- Status
G
Glark
Guest
As far as I know, Cardinal Schoenborn espouses the unscriptural myth of theistic evolution … So no thanks, not my cup of tea. I much prefer authentic Catholicism, not the sold-out, secularised version.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Water flows downhill under gravity. That is not chance, there is no purpose to it. The water follows the law of gravity by necessity.
No. There are about 180 billion pebbles over 18 miles of Chesil Beach. Dr. Dembski’s explanatory filter will definitely rule out chance for the arrangement of those pebbles.
Intelligence is an emergent effect which appears when the necessary preconditions are present. A human zygote is not intelligent. An adult human is. The intelligence arises as a result of the development of the human brain and senses. Similarly for other intelligent entities: gods, angels, kinnaras etc.
As I pointed out above, your omniscient God is extremely complex. You cannot explain the origin of complexity by assuming a complex God:
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
And you have Adam’s complete skeleton? Maybe more than three of his teeth? What about his complete skull? No? You don’t. Oh…
Pot. Kettle. Black.
rossum
S
sallybutler
Guest
And yet, in both 2 Peter and the Psalms, we are told that a thousand years for us is like a day for God. His method of timekeeping is not the same as ours.
While God could have created the world in six 24 hour days and then left misleading clues about it, He also could have taken billions of years. Personally, I go with the theory that God is not some kind of trickster God (akin to Loki), but rather a God who created a wonderful universe with rules and order. He then explains it in words and concepts that we can understand given how mature we are in both our ability to understand those rules and His nature.
While God could have created the world in six 24 hour days and then left misleading clues about it, He also could have taken billions of years. Personally, I go with the theory that God is not some kind of trickster God (akin to Loki), but rather a God who created a wonderful universe with rules and order. He then explains it in words and concepts that we can understand given how mature we are in both our ability to understand those rules and His nature.
A
Aloysium
Guest
It’s not stupidity, but ignorance that makes people think that this could possibly have come about driven by the random activity of molecules and the electrochemical relationships they have with one another. And, that death before procreation is the sole shaping force.Goya:
Maybe that’s what all those stupid scientists have been doing?
You can study all the DNA you want and come to what should be a whimsical conclusion, were it not for its dire implications in how we treat one another, that we descended from apes, or rather even that we are apes. That’s where materialism takes us, into the unreality created by an unreflective mind.
I’d say it’s extraordinary, if it weren’t so ordinary that we pass on the template of our genetic material, onto our offspring so that they might reproduce the model, billions fold. The original matter from parents is diluted into the infinitesimal, if it remains at all even at birth. Species thereby continue, represented in each creature, of which it is an expression. If we deal with only the chemical compounds, there is no creature and no species, but merely different arrangements of matter. What is most apparent as you stroke your cat, is pushed as being illusory. What is illusory are conceptions of a purely material universe.
It is interesting that much of modern biology has edged itself away from life.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Evolution was previously a banned topic because people were not civil with each other. I want to make it clear that I am here attacking the ideas and not the person.Goya:
Water flows downhill under gravity. That is not chance, there is no purpose to it. The water follows the law of gravity by necessity.
No. There are about 180 billion pebbles over 18 miles of Chesil Beach. Dr. Dembski’s explanatory filter will definitely rule out chance for the arrangement of those pebbles.
Intelligence is an emergent effect which appears when the necessary preconditions are present. A human zygote is not intelligent. An adult human is. The intelligence arises as a result of the development of the human brain and senses. Similarly for other intelligent entities: gods, angels, kinnaras etc.
Here we have a clear example of the total failure of Darwin’s ideas as they are being used in modern culture - from the simplistic, poorly thought out and unfounded belief that the basic laws of physics in any way can explain the complexity and variety of natural forms to the more-so misguided, materialistically founded assumptions regarding the nature of powerless persons, in the form if the zygote in this case, carrying with it the horrific implications, which are supporting the unbridled holocaust of many tens of millions of unborn persons.
(That may be the longest sentence I’ve ever written.)
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Here we go. I’m not arguing that the set of teeth do not appear mammalian. I’ll not disagree with the assumption that whether it was shrew-like or not, that it had fur, rather than feathers. Perhaps theIr fertilised ova developed into a creature within a placental sac rather than a shell. Ok, have it that it produced milk to feed its offspring. Maybe all these tenuous, by most people’s standards, conclusions are true. What I won’t grant them is that they are our ancestors. There is nothing human in them. Those creatures are long gone. The matter of which they were constituted, fed some maggots, which became flies and returned to the earth. Probably a billion times over, that matter went on to form a variety of different creatures. Human beings appeared at some unknown time in the past; when this happened, in this thread, is under dispute. But whatever the time frame, before our creation from the dust/slime/dirt/earth, and however God did this, there were no human beings. These creatures are not our ancestors.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
There are three types of living mammal: Monotremes, Marsupials and Eutheria (placentals). There are a few extinct groups, such as Multituberculates as well. Palaeontologists can tell the difference between the groups by their teeth. What has been found are very early Eutherian teeth from two different species.
Read the reports carefully. They say that they are ancestral to “most” mammals, not to all mammals. That they are ancestral to humans so that puts them near the base of the Eutherian/placental group of mammals.
