Creationism and life in general

[Al_Moritz]

It is not a fact, only some atheists believers BELIEVE that some facts are related and support the theory. Nothing was scientifically proven. Unfortunately atheists scientists try to “push it their way” and for example for decades archaeologists simply dumped artifacts because were “useless”; dating didn’t match the theories thus the artifacts were contaminated, and because you cant date them better throw them away to save space and time…How does this help science? Hopefully looks like a new trend is there, starting with some american scientists, who didn’t want to throw away years of work; and there is no unlimited quantity of artifacts…
The same with the “beloved” Bohr atom model; gives the perfect illusion of a all-material existence because after all everything are things, may they change into energy. This is indoctrination and later on they have to tell the young, that after all you cant understand the quantum science. Science?
The only science that didn’t suffered atheistic abuse yet is Math.
Last thing I learned about the genetics is that more than 98% of the genetic code is unknown and looks to be useless … I wouldn’t wonder if potentially all the creatures are there.

Now tell me how can I prove to myself evolution the same way i can prove gravity: to prove that gravity exists I simply suspend something and see what happens…

You are gravely mistaken and have been seriously mislead in your thinking. I am a scientist, a biochemist, as well as a practicing Roman Catholic who loves God, and I can assure you that everything Rossum says about evolution is true. Evolution is both a fact and a theory, and not an atheistic invention. To deny evolution is to deny the truth of God’s creation.

Science is not atheistic, unlike what both creationists and atheists, who ironically share quite a few similarities on either extreme, want you to believe. Science (the natural sciences) searches for natural causes to natural effects – by definition. This is not an atheistic invention but the methodology developed by the first scientists, who were all believers in God and wanted to find out the laws of nature given by God according to which His creation unfolds.

Evolution is well established by science – get over it. Evolution is not a delusion that is the devil’s work, but God’s way of creating. To deny this is to deny the truth of God – revealed to us in the Book of Nature, which is complementary to the Book of Revelation.

That some atheists want to use evolution as evidence for the non-existence of God, are (misgiven) philosophical musings that have nothing to do with the science itself – unlike what certain atheists may want you to believe. Don’t fall for their nonsense, and don’t fall for the confusion of science with philosophy.

 

[Al_Moritz]

By the way, this link is helpful:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You are gravely mistaken and have been seriously mislead in your thinking. I am a scientist, a biochemist, as well as a practicing Roman Catholic who loves God, and I can assure you that everything Rossum says about evolution is true. Evolution is both a fact and a theory, and not an atheistic invention. To deny evolution is to deny the truth of God’s creation.

Al, you know that is not true. Evolution is not a fact. And to deny it is not to deny God’s creation. The Church has said that Catholics may believe in a form of evolution that does not contradict the Church’s teaching on the origins of man and the human race and the creation of the universe by God and His continued and most intimate causality and guidance of His creation.

No one said that evolution was an atheist invention. However, atheists have universally latched onto it as a way to deny the Creation event and God’s continued causality and guidance.

Science is not atheistic, unlike what both creationists and atheists, who ironically share quite a few similarities on either extreme, want you to believe. Science (the natural sciences) searches for natural causes to natural effects – by definition. This is not an atheistic invention but the methodology developed by the first scientists, who were all believers in God and wanted to find out the laws of nature given by God according to which His creation unfolds.

Correct.

Evolution is well established by science – get over it. Evolution is not a delusion that is the devil’s work, but God’s way of creating. To deny this is to deny the truth of God – revealed to us in the Book of Nature, which is complementary to the Book of Revelation.

Again, you are making assumptions you cannot make. To deny evolution is not to deny anything in Divine Revelation or the Book of Revelation or any teaching of the Church. Period. You should not make statements about what is and what is not the teaching of the Church or how the Book of Revelation or of God’s Revelation is to be understood. That is an unwarranted intrusion of a scientific prejudice into the realm of Faith. You have a prejudiced position Al. Its O.K. to defend your scientific interests but it is not O.K. to say what the Church teaches and what it does not in regard to evolution. You cannot go any futher than what is actually contained in the Church’s official acts and documents.

