Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Taking off your evo glasses and just leaving your Catholic ones on what did you get from this?
Click to expand...
What, removing the idea of evolution? Then sure, I’d probably believe in a YEC theory. It’d make the most sense.
But that’s my argument, evolution currently makes the most sense given what we know.
buffalo said:
Neo-darwinism is a theory.
Click to expand...
And a very credible one, more-so than YEC.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
I lived 75 million years ago. How did I appear and where did I go?
Click to expand...
You claim the 75 million years ago. No empirical proof.
Click to expand...
Except, you know, radiometric dating… NBD

But realize that you’ve an obligation to explain all the things evolution explains with your views.

And boy, that’s A LOT of stuff!!!

You;re balking at one single solitary dino. That’s a percent of a percent of a percent of the work you’re gonna have to do. Just can’t take that seriously, man.
 
I don’t understand how Catholics of all people fall into this young earth nonsense. All the science points to an old earth, all evidence points towards evolution. Popes have said it’s compatible. Why the big hang up?
 
Freddy said:
Perhaps a small progress in that you are begining to realise that you don’t understand the evolutionary process at all.
Click to expand...
That never-demoed by you olde hatt false canard… bores… as it shines brightly upon thee.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
But please, post something positive and explain your microevolution problem.
Click to expand...
We aim to please, Fred. You’d like something positive, eh? OK. Here you go, I’ve got a couple for you.

First, as stated many times in this thread, I have no problem with microevolution.

Second, Fred agrees with Fr. Ripperger that the environment cannot be a cause in the evolution from a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans into the body of the first human being.

How am I doing so far?

Not to be a downer on your request to be positive but gotta correct you here:
Freddy said:
And in passing, the environment doesn’t cause changes. Changes in the environment result in changes to organisms (as rossum and Hume stated) but do not cause them.
Click to expand...
Try diagramming your sentence. Awkward, isn’t it? First, the environment doesn’t cause change in organisms then changes in organisms result from changes in the environment. Fred, you can’t have it both ways in your chain of causation. I didn’t see either Rossum or Hume rush in to support your error in misinterpreting their posts so I guess they agree. ?

Now we address your problem with understanding the hierarchy of being.

From Ripperger’s article:
Furthermore, it is self-evident to human reason that some perfections are higher than others and this is based upon a principle of hierarchy of being, which was discussed above. To have the power of articulate speech is greater than not to have articulate speech or one may say the same thing in relationship to any perfection which evolutionists claim is bequeathed by mutations to lower things.
Click to expand...
This is the Philosophy Forum, Fred. I think I’ve mentioned that several times. The confusion of evolutionists in the Biology Forum as noted in the Stanford article is not shared here. The principle of the hierarchy of being is quite an old one in philosophy. Maybe this article will help you.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fundamentality/
The second task may be applied to relative fundamentality and used to express the idea that there is a hierarchy of being whereby some entities are more fundamental than others, although strictly speaking this hierarchical picture is independent of the notion of a complete basis.
Click to expand...
So if the word “hierarchy” troubles you so then try substituting “fundamentality”.

Now it’s your turn to be positive and explain, against Ripperger’s argument, that the macroevolutionary claim that human beings who possess articulated speech evolved from animlas that did not possess articulated speech does not violate the PSR.

Back to you, Fred.
 
Hume said:
“On the basis of empirical observation, there is still a substantial portion of the human DNA strand that does not appear to code for anything that can be directly or indirectly observed and attributed to the apparent non-coding codon.”
Click to expand...
Translation: “We see the stuff but have no idea what it does.”
 
Hume said:
Evolution only survives because it’s so good at out-competing alternative theories (which is kinda poetic, in a way).
Click to expand...
Evolution can only survive in the Science Forum. They can’t appeal to anything else. In this forum, we can.

Even in the Science Forum,the evos’ strong emotionally charged blow-back to ID reveals the ideology that underpins their worldview – atheism.
Hume said:
The inability of these critters to breed is evidence of speciation. They both have similar geno- and phenotypes relative to the rest of life on earth yet cannot successfully mate.

That’s what “macroevolution” looks like.

Animals that are near speciation but not quite there are lions/tigers, horses/donkeys. They produce offspring on occasion, but the offspring themselves have substantial genetic issue - namely they can’t reproduce.
Click to expand...
You miss the point. Does macroevolution claim a common ancestor for all living creatures? Yes.
The shell game that purports to evidence macro is but a circular argument. “Look, here’s a new species (or more correctly, here’s not quite a new one, but it’s on its way) and that meets our definition of speciation so there’s evidence of macroevolution.”

No, we’re looking for evidence of plant to animal, of animal to mankind. You can play the species game all you want. Show us the ape-men or man-apes walking around. “Oh, they’re all extinct but we got some bones here.” Once again, very convenient but not convincing. Maybe one day Chewbacca will come out of hiding to help you out.
Hume said:
Cool. So explain me.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I’m a Rhinorex (don’t mind the prehistoric gator trying to eat me). I lived 75 million years ago. How did I appear and where did I go?
Click to expand...
“Look, mommy. This fairy tale book even has pictures!”
 
Last edited:
Let’s hear from St John Paul II:
Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
Click to expand...
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html
 
Last edited:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. … While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
Click to expand...
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
 
o_mlly said:
You first, what’s your response to your own link?
Click to expand...
This isn’t first grade. Please respond to the comments of the Pope. While you’re at it you can respond to my other two posts also containing quotes.
 
I think the Popes have been smarter men then you or I could ever hope to be. Now what is your opinion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top