Not angry. Disillusioned, maybe. Disgusted, certainly (encountering such a staunch defense of atheistic naturalism on a Catholic discussion board by those who call themselves Christians is surprising, to say the least); but not angry.That’s the sort of stuff that got you in trouble in the first place. It marks you as an angry ideologue.
Oh, Barb, you truly are such a wag, aren’t you?Someone called you a Hindu chant? Really?
Did you read the actual book listed in the link? You did not, and that’s the whole point.How do you think I discovered what religion was pushing that doctrine? I read your link.
Yet, it also seems to have some dependence upon natural things. Most natural things that have life, also seem to coincidentally have a polymer of DNA or RNA. Most also seem to need certian chemicals inorder to be active. Many may die if they are not present.Essentially,life is spirit,and therefore supernatural. The life of natural creatures is a state of existence caused by the presence of spirit.
IF it was, it would have been “Origin of Life”, not “Origin of Species.” Darwin made no claims about the origin of life in that book, except to say that God did it.It does. Hence the title of Darwin’s famous book.
Yeah, that kind of stuff. Angry misrepresentation is a big part of it. There is no “atheistic naturalism” in evolutionary theory. You think the Pope was being an atheistic naturalist when he said it was virtually certain? That tags you immediately when you say things like that.Not angry. Disillusioned, maybe. Disgusted, certainly (encountering such a staunch defense of atheistic naturalism on a Catholic discussion board by those who call themselves Christians is surprising, to say the least); but not angry.
I’d be open to your example of someone calling you one.Oh, Barb, you truly are such a wag, aren’t you?
An apologetic for Krishna Consciousness is not high on my reading list. Sorry.Did you read the actual book listed in the link? You did not, and that’s the whole point.
The Church has no objections however, to the real theory. In fact it has been endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI as “virtually certain.”Your comments are misleading. The Church teaching is simple and it should not be buried under lots of words. Catholics are never allowed to believe in atheistic evolution.
Evolutionary theory says that all humans had a common ancestor.When discussing Catholic teaching on evolution don’t forget that Catholics are required to believe as dogma:
- Adam and Eve were real people
- Eve physically came from Adam and
- We all had to come from Adam and Eve
No. That is incorrect. What kind of scientist doesn’t know something that basic? Ironically, the last great anti-evoltionist biologists was a polygenist (Agassiz)( Polygeism, multiple first parents is an evolutionary belief,
You’d better notify the Pope, then. One of you is way off base on this.For me, as a scientist these three things make the Catholic faith scientifically incompatible with an evolution theory model.
No, that’s wrong. Since Miller-Urey, the reduced iron and banded iron deposits show that the Earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, which is an iimportant part of Miller-Urey.Miller-Urey and since then? Still nothing.
Just to level things out, I am not against evolution nor am i creationist, i just dont know much about it in real level and wanna know if it can be proven beyond any doubt, I am also a soon to be Catholic, so i do believe in something which science cannot touch…Before I turn to your questions I would like to point out a couple of things. First of all, evolution is a fact. Evolution can be defined as “the change in the genomes of an interbreeding population over time”. This is seen every time a population of bacteris’s genome changes to confer resistance to an antibiotic. This is commonplace and is accceted by most creationists, though they do tend to use the word “microevolution” to denote this.
Secondly, the Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation we have for why genomes of populations change over time. A theory is not a fact and can never be proven. Gravity is a fact, but no theory of gravitation has ever been proven. All scientific theories are provisional until replaced by a better theory. Newton’s theory of gravitation was provisional and was replaced by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Einstein’s theory is also provisional until it will in its turn be replaced by a theory of quantum gravitation.
Darwin’s original theory has been modified since 1859 to include Mendelian genetics, neutral drift, DNA and punctuated equilibrium among other things. It is supported by a huge amount of evidence and is the best explanation we currently have for how evolution happens. It is not proved, but it has been shown to be correct beyond reasonable doubt.
It is not the amount of research, it is that all the research is consistent and supports evolution through multiple lines of evidence. The research is there if you want to read it, if you cannot be bothered to read it then you are like those people who sat “I know the Bible is wrong, so I have never read it.”
If you want me to answer your question then you cannot limit my answer. Evolution is a large and complex subject so if you want evidence for all of it then you will get a large and complex answer. If you do not like the answer then do not ask the question. This is rocket science.
You asked about “evolution”. I give you a paper on that subject and now you are moving the goal posts. If you wanted a paper on macroevolution then you should have said so. I can only answer the question you ask, not the question you meant to ask but didn’t. For an example of macroevolution see Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan. I got over 8,500 hits for “macroevolution” on Google scholar, this was just the first one that came up.
See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
Proof is for mathematics, not science. Science has evidence, and a great deal of it.
Tiktaalik existed. It existed at the right time (as predicted), it existed with the right characteristics (as predicted) it existed at the right place (as predicted). Successful predictions are a sign of successful theories. In this case, successful predictions from evolution. Young earth creationism would have predicted (falsely) that Tiktaalik would have been found in the same timeframe as fish-with-stumps and amphibians. That is why young earth creationisnm fails as science, it makes false predictions.
We cannot stop using science because it might be disproved in future. Science uses the best methods it has here and now. Until you can actually produce a non-evolutionary scientific explanation for the human mind then science will continue to use the best theory we have at the moment.
