Evidence for Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeekingCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mapleoak, the Catholic Encyclopedia was published in 1917. Is this your idea of cutting edge science?

Petrus
You can’t be still wanting to debate whether evolution is a theory or a hypothesis, are you? Well I guess in the absence of being able to provide equitable proof or evidence of evolution, one must resort to these kinds of things.

Oh…By the way, evolution is a hypothesis. 😉
So far, whenever we find out the immediate cause of any natural thing, it is a natural cause. So far, no design has been found, unless it’s an artifact made by thinking creatures.
And what would you say it is that God created? The universe? That has a design to it. Did He create molecues or atoms? They have a design to them. Neutrons and photons? ? ? ?
I know you want to make God out as a designer, but it’s not merely wrong, it’s disrespectful.
Put another way it makes sense that God would not create chaos and then set up some design for creation to follow or evolve from until it was completed. It makes more sense that He would create everything from nothing, complete and entire, needing to neither add to nor take away from, perfectly designed from the instant of creation. Only after the fall would things then be less than perfect.

To say God is limited and needs to evolve His creation is disrespectful.
 
Yes, you have rejected the science that scientists on this list discuss. And I teach only Catholic theology, but not your Young Earth, Bible-thumping, science-rejecting variety.
Many of the scientists on this list are incorrect in their conclusions as to the evidence of evolution. They then purport it as fact.
 
Then it’s not Catholic theology that you are teaching as you have admitted time and time again.

May I contact your Bishop (drpmjhess)?
I notice that this question went unanswered.
Yes, I’d like to contact your bishop also – please let me know who he is. Thanks.
 
The earth is indeed roughly 4.6 billion years old. With you Fundamentalists-turned-Catholic there is always some occult research out there that is just about to disprove geology or biology,although mainstream scientists are not allowed to see it. Why on earth is secrecy so big with Fundies?
There are insufficient controls to confirm the veracity of any dating method indicating something to be a billion years old. Honest scientists can show you how to properly set up tests and controls.
 
I notice that this question went unanswered.
Yes, I’d like to contact your bishop also – please let me know who he is. Thanks.
Looking back through the thread, there were a number of questions that were convieniently glossed over or went unanswered. Wonder why.
 
Yes, you have rejected the science that scientists on this list discuss. And I teach only Catholic theology, but not your Young Earth, Bible-thumping, science-rejecting variety.
Show me where I have rejected science.
 
Many of the scientists on this list are incorrect in their conclusions as to the evidence of evolution. They then purport it as fact.
I don’t think denial will help you at this point. You’re going to need to find a way to show that physics is wrong. It is very well-established, and has even been checked with events of historically-known age.

This is one of the many reasons why Pope Benedict says that common descent is virtually certain.
 
I say nothing about God. All I am saying is that the human brain has a tendancy to see design where there actually is none - as with clouds. Our brains are not a reliable detector of design. So far ID has not yet come up with a reliable design detector. Until it does so, it has no way to objectively show that the universe, or any of the living organisms in it, are designed.

rossum
I cannot remember the threshold number -but mathameticians have a value where the odds move from chance to design.

Maybe 10 to the 47th? Perhaps someone can help rossum with this number.
 
I don’t think denial will help you at this point. You’re going to need to find a way to show that physics is wrong. It is very well-established, and has even been checked with events of historically-known age.

This is one of the many reasons why Pope Benedict says that common descent is virtually certain.
See post 238
 
Barbarian observes:
I don’t think denial will help you at this point. You’re going to need to find a way to show that physics is wrong. It is very well-established, and has even been checked with events of historically-known age.

This is one of the many reasons why Pope Benedict says that common descent is virtually certain.
See post 238
Let’s see… hmmmm…

Sorry. I don’t buy the idea that anyone knows better than the Pope about what is compatible with Christian faith.
 
There are insufficient controls to confirm the veracity of any dating method indicating something to be a billion years old. Honest scientists can show you how to properly set up tests and controls.
Which scientists do you mean by “honest” ones?
 
I’d rather rely upon the word as the final decision in all matters, for every time man deviates from it, formulates his own perspective outside of it, each and every time, it’s eventually proven wrong and you go right back to the word to find, it was there in black and white from the beginning. I choose to do away with the nonsense and simply have faith that God’s word is clear and doesn’t fail, man’s word is obscured and fails too often…
Brian, no one is forcing you to accept modern science. We live in a pluralistic culture blessed with freedom of religious belief, in a country in which people’s allegiance to different religious authorities (Bible, Qur’'an, Vedas, etc.) is respected.

However, you are likely to discover that even in a pluralistic culture such as ours, insistence on a literal interpretation of a religious text (including the Qur’an or the Bible) is likely to exclude you from participation in modern science. This may or may not be important to you. If you do decide to pursue a career in physics, however, you will discover that geocentrism is no longer credible (there are those on Catholic answers who reject the earth’s revolution about the sun). In biology, Young Earth Creationism is no longer credible. In geology, a universal flood is no longer credible. Of course, you are free to hold all these beliefs from older science, but they will not fly with professional scientists.