That some atheists want to use evolution as evidence for the non-existence of God, are (misgiven) philosophical musings that have nothing to do with the science itself – unlike what certain atheists may want you to believe. Don’t fall for their nonsense, and don’t fall for the confusion of science with philosophy.

I would say all atheists hold this position. What else do they have? And it gives the science a real black eye.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

By the way, this link is helpful:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

That article has no official standing and when it says that the Church teaches that Theistic Evolution is a fact, it is saying something that is absolutely not true. It does not cite a single Magisterial document in support of that. As a scientist you should recognize the dangers of :" doctring " the data to prove a theory. That is what this article has done.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

With infinite entropy you will find problems getting energy to flow from one place to another. Since life requires energy flows that would present a great problem for evolution.

rossum

Entropy and energy is distributed non uniformly so it allows the flow of energy from one place to another one.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Again, you are making assumptions you cannot make. To deny evolution is not to deny anything in Divine Revelation or the Book of Revelation or any teaching of the Church. Period. You should not make statements about what is and what is not the teaching of the Church or how the Book of Revelation or of God’s Revelation is to be understood. That is an unwarranted intrusion of a scientific prejudice into the realm of Faith.

I never claimed that it was a teaching of the Church. You are misreading me. But to deny the existence of atoms, or of gravity, well established scientific facts, is denying truth about God’s creation. And nobody these days would deny the existence of atoms, or of gravity, would they? So it should be with evoluton, for people who care to really inform themselves.

God has given us the intellect and tools to investigate nature, His creation. We should make full use of His gifts to us in order to honor Him.

That article has no official standing and when it says that the Church teaches that Theistic Evolution is a fact,t is saying something that is absolutely not true.

Again, you are misreading. This is not what the article says. It states (emphasis mine):

Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation,[2] although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.

This is correct, and the emphasized part is precisely what you have pointed out too.

It does not cite a single Magisterial document in support of that.

False. It does cite, among others, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict and Communion and Stewardship, a document ratified by Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

I would say that, even though one may certainly quibble over details, the Wiki article is very well and carefully written and well supported by citations.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I had written:

Science is not atheistic, unlike what both creationists and atheists, who ironically share quite a few similarities on either extreme, want you to believe. Science (the natural sciences) searches for natural causes to natural effects – by definition. This is not an atheistic invention but the methodology developed by the first scientists, who were all believers in God and wanted to find out the laws of nature given by God according to which His creation unfolds.

Correct.

I appreciate that we can agree on that, Linus.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I would say all atheists hold this position.

They do hold the position that evolution points to the non-existence of God, but not all of them confuse science with philosophy.

What else do they have? And it gives the science a real black eye.

What does give science a black eye is not the science itself, but the confusion, also by some scientists themselves, of science with certain philosophical conclusions. Some scientists claim to speak on behalf of science when they really are invading into the territory of philosophy into which their authority as scientists does not extend.

For example, the claim that evolution is ‘unguided’ is no scientific claim, unlike what the sloppy terminology employed by some scientists wants to make us believe (in fact, the term ‘unguided’ has no place in the natural sciences at all, evolution or not). The Church document Communion and Stewardship that I mentioned earlier specifically makes that point about evolution as well.

 

[rossum]

Entropy and energy is distributed non uniformly so it allows the flow of energy from one place to another one.

Not after the heat-death of the universe. There is energy, but it is uniformly distributed so there cannot be any energy flow.

An infinitely old universe requires a way to run entropy backwards if it is to explain what we observe today.

rossum

 

[Bahman]

Not after the heat-death of the universe. There is energy, but it is uniformly distributed so there cannot be any energy flow.

An infinitely old universe requires a way to run entropy backwards if it is to explain what we observe today.

rossum

With infinite I meant infinite in space not time.

