Evidence for Evolution

[Brian_Millar]

When a tube of toothpaste tells me that I must renounce what’s taught in the word, I’ll look into finding an alternative, the same can be for any other science. As I originally began, I look to you guys and think, you are stuck in the dark ages, thinking you have it all figured out, all categorized, you have all of the answers your mighty science has delivered to you. Science is from man, the word is from God, I choose what is from God over what is from man, for man is always mistaken as to his understanding of God’s creation.

You can talk till you are blue in the face on this matter, it will never sway my point of view, I’ve dealt with heritics before, I will in the future, until the end of our days, it’s obvious, this is how it’s going to be.

 

[drpmjhess]

When a tube of toothpaste tells me that I must renounce what’s taught in the word, I’ll look into finding an alternative,.

Which of us involved in this discussion have you ever heard renounce God? Which of my dozen biologist priest friends has renounced God? I’m beginning to think you are truly among the invincibly ignorant, to keep bashing Catholic priests as you do. Why do you hate these priests so much?

 

[Brian_Millar]

If you are wearing that collar, you are to be set upon a different standard, a higher standard, for you will be held to a higher account because of your position. If at any time you say there is something in the word is not true, you have just renounced God. You can decieve yourself all you want, you can put words in my mouth as you insist upon doing, I really got a kick out of that partial quote that was pasted here, you guys had fun with it, but how it was done, turned it into a lie, just as your statement how now I hate priests and all scientists.

No, I see where you are coming from, it’s certainly cloaked well with your claim that you have faith, but in the end, your faith in evolution has trumped your faith in God. I do not blend the two together, you are trying to do just that.

Continue your lies and accusations all you want, but know this, I know the truth and the truth is the word, not mans word, but God’s word.

 

[masterjedi747]

Do you know Archbishop Zycinski’s book? Or John Haught’s recent book critiquing the new atheism? I just got it from Amazon; haven’t had time to read through it.

Not yet. But I’ll keep an eye out.

Atheists… seem to miss the point in insisting on placing theism in the same evidentiary category as science.

As always…

As I originally began, I look to you guys and think, you are stuck in the dark ages…

Says the anti-science advocate… Honestly… I’ll tell you who’s stuck in the Dark Ages…

thinking you have it all figured out, all categorized, you have all of the answers your mighty science has delivered to you.

We never made such a claim. There are certainly MANY things that science is incapable of answering. But that’s where faith and philosophy enter in. Both paths ultimately lead to the truth; there is no need to reject either one.

Science is from man, the word is from God…

Nature is from God. Science studies nature.

…for man is always mistaken as to his understanding of God’s creation.

THIS is EXACTLY why you are having so much trouble!

What an absolutely absurd claim! You are effectively denying that God created an objective reality and gave man the gift of reason to understand His creation! :tsktsk:

Please, educate yourself. St. Thomas Aquinas might be a good place to start.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Both paths ultimately lead to the truth - gotta love that one, he he. thank you for showing what you are saying, how many times have the suto religions said the same thing.

Oh, now I’m the anti-scientist, thanks for the label, now for the truth. I look to science as a tool, nothing more, some tools are useful, others get shoved into the junk drawer, others fall apart in your hands and end up in the trash. The designer of the latter didn’t actually put in enough thought into creating it, so it falls apart while trying to actually use it, this is evolution.

Do you look to true science, as in something that is not based upon a narrow minded approach, I’m taking note, you cannot even attempt to think there is more to what God has created then you ever could possibly imagine. That your theories are trodding right on over the truth, that you are holding back science in the first place due to your narrow minded approach. There is a real science to it all we have yet to even dialog about, much less understand, the likes of which would make you shudder.

What if your theories are completely false, what if I found proof that all you know is completely wrong, that your observations are that of a child, and that God’s is the final authority in this matter. Nope, you’ll have nothing to do with that, the status quo doesn’t support it, so you don’t, you cannot possibly lead, you must always follow, you can’t imagine, you can only recite, this is why I say, you are in the dark ages, you cannot see the real science while your’s is obscured. I can just imagine this same argument, going back to when they thought the world was flat, I would be the guy that insisted it was not, yet you would fit right in with the status quo insisting upon the fact it was flat and here is why, and if I didn’t agree with you, I was labled ignorant.

 

[Brian_Millar]

A little something for you evolutionists to ponder here, this does work in sinc with scripture as a reference point of stability.

