article for yourself.

 

[Pete_1]

And plus, macro-evolution violates the first three laws of thermodynamics (two, if it’s theistic).

I used to belive this but it is entireley untrue, However i could be wrong please don’t take my word for it.

First law

“ In any process, the total energy of the universe remains at large. ”i.e energy cannot be made it can only change form.

how does this conflict?**
Second law**

“ The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. ” In a simple manner, the second law states that “energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy” (stanch transformation content) rather than decrease it.

i.e energy is lost over time from systems not in equilibrium.

This does not confilct with evolution because of the energy (name removed by moderator)ut of the sun.

Third law

Main article: Third law of thermodynamics
“ As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant. ”

how does this conflict?

please don’t take my word for this i may have interpreted it wrong

 

[Yaholo]

The problem with creationism and evolution is that neither are true science. Scientific method is centered around the ability to create hypotheses that can be proven through repeatable experiments. Evolution and creation are theories that fall more into the line of deduction and philosophy, and even then have problems.

To say “God created” is reasonable, as reason dictates that a complex system, especially one that performs a function, is created. It is reasonable to say that a car has an engineer, or that a house has an architect. No reasonable person would ever look at a vast city and claim “it took a lot of tornadoes to build this”. Order comes from intelligence.

However, when we start looking into how God made the world we are treading on different territory. Despite our current “breakthroughs” in science and so-called vast knowledge, we do yet truly understand the building blocks of our reality.

Our physics models have grasped possibly 6 or 7 dimensions, while we estimate there is possibly up to 22+ (String Theory). We do not yet know how cells are able to communicate and identify their specific roles in a multi-celled organism. We have no experimental model for the evolution of a single-celled organism to cross over into a multi-celled organism.

Currently evolutionist are trying to perform experiments of inductive reasoning to try and confirm their theories, you can call them “if we are right then…” experiments. The two largest “if we are right then…” is to be able to find life on other planets, because if the math behind evolution is feasible, then there has to be life on other planets. The other is to search for alternative life on our own planet, such as single-celled organisms with alternate building blocks that show the progress of evolution.

Up to this point, neither have been found. Not to mention gaping holes in the fossil record and upside down fossils (horse fossils found below dinosaurs). Evolution is not as solid as people like to say.

Let’s be realistic. Evolution was created by atheists, in the hopes of killing God. The whole reason such poor science has made it this far is that there is so much emotion attached to it. Emotion that is often fueled, admittedly so, by over-zealous theists who often don’t want to change their view either.

I don’t believe we need to take Genesis literally, nor do I believe that Creationism is scientific. Evolution and Creationism are both emotionally driven “jumping the gun” agendas that leap out of the path of science. There is still much to be discovered, and in due time we will sit back and laugh at our “enlightened” Theory of Evolution as we now laugh at those who thought the world was flat.

If we want to teach our children true science, then we would present the Theory of Evolution, and then show them all the problems it still has. The truth is that we don’t know how the world came to be, and we never will if we are set defending incomplete theories as fact.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

here is what is really needed to prove macro evolution, but of course the evolutionist will find some way of wigling out of this or denial of a reality check
http://www.dnaco.net/~vogelke/pictures/when-cloning-goes-wrong/

why do you assume that scientists would “wiggle” out of something? Do you believe they falsify evidence regarding nuclear fusion or fission as well? For what purpose do you perceive this is done? Did you start your investigation of evolution with the assumption it was wrong? Did you assume it was right initially and then discover this apparent wrongness that no one of any scientific stature seems able to see?

 

[Donald45]

Have you read, “The Language of God” by Francis C. Collins

No, but it’s on my list. The last few books I’ve read on this subject were these:

Francisco J. Ayala, Darwin’s Gift To Science & Religion (Joseph Henry Press, 2007)

Edward Humes, Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, & the Battle for America’s Soul (HarperCollins, 2007)

Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (Times Books, 2006)

Pax,

Don
+T+

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I cant see how the evidence for evolution is overwhelming! The only overwhelming thing is the polemic behind it. I don’t understand how people cannot distinguish between ‘experimental’ and ‘historical’ science. How can people believe everything ‘scientists’ label as a so called proven fact? Alone the word science, as you surely all know, comes from the word ‘knowledge’. So this is where you have to ask yourself, what is it that I know and what is it that I believe. You can know that the law of gravity works as you can test and repeat it any time you want. You can not know that a fossil found in a certain geological strata is 70 million years old because the dating methods are highly inaccurate and in most cases simply arbitrary. I deal with dating methods every day (Archaeology) and it is not a secret that none of the atheist archaeologists and palaeontologists from the universities I know believe them to be true. It’s more like a vague guide line and not the gospel. For me it is simply a joke most of all because of the C14 tests done on living creatures which come up with an age of thousands of years and because of tests done with rock samples which show a discrepancy sometimes up to 150 million years. There are numerous assumptions that you have to take as true before you can even determine the parameters for the dating method. I personally know professors (atheists) who don’t bother with this anymore but simply go according to the geological column- a fossil is X years old because the geological layer is X years old and the layer (if itself undateable ) is X years old because the fossil found in the rock is X years old.

