Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

[Techno2000]

We do have a fair number of fossils, actually.

But keep in mind that fossilization itself is rare. Most bones are destroyed, not fossilized.

So, the most important ones got destroyed…ok.And that means Darwin’s theory of evolution has no leg to stand on.

 

[rossum]

If these humongous creatures have been gradually morphing down to the size of a chicken for millions and millions of years then there should be tons of fossils showing every stage of their development.And this goes for all the animal we see today also.

OK, so you didn’t understand what I posted. Some dinosaurs evolved to get very large. Other dinosaurs evolved to get a lot smaller. Those were not the same dinosaurs, but different species of dinosaur.

We have fossils showing many stages of the change, just read the BBC article you referenced above:

The authors used sophisticated analytical tools - developed by molecular biologists trying to understand virus evolution - to study more than 1,500 dinosaur body traits coded from 120 well-documented species of theropod and early birds.

Don’t you believe what your own references say?

Do you think dinosaurs would have found birds to be tasty ?

Only the carnivores, not the vegetarians.

rossum

 

[fisherman_carl]

His attitude only serves to push people away from his position, even if it is some day found to be right.

 

[Wesrock]

I already said we did have a fair number of fossils illustrating the chages over time.

 

[rossum]

So, the most important ones got destroyed…ok.And that means Darwin’s theory of evolution has no leg to stand on.

Ahh… Then we can settle this argument easily. You produce the two most important creationist fossils: Adam’s bones and Eve’s bones and creation wins.

Oh… You can’t produce them.

They got destroyed?

How unfortunate. And that means creationism has no leg to stand on.

Foot. Aim. Fire!

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Only the carnivores

Do you think they would have felt guilty about eating their future selves ?

 

[Wesrock]

Is this supposed to mean anything?

 

[niceatheist]

Glark:

I’m pretty sure God is not responsible for mendacious, junk science.

It occurs to me you could do Christianity a service by studying this “junk science” and uncovering the flaws. Start with carbon dating as that is so fundamental to the “junk”. If you can find where they went wrong on that…well, that’s a Nobel prize for sure…

Carbon dating is only reliable up to a few thousand years, and isn’t used for dating fossils like Lucy. Perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with research done in, oh I dunno, the last half century?

 

[Wesrock]

Is there a reason for attacking Rau on this point, which he probably already knows, considering his post was undermining Glark’s position?

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Got any actual citations from peer reviewed journals?

Not at this time, but a cult tends to tolerate only literature that meets the cult’s standards.

(the Evolution News article I referred to was written by a certain Casey Luskin.)

Evolution News is essentially a Creationist/ID site, and the article I read clearly misrepresented what the twin-nested hierarchy was and further conflated some debate between various groups of taxonomists about where some extinct fossilized species sit on in the tree.

Have you ever actually thought about reading what actual paleontologists and taxonomists believe, rather than reading what a Creationist lawyer thinks?

 

[rossum]

Do you think they would have felt guilty about eating their future selves ?

OK, let’s pick out two obvious errors in that.

• do animals feel guilt?
• if birds have already evolved then those other dinosaurs are not ancestors of birds.

Ask yourself, does a sparrowhawk feel guilty when it kills a sparrow and eats it?

Not one of your better posts I’m afraid.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

So, the most important ones got destroyed…ok.And that means Darwin’s theory of evolution has no leg to stand on.

Ahh… Then we can settle this argument easily. You produce the two most important creationist fossils: Adam’s bones and Eve’s bones and creation wins.

Oh… You can’t produce them.

They got destroyed?

How unfortunate. And that means creationism has no leg to stand on.

Foot. Aim. Fire!

rossum

Well,Jewish tradition states that Adam’s skull was buried in Golgotha (place of the skull)which is the same spot Jesus’s cross was stuck in the ground.

 

[Techno2000]

Is this supposed to mean anything?

No, just being silly.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Do animals have souls?

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Do you think they would have felt guilty about eating their future selves ?

OK, let’s pick out two obvious errors in that.

• do animals feel guilt?
• if birds have already evolved then those other dinosaurs are not ancestors of birds.

Ask yourself, does a sparrowhawk feel guilty when it kills a sparrow and eats it?

Not one of your better posts I’m afraid.

rossum

Do you really think I was being serious ?

 

[Techno2000]

Rau:

Glark:

I’m pretty sure God is not responsible for mendacious, junk science.

It occurs to me you could do Christianity a service by studying this “junk science” and uncovering the flaws. Start with carbon dating as that is so fundamental to the “junk”. If you can find where they went wrong on that…well, that’s a Nobel prize for sure…

Carbon dating is only reliable up to a few thousand years, and isn’t used for dating fossils like Lucy. Perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with research done in, oh I dunno, the last half century?

That doesn’t sound too nice.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Rau:

Glark:

I’m pretty sure God is not responsible for mendacious, junk science.

It occurs to me you could do Christianity a service by studying this “junk science” and uncovering the flaws. Start with carbon dating as that is so fundamental to the “junk”. If you can find where they went wrong on that…well, that’s a Nobel prize for sure…

Carbon dating is only reliable up to a few thousand years, and isn’t used for dating fossils like Lucy. Perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with research done in, oh I dunno, the last half century?

That doesn’t sound too nice.

And it wasn’t meant to be nice. Anyone saying “Oh look at carbon dating problems, see how that falsifies evolution” understands neither carbon dating or the kinds of dating used on fossils.

 

[Techno2000]

You develop an attitude like that when it’s you against the world… like it is for us.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Do you understand the fundamental problem with invoking God? Science works by finding testable explanations, but if the explanation your invoking is compatible with any possible observation, your explanation cease to have any utility at all. Thus the aphorism “Invoking God explains everything, and thus explains nothing.

Except of course when they are inconvenienced for atheist beliefs, which is increasingly often.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Do animals have souls?

According to Thomas Aquinas they have something called a sensitive soul as opposed to humans that have a rational soul. You can think of a soul in this way as a kind of blue print for the body. Aquinas doesn’t conceive of the soul as being a ghost in a machine. Nor does he think animal souls survive bodily death. As their souls correspond 1:1 to their bodies like a perfect blue print corresponds exactly 1:1 to a building. In the case of humans it is argued that the ratio of soul to body is not 1:1. That is there something that exists in the human soul that does not exist in the body and therefore can survive the death of the body. This something is the intellect and will. The intellect can grasp universals. The intellect has an element that can not be in physical matter, but is immaterial. The animals do not have the power of intellect. So in regards to Evolution this immaterial part of the intellect, since nothing in nature can produce it, must come from an immaterial source, not of this world, ie. God.