For a short time I did some light study with the Kabala many years ago, it was mainly describing general concepts, mainly about the purpose of faith and belief as being part of making something work in the mystical realm. One of the things that was practiced was really odd, but shows some clarity here, they literally created a human form from clay and after doing their ceremony/ritual, would breath life of sorts into it, the thing was created for the purpose of running errands for the person that created it. Literally, taking clay/dirt from the ground and forming a living creature of sorts.

It was brief, but if you ask a Jew that knows about the Kabala, they will verify what I say here. Now, try to put that one into the equasion when you are discounting creationism, if it can be done on that level, it can be done on the level and in the manner described in genesis.

 

[mapleoak]

1 day in 100 years is 1 in 36,525. Over a billion years that would result in an error of 1,000,000 / 36,525 = +/- 28,000 years. Reasonably good accuracy for that long ago.

rossum

Ya! that is not too bad. Actually that would be pretty darn good. Now if you can name for me a system that can date within 100 years to an accuracy of +/- 1 day then were in business. If it could come within 1 year per hundred that would be the equivalent somewhere’s of 10 million years per billion, but hey what is 10 million years?
It is doubtful you can show me a system accurate to 1 year in a hundred, but if you know of one, I’d be interested to know about it.

You also have to make tremendous assumptions that all conditions (whether environment or otherwise) that are present today which may affect the outcome of any dating methods used, remain unchanged and consistent after all these billions of years.

 

[drpmjhess]

If at any time you say there is something in the word is not true, you have just renounced God. .

Brian, why do you hate priest-scientists so much?

 

[The_Barbarian]

One of the things that was practiced was really odd, but shows some clarity here, they literally created a human form from clay and after doing their ceremony/ritual, would breath life of sorts into it, the thing was created for the purpose of running errands for the person that created it. Literally, taking clay/dirt from the ground and forming a living creature of sorts.

A golem? You think that they actually did that?

It was brief, but if you ask a Jew that knows about the Kabala, they will verify what I say here.

Verification, in this case would be doing it. Did anyone offer to show you? I think I know why.

Now, try to put that one into the equasion when you are discounting creationism, if it can be done on that level, it can be done on the level and in the manner described in genesis.

No question about it. Now, all you have to do is show that it can be done. Let us know how you do.

 

[drpmjhess]

A golem? You think that they actually did that?.

I thought only God could breathe life into lifeless matter. I’m eager to learn otherwise, 'cause I’ve got some jobs for a golem to do. We have this huge dead tree way down a remote canyon on our ranch, and I’d Iike it dragged up the hill so I can cut it up for firewood. Barbarian, do Golems take on these big jobs? What is their hourly rate?

 

[Brian_Millar]

Brian, why do you hate priest-scientists so much?

I never said that, and again, you guys are trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[Brian_Millar]

A golem? You think that they actually did that?

Verification, in this case would be doing it. Did anyone offer to show you? I think I know why.

No question about it. Now, all you have to do is show that it can be done. Let us know how you do.

I’m not practicing the Kabala, I’m merely pointing out one of the things they did, that’s all.

 

[drpmjhess]

I never said that, and again, you guys are trying to put words in my mouth.

You said as much, Brian, when you wrote “If you are wearing that collar, you are to be set upon a different standard, a higher standard, for you will be held to a higher account because of your position. If at any time you say there is something in the word is not true, you have just renounced God.”

By your account, a priest who accepts biological evolution has renounced God. I know a dozen priest-scientists who are far holier people that you or I probably ever will be, and you have just condemned them as renouncing God. That’s a very serious accusation to level against God-fearing Catholic priests you have never even met, and yet in your ignorance of science you have dared to level it against them…

Petrus

 

[Brian_Millar]

So deal with it, if a priest or anybody else is contradicting the bible, then that’s their choice and their fate to do so. What happens to them, I have no idea, the collar places yourself in a position of authority, so you had better make darn well sure you know what you are talking about, and if it is conflicting with the word of God, you are to take his word for what it is, even if you don’t understand it, or if it dissagrees with man’s thinking and mans false doctrins. Did God create or did everything evolve, there is really no room for debate here, it’s one or the other, not both.

Keep in mind, I used to think Evolution was the correct way to go with my thinking, in fact, I thought that way most of my life. I’m also getting rather fed up with the name calling, I could give you quite a few choice words as to my description and opinion of yourself, but I show restraint in the matter, how about trying that some time, you might get a more pleasant dialog. I also am finding out how backwards these theories are since I’m actually looking for holes, rather then following the status quo, it’s when you seek, you find, if you are to view this objectively and scientifically, you must take into account all factors, all things and all posibilities, and stick to the plan. You would rather get side tracked and debate over semantics and things not even related to the subject at all. I guess it’s easier to blast someone’s personal character then stick with the original subject.

