Except that the poor cardinal jumps into the deep end when he insists that no transitional fossils have ever been found.As a scientist and with 80 credits in theology I agree with
the cardinal’s view on evolution. I read the book on evolution
and creation by Cardinal Schonborn and enjoyed his explanation
on evolution and creation. John Romanoski
Any taint of racial supremacy will send Christians back to have a look at where Darwin got his idea from ,the man is not concealing it but rather celebrating it even if he is totally unaware just how catastrophic it is to impose an essay on racial supremacy on biological evolution as a ‘cause’.It is supposed to make people sick to their stomach and that is the only appropriate experience and response -There is very little point in my debating you if you do not read what I say to you. I have already told you that the word ‘races’ in this context means the equivalent of the modern ‘variants’ or ‘subspecies’. OtOoS was about the origin of animal species, not about humans. Darwin’s discussion of humans was in “The Descent of Man”.
rossum
This is another dramatic empirical adaption from the same people who give us Darwin,this time from a novel that could be found in any science fiction section of a bookstore in the late 19th century and preceding Albert’s formal adaption of it in the 20th century -Reasonably correct. It would be better to say that both time and space are kinds of the same underlying entity. Einstein’s General Relativity is described in terms of four dimensional tensors; three dimensions for space and one for time.
rossum
I give you the modern time lapse footage of the Earth overtaking Saturn and Jupiter,I give you the original documents of Copernicus and Galileo explaining the main argument for the Earth’s orbital motion and I give you the illegal view Newton took that botches everything and you still come to me and ask about his empirical junk.He was an Arian and his work reflects that of an Arian with no intutive feel for Christ or nature just like all his followers.You tell me. I don’t know what you mean by Newton’s “nonsensical cartoon.” What are you talking about?
I suspect that what you are bothered about will be at best irrelevant to the scientists at the Vatican conference, and at worst utterly incomprehensibleI will do this one more time and if those ‘scientists’ going to that conference cannot spot the distortion of Newton through his illegal hypothetical observer on the Sun as a means to resolve apparent retrogrades then they can forget the once great Western Christian heritage in science and especially astronomy.
I suspect so but that is why the investigation of celestial/terrestrial phenomena has gone from being a magnificent facet of Christianity to a cancerous growth that now attacks it.I suspect that what you are bothered about will be at best irrelevant to the scientists at the Vatican conference, and at worst utterly incomprehensible
StAnastasia.
*]A very large majority of all scientists believe that evolution has/is ocurring.
*]Some folks have used the information in item 1 above to advance their atheisitic agenda, or an agenda of racial superiority.
*]The fact that some folks use evolution for their own purposes does not invalidate evolution, but rather shows the error of those using it incorrectly.
*]The Catholic church has no official teaching that believing in evolution is heretical, despite the fact that many folks wish it did.
*]Almost everyone believes that you can be a faithful Catholic and not believe in a literal genesis, this includes many of the early church fathers.
Have I been unfair, have I missed anything?
These results contradict the assumption that genome complexity has increased through evolution. Instead, species have repeatedly abandoned complex gene structures for simpler ones, questioning the purpose and value of intricate gene structures. These results suggest a reconsideration of the genomics of eukaryotic emergence.Mostly because I am incompetent to understand it. But that still doesn’t refute the 5 points I made earlier especially #1.Maybe this?
Complex early genes
Conclusion
Code:These results contradict the assumption that genome complexity has increased through evolution. Instead, species have repeatedly abandoned complex gene structures for simpler ones, questioning the purpose and value of intricate gene structures. These results suggest a reconsideration of the genomics of eukaryotic emergence.
Do these results contradict the theory of evolution in any way?Maybe this?
Complex early genes
Conclusion
Code:These results contradict the assumption that genome complexity has increased through evolution. Instead, species have repeatedly abandoned complex gene structures for simpler ones, questioning the purpose and value of intricate gene structures. These results suggest a reconsideration of the genomics of eukaryotic emergence.
Are you implying that such misrepresentation would be morally objectionable?If you are suggesting that this article proves that evolution could not occur because of loss of “information” this is simply a misrepresentation of what was said and found in the article. With all respect.-Max
Sarcasm, the tool of the frustrated when they have no answer.American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). You should propose your paper for discussion at their 2010 meeting.
Thankyou for that, an interesting paper.
You are aware of course that the authors are talking about the numbers of introns in early eukaryote genomes. You are also no doubt aware that introns are cut out of the decoded RNA before being translated into protein; introns have no effect on the protein produced. The paper shows that the intron/exon mechanism is older than some have thought and that the numbers of introns in early bilaterans was larger than previously thought.Conclusion
These results contradict the assumption that genome complexity has increased through evolution. Instead, species have repeatedly abandoned complex gene structures for simpler ones, questioning the purpose and value of intricate gene structures. These results suggest a reconsideration of the genomics of eukaryotic emergence.
I have presented Galileo’s warning often enough about accepting the ground rules for conclusions and all you and other Christians are doing is accepting the empirical version of evolution as an established ‘fact’ based on their playing field and not the genuine scientific one.I watch as genetics is railroaded into an empirical evolutionary ‘cause’ and evolutionary geology from which evolutionary biology emerged is completely ignored thereby creating a unsightly monster that is used to attack Christianity , distress those who look to the Church for assurance and diminish genuine scientific investigation.Do these results contradict the theory of evolution in any way?
