B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, it does. God is truth itself.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
No Catholic believes in magic.
E
edwest211
Guest
God can do things only God can do. When Jesus raised people from the dead, was that magic? When Jesus told His disciples that Lazarus was dead, how could He know? And when He went to the tomb, Lazarus’ sister was there, and other witnesses. Lazarus was starting to rot, but Jesus called him from the tomb, still partly wrapped in his burial cloth. When Jesus was on a boat, and a storm came up and His disciples feared for their lives, He commanded the storm to cease and it did.
When the Human Genome project was completed and scientists now had an inventory, they soon realized, “We have a book we can’t read.” Using bioinformatics and trial and error, they are discovering they know practically nothing. Junk DNA was a really big blunder. They assumed it was left over stuff from our long supposed evolution. They were 100% wrong. They are finding more and more function in the “non-coding” portion of DNA, like influence on coding parts of DNA, influence in causing diseases. I was reading a journal article about the numerous switches that control various functions in human cells. Many are highly specialized and are not just ‘on off.’ The article went on to basically say: 'We’re pretty sure what these two do, have no clue about these and for those over there, they’re in the right place to do this - maybe."
Evolution does not happen today. Bacteria have built-in systems to deal with threats, the same with viruses. Built-in. Already there.
An eye is not just an eyeball. It’s connected to an optic nerve that is connected to a portion of the brain that can process the visual information so it is useful for us. That’s magic, right?
God is God. That is the first thing to learn.
When the Human Genome project was completed and scientists now had an inventory, they soon realized, “We have a book we can’t read.” Using bioinformatics and trial and error, they are discovering they know practically nothing. Junk DNA was a really big blunder. They assumed it was left over stuff from our long supposed evolution. They were 100% wrong. They are finding more and more function in the “non-coding” portion of DNA, like influence on coding parts of DNA, influence in causing diseases. I was reading a journal article about the numerous switches that control various functions in human cells. Many are highly specialized and are not just ‘on off.’ The article went on to basically say: 'We’re pretty sure what these two do, have no clue about these and for those over there, they’re in the right place to do this - maybe."
Evolution does not happen today. Bacteria have built-in systems to deal with threats, the same with viruses. Built-in. Already there.
An eye is not just an eyeball. It’s connected to an optic nerve that is connected to a portion of the brain that can process the visual information so it is useful for us. That’s magic, right?
God is God. That is the first thing to learn.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Excellent post @edwest211
L
LateCatholic
Guest
It’s unbelievable how these things appear over and over. Do you subscribe to evolution now?
You mention ‘junk DNA’. The entire ENCODE controversy (which is what you are referring to) on the religious side is an Intelligent Design argument (it’s wrong by the way). In other words, it means you subscribe to evolution, but you believe a designer guides it. So if you are even going to bring up the ‘junk DNA’ mess, you have declared yourself NOT a creationist. Nearly everyone on this forum drops this as when they realize what Intelligent design means (No Adam and Eve, Genesis is wrong, etc). The junk DNA controversy has nothing to do with Creationism vs Evolution. It is about Intelligent Design vs Evolution.
But let’s assume you subscribe to evolution, you just believe in Intelligent Design (ID). Fine. So one point against ID is that 90% of the human genome is “junk”. Why would an intelligent designer incorporate so much ‘waste’ into his or her creation? Clearly, an organism is which 90% of it’s ‘code’ is useless isn’t ‘designed’.
So, lo and behold, in 2012, the ENCODE project publishes findings that 80% of the genome is “functional”. Intelligent Design proponents immediately go into a tizzy. See! We are designed, 80% of the genome is functional. Of course, they don’t know what ‘functional’ means. Functional simply means that there are genes that, although non-encoding (or ‘junk’) still participate in AT LEAST ONE biological/chemical process. This doesn’t in any way disprove evolution. It is an attempt to “prove” intelligent design, and it fails anyway.
Consider this example. When you go to work in the morning, you may notice what clothes your daughter is wearing as you head out the door. So, what your daughter wears ‘participates’ in the process of you going to work. It’s “functional”. But does it really have any effect at all? Or is it “junk” in terms of you getting to work? Does the color of her shirt affect you getting to work or not? Even though it is part of the process (“functional”), it doesn’t matter. This is known as lacking a null hypothesis. So what if you daughter wears a red shirt instead of yellow? WHY does that matter? The reason no one takes ID seriously is because it lacks a null hypothesis. There’s nothing to prove or disprove.
The “junk DNA” 80% argument by Intelligent Design proponents has been refuted over and over again - especially by the ENCODE scientists who were furious that religious nut cases hijacked their findings to further their agenda. Regardless, the Junk DNA mess ISN’T EVEN ABOUT EVOLUTION. It’s about Intelligent Design.
Last edited:
L
LateCatholic
Guest
The eye has been shown to have evolved from nerve bundles that first react to light, then react more as the nerve bundle forms at the bottom of a bowl or cup, then an aperture, and so forth. In fact, the eye is one of the most studied and documented evolutionary processes. It is also a strong argument against intelligent design, because compared to other organisms, our eyes are a disaster. For example, 70% of people have myopia or some other vision problem. There’s glaucoma, cataracts, lens separation. We can’t look at the sun. Heck, we even have a blind spot. Why? Other animals have properly designed eyes that don’t have these problems. Evolution answers all these. What does Intelligent Design say? yeah, God messed up with the human eye.
I mean, come on. Have you even read about this? Years ago, Intelligent Design proponents would talk about the eye as being irreducibly complex. Then scientists realized they could make a name by showing how the eye evolved, and they did, in amazing detail. So now the religious set is silent about the eye. They bring up other examples, but those get knocked down too.