 

[Ion]

You have been misinformed. For viruses and bacteria close to 100% of their genome in known to code for proteins or to regulate the transcription of proteins. For the human genome the figures are different. About 5% codes directly for proteins. A further 10% is involved in regulatory functions – you don’t grow eyes on your toes. The regulatory functions do things like shutting off the eye-growing genes in your toes. 10% is conserved, so it probably has a function but we don’t yet know what the function is. 50% is known to be junk; it can be deleted from the genome with no effects on the organism. The remaining 25% is still being studied.

Other organisms will tend to lie between those two extremes, with some exceptions. There is an onion, Allium cepa, whose genome is about six times the size of the human genome.

To prove evolution, take some penicillin if you have a bacterial disease. Does the penicillin kill the bacteria? Probably not, because the bacteria have evolved immunity to penicillin. Does DDT kill your local mosquitoes? Have they evolved immunity to DDT yet?

rossum

That’s an awful proof I was on my way to buy a guinea pig or something…
You can watch on youtube a documentary called something like “what Darwin didn’t know about evolution” or something like this, i can’t recall the exact name
Its about 1.5 hours but you can skip half of it as in it they only worship Darwin
“Best idea the humanity ever had…”???
“Darwin was a genius because he conceived this theory even though he didn’t have any idea how it really works…” -that’s a flattery for the atheistic thinking generally speaking
What they say is that more than 98% of the genetic code is unknown meaning they do not know what is it for…
Why do they worship Darwin that much? Because now you have to gulp a bigger egg than the one conceived by Darwin And they don’t want you to get some creationists conclusions…
They say that in the genetic code of a fish there is the whole genetic code of any terrestrial mammal, and in the “unknown” part there kind of "switches’ that command the whole process, so everything to get a monkey from a fish is right there, but they do not know how all together works…
If you agree on the “first cell by chance” why not agree on “the first cell first mother of all cells and creatures by chance”?

 

[vincent10395]

youtube.com/watch?v=d9h-hmlMz5c

God Bless!

 

[rossum]

You can watch on youtube a documentary called something like “what Darwin didn’t know about evolution” or something like this, i can’t recall the exact name

Darwin published in 1859. Since then we have rediscovered Mendelian genetics, discovered the structure of DNA, developed Neutral Theory and done a great deal of work on DNA sequencing. There was a huge amount that Darwin didn’t know and that has now been incorporated into the theory of evolution.

Science does not work from inerrant sacred texts. Scientific theories change over time to incorporate new data.

“Darwin was a genius because he conceived this theory even though he didn’t have any idea how it really works…”

How about “Newton was a genius because he conceived this theory even though he didn’t have any idea how it really works…” Newton didn’t get everything right, but we still regard him as a superb scientist. He is one of the giants on whose shoulders modern science stands. Darwin is another of those giants. James Clerk Maxwell developed the theory of electromagnetism without knowing anything of quantum theory. Another giant of science who “didn’t have any idea how it really works…” Darwin is in some very good company.

What they say is that more than 98% of the genetic code is unknown meaning they do not know what is it for…

Then they are wrong. We know exactly what 100% of DNA codes for. What we do not always know is the eventual function of that DNA; see the percentages I gave above. Every time we see a codon in DNA we know exactly which amino acid it codes for, and this has been known since the 1950s. Your source is either very out of date or not expressing itself clearly. In either case it is not to be relied on…

Why do they worship Darwin that much?

I find it interesting that some religious people use religious terms, like “worship”, to try to denigrate science. Do you feel that religion is intrinsically inferior to science, and hence labelling science as if it were a religion makes science seem less attractive? You are not the only person to do this, but I am still interested in the reasoning behind in. By implication this terminology is saying: “science good; religion bad.”