To summarise, behind all this non-sense lays the deep commitment to keep the age of the earth old because at the same time you are keeping the historical record of the Bible as untrue. It’s pretty dishonest and I meet many people who fall for this only because a ‘scientist’ said so.

You are an archeologist? My my…and you call other archeologists atheist archeologists? and the same for paleontologists? Interesting. I’ve never heard a scientist refer to one’s religious beliefs before as a part of the science. Can you direct me to the journals you have published in with these corrections? I’m sure the world desperately awaits being corrected. Thousands upon thousands of scientists it appears have been wasting their time.

I guess its your conclusion that all scientists who don’t believe as you do are atheists? And we all know they spend their lives trying to destroy the bible. Making a living, raising their kids, going to concerts is all second place to destroying the bible…Yes I can see that…bunk!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I used to belive this but it is entireley untrue, However i could be wrong please don’t take my word for it.

First lawhow does this conflict?**
Second law**

i.e energy is lost over time from systems not in equilibrium.

This does not confilct with evolution because of the energy (name removed by moderator)ut of the sun.

Third lawhow does this conflict?

please don’t take my word for this i may have interpreted it wrong

Yeah, usually you have to go to a real fundie site to even see an argument about thermodynamics any more. The more sophisticated creationists have pretty much dropped that false argument. They drop them all eventually, and just develop new ones it seems. I remember ohh…30 years ago, they just said fossils were God’s test of man…They don’t make that one anymore either.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

My question to the OP is this. You seem delighted that you are “allowed” to believe in Creationism although it is clearly not the position of the Church today. I’m curious as to why you would choose to believe what is against I maintain the great weight of teh evidence and is not required of you as a Catholic. If you are reading teh bible as literal truth in all cases, you are NOT following catholic teaching. Fundamentalism is decried by teh Church as “intellectual suicide” since it requires suspension of reason and mind to adher to a literal reading of much especially of Genesis.

 

[MariaG]

To the OP.

While it is an interesting study to try and figure out how and when God created the world, it is not vital to your salvation for you to ultimately know the answer.

I guess, what I am trying to say, is, trying to decide whether the earth is young or old, really does not matter to your salvation as long as you believe God did it.

The important thing is that Christ says if you do not eat my flesh or drink my blood you have no life in you. This is vital to your salvation.

And as already been stated, you can freely choose to believe in literal creationism if you wish to.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[Donald45]

Let’s be realistic. Evolution was created by atheists, in the hopes of killing God.

You may want to engage in an in-depth study of the history of science before repeating such an ill-informed claim. In point of fact, many early evolutionists were committed Christian believers, as are many evolutionary scientists today. Even Darwin himself (who never considered himself an atheist) was a creationist when the data he was collecting led him to his theory of evolution by natural selection. In Darwin’s own words:

"There is grandeur in this [evolutionary] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved" (On the Origin of Species).

For more information, I highly recommend the following texts:

Edward J. Larson, Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (Modern Library, 2004)

Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (Knopf, 1992)

Both of these are available in paperback, and can be purchased (or ordered) at any major bookstore.

Finally, consider the wisdom of Pope Benedict XVI:

"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…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 development. 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 complimentary----rather than mutually exclusive----realities" (In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation & the Fall, p. 50).

God bless, and happy reading!

Don
+T+

 

[MariaG]

You may want to engage in an in-depth study of the history of science before repeating such an ill-informed claim. In point of fact, many early evolutionists were committed Christian believers, as are many evolutionary scientists today. Even Darwin himself (who never considered himself an atheist) was a creationist when the data he was collecting led him to his theory of evolution by natural selection. In Darwin’s own words:

"There is grandeur in this [evolutionary] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved" (On the Origin of Species).

For more information, I highly recommend the following texts:

Edward J. Larson, Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (Modern Library, 2004)

Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (Knopf, 1992)

Both of these are available in paperback, and can be purchased (or ordered) at any major bookstore.

Finally, consider the wisdom of Pope Benedict XVI:

"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…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 development. 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 complimentary----rather than mutually exclusive----realities" (In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation & the Fall, p. 50).

God bless, and happy reading!

Don
+T+

Yes, the view that evolution and creation are at odds with each other is a relatively new view, as is the young earth hypothesis.

