Evolution chat...

[UnknownCloud]

sbcoral:

Your questions are good questions, don’t get me wrong, but notice how you have yourself tangled in your own reason…

It is possible, at least as much as you believe evolution is possible, that your theoretical premise is wrong or inaccurate. As Alius pointed just above, our reliance on dating is really not that accurate, and neither is our evidence of this slow developing homonid.
We know, even by common sense, that the universe acts according to cause and effect. Science ‘expects’ a slow, gradual development of species…but that is not really the case. We expect to see a cause for every effect - this is how we come to explain physical things, so it’s no surprise to me that we find ‘evolution’ of life. But there are ‘leaps and bounds’ in the fossil record, and other states that roughen the edges like ‘punctuated equalibrium’.
When man had evovled enough to receive a soul, God gave it to him. The soul could have easily caused an instant micro/macro evolutionary effect on ‘homonid’ that gave him traits he never had before. But we shouldn’t treat the soul like a ‘thing’, it is a being. “…the spirit be’s more than the body be’s” - Frank Sheed.
Just because we know more than we did 200 years ago doesn’t mean we really know more about everything whatsoever…
if science were to ever reach the point of having no questions, then it has either become our worst invention or we have become like God.

 

[miguel]

Orogeny:

…I have tried to make it clear there that I am a devout Catholic and a geologist, I believe God created everything and that the evidence supporting an old earth and biological evolution is so overwhelming that both must be true. Therefore, God created the earth a long time ago and created all life, including mankind, through evolution…

Since you are a geologist, and I am not, I have no way to dispute your conclusion regarding an old earth. And I don’t dispute it. But are you also a biologist? If not, how can you judge the evidence for biological evolution as overwhelming?

 

[PhilVaz]

alius123 << For those that would like to know more about the flaws of evolution you should visit www.drdino.com. I admit this isnt a catholic site by any means, but he makes very good points against evolution that many should think about. >>

Hee hee. Um, check out these two links

Age of the Earth FAQs

Evolution FAQs

And this Radiometric Dating, a Christian Perspective

And maybe this one will help I could be wrong there

Orogeny << Sorry, I’m not qualified to discuss this with you. I’m just a geologist, not an engineering student and I can’t even spell, remember? >>

Hee hee again. You are a trooper. That Randell person needs to spend a few hours (or weeks) on TalkOrigins and come on back.

I think the Alius123 person may be a plant from the Internet Infidels to see if he can find the super-cranks in these threads.

Phil P

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

Evolution is both a FACT and a THEORY. Do you think dogs just popped up in their current form? No, they evolved from wolves to the various different breeds we have today. Now the earth is around 4.5 billion years old… now imagine what happens to wolves and dogs… repeated a 100 million times. Wallah! there you have it… all the various life forms.

The evidence for evolution observed in labs, nature, and fossils is so overwhelming that only deluded fantatics will claim it to be false. 98% of all biologists accept evolution, and I assure you that includes many christians as well.

However, since you trust the catholic church so much lets take a look at their stance on evolution, shall we? Oh wow! thats right! THE VATICAN ACCEPTS EVOLUTION as God’s method! wow! isnt that just lovely? The one place you go for truth apparently accepts the exact opposite of what you do. tsk, tsk, not a very good Catholic are you, now?

You really need to know what your talking about before running your mouth about it. The pope DOES accept evolution. again ofcourse he doesnt accept we come from monkeys, WE DID NOT COME FROM MONKEYS. again I’ll say it… Monkeys and Humans share a common ancestor. The pope accepts evolution no matter what way you cut it, he accepts it, and that’s that.

Educate yourself and read the following link. talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

[PhilVaz]

Here, I’ll make Randell’s reply for him.

LedZep << Evolution is both a FACT and a THEORY. >>

Well that’s just your theory.

LedZep << 98% of all biologists accept evolution >>

I’ll go with the 2% including Dr. Dino, AnswersInGenesis, ICR, and Randell (myself). Majority not always right.

LedZep << THE VATICAN ACCEPTS EVOLUTION as God’s method! >>

Within limits. Good point, I can’t answer that one. Liberal modernist apostates in the Vatican.

LedZep << WE DID NOT COME FROM MONKEYS. again I’ll say it… Monkeys and Humans share a common ancestor >>

Well you might have. But I didn’t. The knife in the table thing proves it.

Okay, Randell doesn’t need to reply now.

TalkOrigins I believe I’ve heard of them. I’ll check them out…

Phil P

 

[password]

My goodness everyone! Read the Bible! God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. So Be It! He stated it - I believe it. Don’t try to explain it with man’s wisdom we all know where that will get us!

 

[PhilVaz]

buffalo << Would the insertion idea (without some of the other ideas he writes about)be compatible with Catholicism? >>

On the insertion of Adam/Eve theory, I guess it could be. The question is whether you want to invoke a “miracle” rather than simply accept the standard evolutionary explanation that our bodies evolved just as all the other mammals, reptiles, birds, dinosaurs, insects, etc. The evidence is strong we did evolve along with the other animals.