They say that in the genetic code of a fish there is the whole genetic code of any terrestrial mammal, and in the “unknown” part there kind of "switches’ that command the whole process, so everything to get a monkey from a fish is right there, but they do not know how all together works…

You are being ludicrously badly informed by your sources. Some sequences do match pretty closely: fish and mammals both have eyes. Fish and mammals both use Cytochrome-C. Other parts of their genomes are very different: fish have lateral lines while mammals have fur.

If you agree on the “first cell by chance”

I don’t agree to that. I accept “first cell by chemistry”. Chemistry is not a chance process. Start by examining the chemistry of lipid bilayers. Hint: the cell membrane is a lipid bilayer.

rossum

 

[Ion]

Darwin published in 1859. Since then we have rediscovered Mendelian genetics, discovered the structure of DNA, developed Neutral Theory and done a great deal of work on DNA sequencing. There was a huge amount that Darwin didn’t know and that has now been incorporated into the theory of evolution.

Science does not work from inerrant sacred texts. Scientific theories change over time to incorporate new data.

How about “Newton was a genius because he conceived this theory even though he didn’t have any idea how it really works…” Newton didn’t get everything right, but we still regard him as a superb scientist. He is one of the giants on whose shoulders modern science stands. Darwin is another of those giants. James Clerk Maxwell developed the theory of electromagnetism without knowing anything of quantum theory. Another giant of science who “didn’t have any idea how it really works…” Darwin is in some very good company.

Then they are wrong. We know exactly what 100% of DNA codes for. What we do not always know is the eventual function of that DNA; see the percentages I gave above. Every time we see a codon in DNA we know exactly which amino acid it codes for, and this has been known since the 1950s. Your source is either very out of date or not expressing itself clearly. In either case it is not to be relied on…

I find it interesting that some religious people use religious terms, like “worship”, to try to denigrate science. Do you feel that religion is intrinsically inferior to science, and hence labelling science as if it were a religion makes science seem less attractive? You are not the only person to do this, but I am still interested in the reasoning behind in. By implication this terminology is saying: “science good; religion bad.”

You are being ludicrously badly informed by your sources. Some sequences do match pretty closely: fish and mammals both have eyes. Fish and mammals both use Cytochrome-C. Other parts of their genomes are very different: fish have lateral lines while mammals have fur.

I don’t agree to that. I accept “first cell by chemistry”. Chemistry is not a chance process. Start by examining the chemistry of lipid bilayers. Hint: the cell membrane is a lipid bilayer.

rossum

Newton was a real scientist and not author of theories but he didn’t know how they work…Calculus, that was the biggest break through in science; by the way in the documentary, at the end, a guys says that they blew up Darwin theory but they kept it in the main points…???
this is it, in implies that the first cell born by chance included the genetic code of all creatures…But this sounds creationism, so they have to pretend it was Darwin’s idea, so people keep it atheist…

 

[rossum]

Newton was a real scientist and not author of theories but he didn’t know how they work

You need to learn more about science. Newton did not know how gravity worked. We still don’t. We might do so once we have a theory of quantum gravity, but perhaps not even then. Newton thought that gravity worked by instantaneous action at a distance. That was wrong, which was why his theory was replaced by a better one.

Calculus, that was the biggest break through in science;

No. Calculus was a big break through in Mathematics. Calculus is taught in Maths lessons, not science lessons. Your lack of relevant knowledge is letting you down again here.

the first cell born by chance

I told you before, and I’ll tell you again. That WLC piece is lying to you. The first cell did not arise by change. You didn’t do any research on lipid bilayers, did you? CHEMISTRY IS NOT CHANCE. Sorry to shout, but you seemed to have missed the point the first time. You would also do well to realise that your sources are confused about the boundary between evolution and abiogenesis. Such obvious errors make such sources lack credibility.

so people keep it atheist…

I am not atheist. My scriptures have tens of thousands of gods. Look at the top right of my posts. Again, your sources are lying to you about the motivations of scientists. Are Ken Miller or Francis Collins atheists? Go away and do some more research, so you can prove to yourself that your source is unreliable.

rossum