The Catholic Church’s official position is that evolution is true. The Pope has said it as well. I don’t get why this is still discussed in the 21st century. The debate is long over. You don’t believe the earth is flat, do you? Or that the Sun revolves around the earth? It’s ok - we can still be Christians and not deny the obvious evidence, logic and experimental results.
U
Uriel1
Guest
You say, “The Catholic Church’s official position is that evolution is true.”
Cut and paste that church teaching in CONTEXT please. You obviously think it exists so tell us the source. God love you
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Cut and paste that church teaching in CONTEXT please. You obviously think it exists so tell us the source. God love you
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
As someone who accepts evolution, I think what you said there needs some rewording. The stance on evolution is that it doesn’t conflict with our faith. Many big figures definitely accept it as a scientific fact and are quite willing to explain how it’s compatible with our faith, but that’s different from saying the Church’s position is that it’s a fact.
To take a silly example, I doubt you’d find any priest, bishop, etc. that thinks the moon is made of cheese. And if the moon somehow was the subject of some theological question, they would talk about it as a hunk of rock. (I simplify of course.) But that wouldn’t mean the Church had an official position on whether or not the moon was made of cheese. A faithful Catholic would still be able to personally hold that the moon is made of cheese.
Bringing that back to evolution, the majority of clergy either accept evolution or are willing to explain how it doesn’t contradict faith even if they don’t personally accept it. But a faithful Catholic may reject evolution as it’s a matter of science, not faith. And while the Church has authority to declare that evolution doesn’t conflict with Catholicism (a matter of faith) it doesn’t make a Church position on whether it is true (a matter of science), though most do accept it much in the way most except the moon isn’t made of cheese and that the earth is not flat.
E
edwest211
Guest
Senator, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the… Wait a minute. What? Wrong context? Uh, OK.
Never mind.
Never mind.
E
edwest211
Guest
“it’s a fact” Just repeat endlessly. I can show the action of gravity whenever I want. This? No.
E
edwest211
Guest
Where did the Pope say it?
E
edwest211
Guest
“religious nut cases” I see. Name calling begins when threads like this keep showing an ongoing resistance to anyone changing their minds.
M
Metis1
Guest
Or at the least that the acceptance of such is allowable as long as it’s understood God was behind it all.
Realistically, the only real roadblock is those who take a literalistic interpretation of the creation accounts, which I personally believe is absurd in today’s day & age since we know so much more about the evolution of life forms and even quite a bit about the creation of our universe. A viable alternative is to recognize these accounts as being allegorical, thus probably a reworking with some significant changes of the much earlier Babylonian creation narrative.
At this point, there simply is no denying that the basic ToE is part & parcel with life forms, plus it is pretty much basic logical that all material objects appear to change over time and genes are material objects. On top of that, there is simply not one shred of evidence that somehow “micro-evolution” miraculously stops before becoming “macro-evolution”.
U
Uriel1
Guest
Is that right?
There is no proper fossil record of intermediate forms between proposed otter like creatures and sealions.
ToE is a fairy tale for adults.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
There is no proper fossil record of intermediate forms between proposed otter like creatures and sealions.
ToE is a fairy tale for adults.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
There is no proper fossil record of the intermediate forms between Adam and Noah. And your point is? (Unless you have the bones of Seth’s wife.)
rossum
O
o_mlly
Guest
Nor need there be any bones to support the claim as the the source of the knowledge is proclaimed as faith, not science.
The question here is not one of either 'bible" or “evolution” (which you continually try to deflect to) but “evolution” or “ignorance.” If the science underpinning the several theories is weak (which many are) then a credible scientist’s answer is, “I do not know.”
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Using different names without establishing that the represent fundamentally different things goes nowhere in helping you prove your point.LateCatholic:
Stasis and limited variation within shows micro-evolution, aka adaptation, not macro-evolution.
M
Metis1
Guest
Yes, it very much is, but not because I say so but because it’s been well established for over a century now as an axiom in science. A listing of transitional life forms and how the gaps are being gradually filled can be found here: List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
Also, one can google “transitional life forms” and check out numerous scientific websites on this.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
If it is based on faith, it is by definition NOT knowledge.
That isn’t how science works. Right now, the best explanation, by far, of how the diversity of life came to be is evolution. The theory has made predictions which have come to pass (ie, discovery of DNA), the evidence has never refuted its foundation principles, experiments consistently validate it, and literally every other scientific discipline confirms it.
BUT…even if we eventually find something better, it will be celebrated, not painstakingly rebutted by stubborn adherents, as is the case with religion. Consider Einstein’s theory of relativity vs newton’s gravity. Scientists do not say “We don’t know”, they say “This is the best we got, it’s darn good, and if we find something better, great”. They do NOT say “Evolution is real close to perfect, but not quite, therefore, magic and the Bible.” - like people in this forum claim to.
I mean, come one people. Are we really still saying evolution is not true? The Catholic Church acknowledges it as a valid and accurate scientific theory. What else do you need?
L
LateCatholic
Guest
There are literally hundreds of transitional fossils. Hundreds. Typically, when a particular example gains traction by the intelligent design or creationist sects, it becomes a high priority item for scientists. These ‘examples’ then actually become the most documented and studied prof of evolution. For example the evolution of the eye, the flagellum, or the migration of land animals to the sea as whales. You do know that every whale alive is “transitional”, by any definition? Read about whales and their hip/leg bones.
- Status