What makes us truly human is not merely our bodies (even if God directly specially created it without evolution for Adam/Eve) but our souls, and souls are not something science can discuss. The question then becomes what to do with all the other not truly humans (human bodies but no human souls) who lived before Adam/Eve. They must have died off if we trace ourselves back to these two. That question also comes up in Fischer’s “insertion” view above. I should re-read those, I’ve printed them out a while ago.

Haught book still on the way…

Phil P

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

PhilVaz:

Here, I’ll make Randell’s reply for him.

LedZep << Evolution is both a FACT and a THEORY. >>

Well that’s just your theory.

LedZep << 98% of all biologists accept evolution >>

I’ll go with the 2% including Dr. Dino, AnswersInGenesis, ICR, and Randell (myself). Majority not always right.

LedZep << THE VATICAN ACCEPTS EVOLUTION as God’s method! >>

Within limits. Good point, I can’t answer that one. Liberal modernist apostates in the Vatican.

LedZep << WE DID NOT COME FROM MONKEYS. again I’ll say it… Monkeys and Humans share a common ancestor >>

Well you might have. But I didn’t. The knife in the table thing proves it.

Okay, Randell doesn’t need to reply now.

TalkOrigins I believe I’ve heard of them. I’ll check them out…

Phil P

LOL!.. I had to read that twice to believe you said that. Talk about ignorance.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

My goodness everyone! Read the Bible! God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. So Be It! He stated it - I believe it. Don’t try to explain it with man’s wisdom we all know where that will get us!

Hmmm… should I repeat what I said before? THE VATICAN ACCEPTS EVOLUTION as God’s method! wow! isnt that just lovely? The one place you go for truth apparently accepts the exact opposite of what you do. tsk, tsk, not a very good Catholic are you, now?

 

[Orogeny]

miguel:

Since you are a geologist, and I am not, I have no way to dispute your conclusion regarding an old earth. And I don’t dispute it. But are you also a biologist? If not, how can you judge the evidence for biological evolution as overwhelming?

Because science is science. The scientific method is the same for biology as it is for geology or physics or chemistry.

Because I have studied paleontology, which is a nice mix of biology and geology.

Because I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

Peace

Tim

ps - don’t just defer to me or any other geolgist with regards to the age of the earth or anything else. Educate yourself by doing some reading or take a physical or historical geology class at your local college. I’m confident that if you do, many of the questions you have now be will be answered and you will understand why we hold the positions we do.

 

[Orogeny]

Led Zeppelin75:

Hmmm… should I repeat what I said before? THE VATICAN ACCEPTS EVOLUTION as God’s method! wow! isnt that just lovely? The one place you go for truth apparently accepts the exact opposite of what you do. tsk, tsk, not a very good Catholic are you, now?

Led (love the name, by the way), I know you are being a bit tongue in cheek with this comment, but with due respects, the Church does not require anyone to accept evolution. The Church allows us as Catholics to accept it, but does not require us to accept it. There is no problem from a theological viewpoint in accepting the story in Genesis as a literal story.

Peace

Tim

 

[Ahimsa]

Led Zep,

Aren’t you being a bit disingenuous when you say that humans didn’t evolve from monkeys, that humans and monkeys merely and only share a common ancestor?

If humans didn’t evolve from monkeys (whether those monkeys lived 20 million years ago or whether those “monkeys” were actually African apes of 8 million years ago), then what did humans evolve from? Lemurs? Tree shrews?

 

[patg]

My goodness everyone! Read the Bible! God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. So Be It! He stated it - I believe it. Don’t try to explain it with man’s wisdom we all know where that will get us!

Actually “He” didn’t state it…
In addition to the other suggestions you have received, read *Dei Verbum *to get an understanding as to how the church expects you to read such passages. Also a few basic bible books would be helpful (try *“And God Said What? An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms” *by Margaret Ralph/Paulist Press).

 

[miguel]

Orogeny:

Because science is science. The scientific method is the same for biology as it is for geology or physics or chemistry.

Because I have studied paleontology, which is a nice mix of biology and geology.

Because I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

Peace

Tim

ps - don’t just defer to me or any other geolgist with regards to the age of the earth or anything else. Educate yourself by doing some reading or take a physical or historical geology class at your local college. I’m confident that if you do, many of the questions you have now be will be answered and you will understand why we hold the positions we do.

I don’t agree that science is science. Because a person is an expert in one field, doesn’t qualify him to make pronouncements in other fields. I have a MS in Engineering. That doesn’t qualify me to make pronouncements in molecular biology. Overstepping one’s area of expertise is what causes suspicion among non-experts. The Church continues to take flack for its handling of the Gallileo case, precisely for overstepping. It seems to me that it is only fair that scientists should stick to their area of expertise when it comes to making pronouncements. The same goes for journalists and politicians. They’re all making pronouncements minus the training. I remember reading an article years ago (I think in the journal Nature). In it, there was a debate between paleontologists and molecular biologists relative to human evolution. And I think the criticism molecular biologists had of paleontolgists was that all they had was bones. They couldn’t prove those bones were genetically linked. I don’t know if that is still a valid criticism of paleontology, or if that was your background it it. But that’s why I asked. BTW, I’m not just deferring to you as a geologist. I don’t have the time to educate myself in every area of scientific controversy (maybe when I retire.) So for now, I keep my eyes open for articles directed to the layperson that are written by people I respect. This Rock had an article on the subject of the old earth a few years back. I thought they took a reasonable position.