Along ignorance, take a look in the mirror on that one, you are throwing away more science then you could ever dream of taking the stance that you do.

1 Corinthians 15:35-58

The Resurrection Body
35But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

 

[masterjedi747]

Both paths ultimately lead to the truth - gotta love that one, he he.

Yep. Gotta love it. It’s the truth.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER ***FIDES ET RATIO ***– JOHN PAUL II

1. …There are many paths which lead to truth, but since Christian truth has a salvific value, any one of these paths may be taken, as long as it leads to the final goal, that is to the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
2. …It is no accident that, when the sacred author comes to describe the wise man, he portrays him as one who loves and seeks the truth: “Happy the man who meditates on wisdom and reasons intelligently, who reflects in his heart on her ways and ponders her secrets. He pursues her like a hunter and lies in wait on her paths. He peers through her windows and listens at her doors. He camps near her house and fastens his tent-peg to her walls; he pitches his tent near her and so finds an excellent resting-place; he places his children under her protection and lodges under her boughs; by her he is sheltered from the heat and he dwells in the shade of her glory” (*Sir *14:20-27).
3. …Finally, I cannot fail to address a word to scientists, whose research offers an ever greater knowledge of the universe as a whole and of the incredibly rich array of its component parts, animate and inanimate, with their complex atomic and molecular structures. So far has science come, especially in this century, that its achievements never cease to amaze us. In expressing my admiration and in offering encouragement to these brave pioneers of scientific research, to whom humanity owes so much of its current development, I would urge them to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the *sapiential *horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person. Scientists are well aware that “the search for truth, even when it concerns a finite reality of the world or of man, is never-ending, but always points beyond to something higher than the immediate object of study, to the questions which give access to Mystery”.

Oh, now I’m the anti-scientist, thanks for the label…

Sorry, but you asked for it the moment you said: “…man is always mistaken as to his understanding of God’s creation.” That statement is hostile to reason and science.

The designer of the latter [tool] didn’t actually put in enough thought into creating it, so it falls apart while trying to actually use it, this is evolution.

Obviously this is where we disagree.

…you cannot even attempt to think there is more to what God has created then you ever could possibly imagine.

Again, you confusing theistic evolution with atheistic evolution. There’s a difference.

What if your theories are completely false, what if I found proof that all you know is completely wrong…

If you could prove me wrong, of course I wouldn’t mind. You would be correcting my error and leading closer to the truth. As it is, however, you *do not *have the evidence to support your claim, and I’m not convinced that you ever will.

Nope, you’ll have nothing to do with that, the status quo doesn’t support it, so you don’t…

Have you considered that maybe there’s a good reason the “status quo” doesn’t support it?

I can just imagine this same argument, going back to when they thought the world was flat, I would be the guy that insisted it was not, yet you would fit right in with the status quo insisting upon the fact it was flat and here is why, and if I didn’t agree with you, I was labeled ignorant.

…that’s funny, I would have completely reversed that scenario.

…One of the things that was practiced was really odd, but shows some clarity here, they literally created a human form from clay and after doing their ceremony/ritual, would breath life of sorts into it, the thing was created for the purpose of running errands for the person that created it. Literally, taking clay/dirt from the ground and forming a living creature of sorts.

That is beyond really odd, it is deeply disturbing. Ask any Catholic apologist you can find, what you refer to is either a fraud or demonic in nature. Human beings do not have the power to form a “living creature of sorts” out of pure clay and dirt to run their errands for them.

Now, try to put that one into the equasion when you are discounting creationism, if it can be done on that level, it can be done on the level and in the manner described in genesis.

Again, you fail to see that we are NOT DISCOUNTING CREATIONISM.
We believe that God created the universe. But we ALSO believe that His process of creation can continue, in time, through the use of instrumental means. He used the physical laws of His universe to create our solar system. He uses parents to produce children to be with Him in heaven. And he used evolution to fill this incredibly diverse planet with hundreds of millions of spectacular plants and animals.

The only thing we are discounting is you narrow interpretation of Genesis, which is by some amazing coincidence not endorsed by the Catholic Church.

 

[masterjedi747]

Did God create or did everything evolve, there is really no room for debate here, it’s one or the other, not both.

WRONG. Absolutely wrong! It can be both.