 

[Metaron]

No i think this is a heresy called polygenism (more then two original humans) as it conficts with the idea original sin.

The above article is from:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

I may be wrong please don’t take my word for it please read the article for yourself.

It said,*** AFTER*** Adam, and as others who did not inherit Original sin from Adam. This is different than Preadamitism, as they are totally unrelated to original sin, and are BEFORE Adam.

Thanks for the links, though.

 

[Metaron]

I may be wrong please don’t take my word for it please read the article for yourself.

I said the first three laws, but that was a mistake; as far as their interpretation. Ugh, I messed up big time. Only the second law is violated.

Creationists believe that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to arise from disorder, and therefore the macro-evolution of complex living things from single-celled ancestors could not have occurred. The creationist argument is based on their interpretation of the relationship between probability and a thermodynamic property called “entropy.”

Note: Creationists do believe in micro-evolution (variations within species, within given genes).

This does not confilct with evolution because of the energy (name removed by moderator)ut of the sun.

I don’t see how this is related to what we’re discussing.

 

[Metaron]

I may be wrong please don’t take my word for it please read the article for yourself.

I said the first three laws, but that was a mistake; as far as their interpretation. Ugh, I messed up big time. Only the second law is violated.

Creationists believe that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to arise from disorder, and therefore the macro-evolution of complex living things from single-celled ancestors could not have occurred. The Creationist argument is based on the relationship between probability and a thermodynamic property called “entropy.”

Note: Creationists do believe in micro-evolution (variations within species, within given genes).

This does not confilct with evolution because of the energy (name removed by moderator)ut of the sun.

I don’t see how this is related to what we’re discussing.

 

[Yaholo]

Donald45,

Just because there are theists who have supported or due support the Theory of Evolution, does not diminish my point.

“Here we have a beautiful explanation for how life comes about… and then Francis Collins and others want to smuggle God back in and say, ‘Oh, well, natural selection was God’s way of doing it.’ He chose the method that made him superfluous. Why bother to postulate him at all, in that case?” - Richard Dawkins

Evolution is the warm blanket atheists tuck themselves into bed at night with.

It was interesting that you took the time to read my entire post yet didn’t actually respond to anything in it other than one sentence I could have, admittedly, worded better. I would like to hear your response to the rest of it.

What about the rest? Why fight so hard to make such and unstable theory a part of Christian, or even scientific, thinking? There are many scientific thinking Christians who look at the impossibilities of evolution to point out that God is still needed… but why defend a theory, that claims to be so scientific, when it has so many holes to begin with?

 

[Metaron]

“Here we have a beautiful explanation for how life comes about… and then Francis Collins and others want to smuggle God back in and say, ‘Oh, well, natural selection was God’s way of doing it.’ He chose the method that made him superfluous. Why bother to postulate him at all, in that case?” - Richard Dawkins

Evolution is the warm blanket atheists tuck themselves into bed at night with.

I totally agree with Yaholo. No-one has convinced me yet of evolution. I’m a Creationist Catholic 'til I can be convinced otherwise.

By the way, I like Go too, Yaholo.

 

[Metaron]

Yeah, usually you have to go to a real fundie site to even see an argument about thermodynamics any more. The more sophisticated creationists have pretty much dropped that false argument. They drop them all eventually, and just develop new ones it seems. I remember ohh…30 years ago, they just said fossils were God’s test of man…They don’t make that one anymore either.

Like I said before, throwing the “fundamentalist” label around is childish and moronic. I am Catholic. Also, how are fossils God’s test to man? They support Creationism, since there are no transitional forms.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Also, how are fossils God’s test to man? They support Creationism, since there are no transitional forms.

Sounds like a testable claim. What do you think a transitional would be like?

Did you know that transitionals predicted over 100 years ago have subsequently been found in the fossil record, and important new ones are found almost every month?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Creationists believe that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to arise from disorder,

How do you explain the highly structured form of a Hurricane, then? BTW, the 2nd LOT does not prohibit order rising from disorder. Boltzmann himself was a Darwinist. Why not show us your calculations that demonstrate your argument? Thermodynamics is a statistical science, so you’ll have to use the Boltzmann equations.

and therefore the macro-evolution of complex living things from single-celled ancestors could not have occurred.

I sure would like to see the 2nd LOT applied to that one. Show us.

The Creationist argument is based on the relationship between probability and a thermodynamic property called “entropy.”

Great. Show us the numbers. Be sure to explain how entropy enters into it. Hint: check the Shannon equation, and why entropy is not disorder.

 

[Metaron]

Sounds like a testable claim. What do you think a transitional would be like?

Did you know that transitionals predicted over 100 years ago have subsequently been found in the fossil record, and important new ones are found almost every month?

Show me. Give me links.