You would do better to use the more common terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution”. Even these are a bit confusing because creationists and biologists use them slightly differently:
Biologists:* microevolution - evolution within a species.
Creationists:* microevolution - evolution within a created ‘kind’.
- marcoevolution - evolution above the level of species.
Most creationists will accept evolution within kinds (bear kind etc.) but deny evolution between kinds.
- marcoevolution - evolution above the level of a created ‘kind’.
Proof is for mathematics, not science. Evolution has been shown to be correct beyond reasonable doubt. If you have unreasonable doubt then nothing I can show you will convince you.
rossum
This is false and misleading. If people profess that the Church is only about about faith and morals, why are you so desperately clinging to its acceptance and affirmation of something scientific? It is clear that the only reason is to get the Church to accept something it should not.The Church has no objections however, to the real theory. In fact it has been endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI as “virtually certain.”
I’m glad to see we are on the same page about Adam and Eve. It’s a start. As for the Pope, for now I’ll leave it to better men then myself (kolbecenter.org/) to advise him. These things take time. It’s on “Vatican Time”, not quite a so called “geological” time scale, but close.Evolutionary theory says that all humans had a common ancestor.
No. That is incorrect. What kind of scientist doesn’t know something that basic? Ironically, the last great anti-evoltionist biologists was a polygenist (Agassiz)
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. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm
The man who is now your Pope wrote this.
You’d better notify the Pope, then. One of you is way off base on this.
It is true, Ed. Pope Pius XII wrote that the Church had no problems with evolution so long as it not deny that each of us gets a soul immediately from God. And the one scientists accept does not deny that.This is false and misleading.
I’m just pointing out what the Church teaches, Ed. Of course, there is a difference. Pope Pius was teaching a religious lesson, saying that science is not contradictory to faith.If people profess that the Church is only about about faith and morals, why are you so desperately clinging to its acceptance and affirmation of something scientific?
If you think it should not, you’re too late, Ed.It is clear that the only reason is to get the Church to accept something it should not.
According to Pope Benedict, it was the common descent of all living things on Earth. But science has no problem with the idea that God did it. Indeed, Darwin wrote that God did it.Stop repeating your biased slogans and look at the whole picture. The Church rightly proclaims that God was an active agent in whatever evolutionary development that may have occurred.
Science doesn’t reject it. As you see, it’s been that way since the start. Darwin’s expression of faith that God made the first living thing was not a problem for evolutionary theory then, nor is it now.Scientists reject that,
You can be the one to tell Pope Benedict he’s endorsing atheism, O.K.?therefore what is being taught is atheistic.
Baby steps to accepting theistic evolution. If you accept that they are real people, what’s hard about accepting the fact that all the rest of human alleles must have formed by evolution? Adam and Eve could have had at most, four alleles between them for their genes. Yet most human genes have dozens.I’m glad to see we are on the same page about Adam and Eve. It’s a start.
They did. The International Theological Commission was made up of the best Catholic Theologians and the best scientists the Vatican could assemble.As for the Pope, for now I’ll leave it to better men then myself (kolbecenter.org/) to advise him.
The teachings of Pope Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are somehow more convincing than the material put out by the Kolbe center.Incidentally, I consider the Kolbe Center a direct answer to a pray I wrote out about 15 years ago. The Holy Spirit will guide the Church in spite of a Pope’s personal human opinion.
And the fact that you say this is what it is confirms your ignorance, because there is absolutely nothing of the sort in that book.An apologetic for Krishna Consciousness is not high on my reading list. Sorry.
questin for those who believe in macro evolution. Do you believe in polygenism?And the fact that you say this is what it is confirms your ignorance, because there is absolutely nothing of the sort in that book.
Thank you, once again, for proving my point. You don’t know what you’re talking about in regards to this book, you never have, and you never will until you read it.
Remember all that gas you passed about someone who’s decided that he has nothing left to learn? Look in a mirror.
And now, I will officially retire from the thread. Gehen Sie mit Gott.
It’s what the book is about. It presents time as it is in Vedic myths. The author has acknowledged this.And the fact that you say this is what it is confirms your ignorance, because there is absolutely nothing of the sort in that book.
Why not post it one more time, so anyone new can come in and check up on it, and the author. That would be sufficient to make my point.Thank you, once again, for proving my point. You don’t know what you’re talking about in regards to this book, you never have, and you never will until you read it.
Und auch mit Ihnen.And now, I will officially retire from the thread. Gehen Sie mit Gott.
I don’t “believe in” any scientific theory; I accept or reject it on evidence. I’m curious as to why you think polygenism might be part of evolutionary theory.questin for those who believe in macro evolution. Do you believe in polygenism?
Well, in your opinon/knowledge is the evidence for polygenism or monogenism—one word would do------???I don’t “believe in” any scientific theory; I accept or reject it on evidence. I’m curious as to why you think polygenism might be part of evolutionary theory.
It is noteworthy that the last great anti-Darwinian scientist was a polygenist.
I guess the question boils down to what happens when a souled human and an unsouled hominid mate. For monogenism, either they must not be able to produce offspring, or the offspring must be unsouled. For polygenism, the possibility of the offspring being souled is allowed.Well, in your opinon/knowledge is the evidence for polygenism or monogenism—one word would do------???