Keep in mind, I used to think Evolution was the correct way to go with my thinking, in fact, I thought that way most of my life.

Well then, obviously, your understanding of evolution is not the same one that we are holding now. Maybe your understanding of evolution was incompatible with Catholicism, but ours is not, and until you consider our position now as being different from your past understanding, then we’re never going to make any progress here.

 

[drpmjhess]

you are throwing away more science then you could ever dream of taking the stance that you do.

I’m not sure what science I’m throwing away, since your Young Earth and Intelligent Design Creationists have yet to produce a single discovery or substantiable theory, whereas the 100,000 working evolutionary biologists and allied scientists – including my priest-scientist friends and colleagues – continue to add to the body of knowledge every year. You cannot produce one scientific result, idea, or valid theory, and I doubt you can even show me a working YEC laboratory.

 

[The_Barbarian]

It is doubtful you can show me a system accurate to 1 year in a hundred, but if you know of one, I’d be interested to know about it.

I think 5% is a more likely number, but let’s see if I can find a verifiable result for you…

umm… here…they dated the material that buried Pompeii:
**To everyone’s surprise the date given by the argon-argon dating technique was 1,925 years ago – off by only seven years. The scientific error on the estimate was plus or minus 94 years.

“We nailed the date to five percent on our first attempt, so we could probably get the error down to one percent or less,” Renne says.**

Notice the result is off by 0.3%, with error bars (could possibly be off by this much) of 94 years. Since Argon/argon is calibrated for truly ancient things, it was a surprise that this much accuracy could be obtained on the first try.

Because there would be so much left at that age, they probably could get down to 1%. I still think it would be 3-5 percent for truly ancient rocks.

Let’s see…

Look here:
gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

Not bad, um? Notice that the same answers for the same rocks, by very divergent systems is a very difficult problem for those who deny the Earth is billions of years old.

 

[rossum]

Ya! that is not too bad. Actually that would be pretty darn good.

Yes. Most dating methods used are less accurate than that in the billion year range. Here are a few dates from Dalrymple:

Method	                Age (billion years)
------                  -------------------
Rb - Sr isochron	3.70 ± 0.14
Lu - Hf isochron	3.55 ± 0.22
Pb - Pb isochron	3.80 ± 0.12
U - Pb discordia	3.65 ± 0.05
Th - Pb discordia	3.65 ± 0.08

weighted mean age       3.67 ± 0.06

Source: [How Old is the Earth](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html)

Now if you can name for me a system that can date within 100 years to an accuracy of +/- 1 day then were in business.

I am not aware of any dating system that is that accurate over those timescales. From Dalrymple’s figures the accuracy ranges from about 6% to 1.5% at about 4 billion years.

It is doubtful you can show me a system accurate to 1 year in a hundred, but if you know of one, I’d be interested to know about it.

Counting varves, tree rings or ice layers can be that accurate over relatively short timescales. For longer periods the best we can do is 1.5 to 2% as shown by the figures above.

You also have to make tremendous assumptions that all conditions (whether environment or otherwise) that are present today which may affect the outcome of any dating methods used, remain unchanged and consistent after all these billions of years.

We have to make very few assumptions because we can check decay rates etc. by looking at distant astronomical objects. For example we know that the Fine Structure Constant has indeed been constant for at least the last ten billion years - well beyond the age of the earth. We know that there are no allowable environmental conditions that will change the radioactive decay rates that we use because we have tested them. Scientists do not like making assumptions when they do not have to, and in most cases they have found ways to avoid assumptions and to actually check the relevant values directly. Read Roger Weins Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective for details of the isochron method, which is just one way of measuring rather than making an assumption.

rossum

 

[SpiritMeadow]

When a tube of toothpaste tells me that I must renounce what’s taught in the word, I’ll look into finding an alternative, the same can be for any other science. As I originally began, I look to you guys and think, you are stuck in the dark ages, thinking you have it all figured out, all categorized, you have all of the answers your mighty science has delivered to you. Science is from man, the word is from God, I choose what is from God over what is from man, for man is always mistaken as to his understanding of God’s creation.

You can talk till you are blue in the face on this matter, it will never sway my point of view, I’ve dealt with heritics before, I will in the future, until the end of our days, it’s obvious, this is how it’s going to be.

No one ever said that a fundamentalist used either logic or reasoning to arrive at incorrect conclusions. I submit that you shame God by refusing to use your brain. Nothing like a closed mind. I’m sure that’s what he gave it to you for. Only those who can look at a frog and declare it bird shall be saved.