Petrus
 
I don’t think denial will help you at this point. You’re going to need to find a way to show that physics is wrong. It is very well-established, and has even been checked with events of historically-known age.This is one of the many reasons why Pope Benedict says that common descent is virtually certain.
Barbarian, I’m a theologian, not a physicist, so I have to rely on what the latter say. Do you happen to know what is at issue in the debate about whether the universe is 13.7 or 13.8 billion years old? What causes the slippage here? (I knows it’s a very small degree of disagreement, and I don’t know how it’s calculated, as there aren’t records in the rocks like there are for the age of the earth.) If you can’t tell me I’ll try to e-mail my cosmologist friend Joel Primack at U.C. Santa Cruz Friday; he’s usually up on this stuff.

Petrus
 
Brian, no one is forcing you to accept modern science. We live in a pluralistic culture blessed with freedom of religious belief, in a country in which people’s allegiance to different religious authorities (Bible, Qur’'an, Vedas, etc.) is respected.

However, you are likely to discover that even in a pluralistic culture such as ours, insistence on a literal interpretation of a religious text (including the Qur’an or the Bible) is likely to exclude you from participation in modern science. This may or may not be important to you. If you do decide to pursue a career in physics, however, you will discover that geocentrism is no longer credible (there are those on Catholic answers who reject the earth’s revolution about the sun). In biology, Young Earth Creationism is no longer credible. In geology, a universal flood is no longer credible. Of course, you are free to hold all these beliefs from older science, but they will not fly with professional scientists.

Petrus
Good, the pro’s are flawed in their thinking, this is why it’s always going to be that way, it’s no longer science any more, it’s about grants, working positions, general politics, and the messages being spoon fed to the masses are being eaten right up.

Where I have an issue with modern science is that once one theorie is created, it goes obsolete in short order, this is why I question it to extreem regards, and the more things I see proven that were already displayed in the bible in the first place, the more I lean towards the word as the final authority.

I look to history as well, I see advances that were well ahead of their time, buried in obscurity, only to be reinvented at a later date, a time when people were ready to accept them, we are facing the same thing here. Some of these advances are so simple though, it boggles my mind why it took so long for man to figure them out, manned flight, the electric motor, the battery, electricity, etc. etc. etc. these are not difficult things to accomolish, but look how long it took for them to develop. The reason it took so long is because the scientists of the times insisted things were one way, when it took visionaries to ignore their pressure, to strive forth and delve into these new technologies, and in the end, prove the authorities wrong.

If I were to follow your logic, I would be an athiest, for the athiest thinks all things can be explained through science, if this is the case, why are you even bothering to read the bible, or believe in God, if you reject his word, you are rejecting him. If I were to follow your logic, I would not be pursuing my own particular field of expertice in the scientific community, plan on some new ways of thinking about certain physics when I have completed my work, the likes of which is going to tear down many past theories we currently and steadfastly maintain a strong grip as to it being the law with no margin for question, for I have questioned it, you need to as well.
 
Well, there was Dembski’s “explanitory filter.” But since he was unable to get it to work unless he assumed the answer beforehand, he doesn’t seem to want to talk about it, any more.
I did try out Dembski’s Explanatory Filter myself. The results were interesting to say the least: God and the Explanatory Filter.

As you say, Dembski does not seem to be working on it any more.

rossum
 
I cannot remember the threshold number -but mathameticians have a value where the odds move from chance to design.

Maybe 10 to the 47th? Perhaps someone can help rossum with this number.
I am quite well aware of Borel’s Law and the Creationist misuse of it. Dembski uses his Universal Probability Bound of 10[sup]-150[/sup] in a similar way.

rossum
 
Define the proof that you seek and do so in it’s entirety…
Any scientifically useful design detection method must be:* Reproducible: different scientists in different labs at different times must be able to get the same results from the methodology. This requires that the method is objective, and not dependent on the subjective opinions of the scientists doing the work.
  • Accurate: the proposed detection method must be tested on known designed objects and known random objects and distinguish between them to a high degree of accuracy. An inaccurate test is of no use to anybody.
As an example of what I mean, here are two strings of RNA, one designed the other not:
Designed: ACGCACAUCAGUUAACGCAAUGCGUAGAUCUCCUGAGACCAAAGCAUCGGUAACCAAGAU
Random: UUUGAGAAUUAAAAAGGAGUAGUUCGCUCCGCCGCUCAACCAUCGAAAUUGAGCUACUUA
Any design detector has to be able to accurately tell one from the other both in open testing and in blind testing. Different scientists should be able to get the same results from the same (name removed by moderator)uts.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top