-Max
I don’t understand them. I get that somehow the fact that some Darwinists have used natural selection to impose racial superiority is offensive to Oriel. It is to me as well. But I don’t understand what that has to do with whether or not evolution has or is occurring. Because someone misuses a fact to their own ends, does not make that fact invalid.I have presented Galileo’s warning often enough about accepting the ground rules for conclusions and all you and other Christians are doing is accepting the empirical version of evolution as an established ‘fact’ based on their playing field and not the genuine scientific one.I watch as genetics is railroaded into an empirical evolutionary ‘cause’ and evolutionary geology from which evolutionary biology emerged is completely ignored thereby creating a unsightly monster that is used to attack Christianity , distress those who look to the Church for assurance and diminish genuine scientific investigation.
The undercurrent of racial supremacy which provides the core of Darwin’s version of evolutionary ‘cause’ runs through all your arguments regardless of how you impress each other and it is an affront to intelligence,creation and the genuine investigation of God’s creation.Copernicus,like Galileo,was aware of what occurs when an inappropriate idea is introduced into a particular area of study in creating a conceptual monster, and this eventually happened in this case of Newton in astronomy and Darwin in evolution.
" . . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543
Copernicus
How does a Christian begin to argue against a particular version of evolution when its conclusion is motivated by an essay of racial supremacy and racial survival as an admirable foundation for imposing on evolutionary biology ?.Are people afraid that if the lose Darwin’s ‘cause’ that the topic within genetics will be any less interesting ?.
Christians are allowing this desolation to continue and until they become active in fighting for the actual scientific ground rules and not those chosen for them by the empiricists then Christians will continue to be looked upon as knuckle drawing morons who hinder the ‘light’ of scientific investigation via the ‘empirical method’.
This is unfair Kscrawler,I am open to questions and accept my own descriptive deficiencies but asking others to explain my position is bound to generate inaccurate answers or worse.No harm in trying though so at least I know where I stand.I don’t understand them. I get that somehow the fact that some Darwinists have used natural selection to impose racial superiority is offensive to Oriel. It is to me as well. But I don’t understand what that has to do with whether or not evolution has or is occurring. Because someone misuses a fact to their own ends, does not make that fact invalid.
But I suspect there is more to his arguement than I am seeing. Anyone eble to dumb it down enough for me? I do want to understand.
If I understand you, you are saying that the “scientific method” is a highly anti Christian approach. I assume you are saying that because the “scientific method” will not consider anything of a supernatural nature to be considered as a possible factor. Is that the basis of your criticism?This is unfair Kscrawler,I am open to questions and accept my own descriptive deficiencies but asking others to explain my position is bound to generate inaccurate answers or worse.No harm in trying though so at least I know where I stand.
My position is absolutely crystal clear - scientific investigation of celestial and terrestrial phenomena was once a magnificent facet within Christian tradition but now exists as a separate entity which attacks Christianity.I deal with the ins and outs of the technical issues that center around the late 17th century where the real damage was done,not just to the genuine investigation of natural phenomena but how the rise of the ‘scientific method’ is a highly anti-Christian approach when left to its own devices.It was this approach which led to the present situation where Christians are being upset as to their intellectual heritage while the people who are doing the attacking can’t explain basic astronomical facts correctly.
Darwin’s version of evolution is merely the symptom of a disease rather than the disease itself,too many Christians who try to tackle the symptoms end up being infected themselves with the disease,in a manner of speaking.They play along with the rules set by the empiricist and end up making matters worse.
Darwin’s ‘cause’ for evolution is pointedly ‘natural selection’,an idea he borrowed from an essay on human racial relationship and supremacy ,he explicitly states it and reading Malthus affirms it -I don’t understand them. I get that somehow the fact that some Darwinists have used natural selection to impose racial superiority is offensive to Oriel. It is to me as well.
It depends if the misrepresentation was intentional or not. If not then it cannot be morally objectionable.Are you implying that such misrepresentation would be morally objectionable?
Ok. So now do I understand that you are not opposed to the possibility that evolution may be a fact. You are only oppposed to those who say the cause is natural selection. So that if someone else were to come up with a different “cause” you would be ok with evolution?It is reckless in the extreme and the lessons of 1940’s Europe should be powerful enough to halt the imposition of a social study on God’s creation and the existing principles of biological evolution,at least until the whole thing gets straightened out.There is no requirement to impose a ‘cause’ for evolution,neither Mendel required it in genetic studies nor Steno in creating the link with the geological evolution of the planet and Darwin’s version was a dangerous leap that suited people who have no feeling for Christ or Christianity.
This is many magnitudes removed from my perspective,I do not begin with the premise or conclusion that evolution is valid or invalid even though the empiricists try to frame this in terms of ‘religion vs science’ because evolutionary biology always existed within the principles of evolutionary geology and sits comfortably within Christian tradition a few centuries before Darwin’s proposal *.Too many people believe that evolution began with Darwin or is Darwin’s idea and that Christians are wary of evolution but the fault is that the Church does not promote its actual involvement through the brilliant Bishop Steno in the mid 17th century .Ok. So now do I understand that you are not opposed to the possibility that evolution may be a fact. You are only oppposed to those who say the cause is natural selection. So that if someone else were to come up with a different “cause” you would be ok with evolution?