They will have had all the common features of Euhtherian mammals, like a placenta, as well as the common mammalian characteristics: milk, single jawbone etc.
If I find a single bear’s tooth, then I can make some statements about the animal that had that tooth in its jaw, even without finding the rest of the animal. That is what has happened here.
For me, I’d prefer to be descended from something like a chimpanzee than from dust or slime. The available evidence supports our physical descent from earlier primate eutherian mammals.
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
I recognise the sad reality that possibly for the most part, I’m writing purely for my own benefit. But, I do thank people for providing the material which helps me be clearer within myself, as to how this miracle of existence works.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
It was a good post, Joe. Pity you withdrew it.
The question that arises in thinking about apes to man has to do with what is transitioning.
No creature transitions.
A species might, but what would that possibly mean on a material level that is basically blind to everything but the basic laws of physics. In terms of matter what we see is merely its ongoing transformation form one form to another. Species exist on a different level other than the four fundamental interactions of nature.
Species either exist as something, which means they are more than just matter, or they are figments of our imaginations, at which point we have to ask how either one, or both came into existence.
Evolution explains nothing; what it does do is put together findings of what remains of creatures long-gone, into some framework that makes sense, albeit superficially, to a lot of people these days.
The question that arises in thinking about apes to man has to do with what is transitioning.
No creature transitions.
A species might, but what would that possibly mean on a material level that is basically blind to everything but the basic laws of physics. In terms of matter what we see is merely its ongoing transformation form one form to another. Species exist on a different level other than the four fundamental interactions of nature.
Species either exist as something, which means they are more than just matter, or they are figments of our imaginations, at which point we have to ask how either one, or both came into existence.
Evolution explains nothing; what it does do is put together findings of what remains of creatures long-gone, into some framework that makes sense, albeit superficially, to a lot of people these days.
Last edited:
G
Goya
Guest
rossum
(or can it happen accidentally? Seems like you’re saying both…)
Either way…the pebbles may align, organize into different shapes and sizes…or by weight, or whatever… then what?
How many billions of years, before the pebbles fall, accidentally–or rather, according to the laws of gravity–into such a primitively simplistic structure, as say, RNA?
Surely if we just gave it enough time, those pebbles would eventually, accidentally, conveniently, fall into some simple form of life, right?
Just following the mindless laws of physics…
If it rules out chance…that there must be some design behind it…hmmmm
(or can it happen accidentally? Seems like you’re saying both…)
Either way…the pebbles may align, organize into different shapes and sizes…or by weight, or whatever… then what?
How many billions of years, before the pebbles fall, accidentally–or rather, according to the laws of gravity–into such a primitively simplistic structure, as say, RNA?
Surely if we just gave it enough time, those pebbles would eventually, accidentally, conveniently, fall into some simple form of life, right?
Just following the mindless laws of physics…
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
The “trickster God” is a modern myth. Yes, there were animals that died off but God did not trick anyone. He is God. Jesus raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers… No tricks were involved. Jesus showed us what God can actually do and people, including His disciples, were still skeptical at times. The multiplying of the loaves and fishes.
Matthew 16:9
New International Version
Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
New Living Translation
Don’t you understand even yet? Don’t you remember the 5,000 I fed with five loaves, and the baskets of leftovers you picked up?
English Standard Version
Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?
Matthew 16:9
New International Version
Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
New Living Translation
Don’t you understand even yet? Don’t you remember the 5,000 I fed with five loaves, and the baskets of leftovers you picked up?
English Standard Version
Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?
E
edwest211
Guest
Modern biology as it regards human beings, has divorced itself from knowing who human beings truly are. The acceptance of this theory has no impact on how research is done but perpetuates the myth that no one made us - we were not designed. Yet man, in his arrogance, thinks he can take us, and modify us to his whim. That is man trying to be God.
E
edwest211
Guest
Trust me, you’re not just writing for yourself. People need to think about this theory and what it actually tells us. It is wrong in many ways and not useful except to spread false ideas.
R
rossum
Guest
Which are usually called “necessity”, as opposed to chance or design. By ignoring the role of necessity alongside chance and design, you are making it easy to pick scientific holes in your ideas.
Even Intelligent Design proponents allow a role for necessity. See Dr. Dembski’s Explanatory Filter for one obvious example.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
They cherry pick certain aspects of a perfect Natural world God created, and twist it to make it fit into what they speculate could of happen so called billions of years ago.
E
edwest211
Guest
Now that the other side of the coin is being presented, I can only call myself skeptical of evolutionary claims. I’m reading science journals with all the technical details and it’s not very convincing. Certain features on living things could have evolved more than once? And the scientific lack of knowledge regarding how things work today and the two codes in DNA? Astounding. The odds just keep going up that none of this happened by the laws of physics or ‘just get some amino acids’ and life appears.
S
sallybutler
Guest
I was referring to the dinosaur and plant fossils, not to the loaves and fishes.
E
edwest211
Guest
I don’t trust the dating methods or the dates published. Sure, there are dinosaur and plant fossils. I’m less and less convinced about how old they are. Insects in amber? How old is the amber which is an organic resin-like material? I was only trying to point out that God can do the impossible without science or steps.
- Status