 

[Orogeny]

miguel:

I don’t agree that science is science. Because a person is an expert in one field, doesn’t qualify him to make pronouncements in other fields. I have a MS in Engineering. That doesn’t qualify me to make pronouncements in molecular biology.

When you took science classes in high school, didn’t you learn the basics of how the scientific process works? Science is science when it comes to the way data is collected, presented and debated.

You say you aren’t qualified to make pronouncements in any field other than that which you hold a MS degree in, but isn’t that what you are doing in this thread? Aren’t you disagreeing with biologists?

Overstepping one’s area of expertise is what causes suspicion among non-experts.

Sorry, but the suspicion will be there anyway because we are discussing a topic that touches both science and faith.

I remember reading an article years ago (I think in the journal Nature). In it, there was a debate between paleontologists and molecular biologists relative to human evolution. And I think the criticism molecular biologists had of paleontolgists was that all they had was bones.

Science at work!

BTW, I’m not just deferring to you as a geologist. I don’t have the time to educate myself in every area of scientific controversy (maybe when I retire.) So for now, I keep my eyes open for articles directed to the layperson that are written by people I respect. This Rock had an article on the subject of the old earth a few years back. I thought they took a reasonable position.

Good. That’s how you should approach it, in my opinion. I don’t have a problem if you have a different opinion that I do, especially if you arrive at that opinion through some research.

Peace

Tim

 

[miguel]

Orogeny:

When you took science classes in high school, didn’t you learn the basics of how the scientific process works? Science is science when it comes to the way data is collected, presented and debated.

Yes but that wasn’t my point. I asked you, as a geologist, whether you were qualified to make pronouncements about biological evolution. Science is not science when it comes to experts in one field making pronouncements outside their area of competence. That’s not science at all. In my business that’s downright dangerous. Since you said you studied paleontology, given the prior (and current?) shortcomings of that field relative to proving the genetic link between bones as pointed out by molecular biologists, how can you pronounce the evidence of biological evolution to be overwhelming?

Orogeny:

You say you aren’t qualified to make pronouncements in any field other than that which you hold a MS degree in, but isn’t that what you are doing in this thread? Aren’t you disagreeing with biologists?

Where did you get that idea?

Orogeny:

Sorry, but the suspicion will be there anyway because we are discussing a topic that touches both science and faith.

Yes. But the suspicion can be alleviated somewhat if experts stick to their area of expertise. BTW, I’m not against people giving their opinions. But I do think some qualification should be offered along with them…like “It’s really not my area, but based on an article I read, or a class I took 20 years ago, I think…”

 

[Orogeny]

miguel:

Yes but that wasn’t my point. I asked you, as a geologist, whether you were qualified to make pronouncements about biological evolution. Science is not science when it comes to experts in one field making pronouncements outside their area of competence. That’s not science at all. In my business that’s downright dangerous.

I am not making any statements that affect public health or safety. I am not making any statements that may endanger the financial health of my employer. I am making statements based on my research and the consensus of the scientific community.

Since you said you studied paleontology, given the prior (and current?) shortcomings of that field relative to proving the genetic link between bones as pointed out by molecular biologists, how can you pronounce the evidence of biological evolution to be overwhelming?

Genetic link? How long does DNA last? How were animals classified prior to genetics? If there is no DNA and, therefore, a link cannot be established, does that invalidate all the evidence for evolution? Is that the way science works?

My claim that the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming is based on my research and my acceptance of the scientific method.

Let me turn the question around on you. With the vast majority of experts (by your definition) accepting the evidence, what is your qualifications to refute them? How can you pronounce the evidence is not overwhelming?

Yes. But the suspicion can be alleviated somewhat if experts stick to their area of expertise. BTW, I’m not against people giving their opinions. But I do think some qualification should be offered along with them…like “It’s really not my area, but based on an article I read, or a class I took 20 years ago, I think…”

Then why did we just find out your credentials? Why didn’t you begin with them in your very first post? Why haven’t you required the same to those who oppose evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[miguel]

Orogeny:

I am not making any statements that affect public health or safety. I am not making any statements that may endanger the financial health of my employer. I am making statements based on my research and the consensus of the scientific community.

Genetic link? How long does DNA last? How were animals classified prior to genetics? If there is no DNA and, therefore, a link cannot be established, does that invalidate all the evidence for evolution? Is that the way science works?

My claim that the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming is based on my research and my acceptance of the scientific method.

Let me turn the question around on you. With the vast majority of experts (by your definition) accepting the evidence, what is your qualifications to refute them? How can you pronounce the evidence is not overwhelming?

Then why did we just find out your credentials? Why didn’t you begin with them in your very first post? Why haven’t you required the same to those who oppose evolution?

Peace

Tim

I never pronounced the evidence “not overwhelming”. My training doesn’t position me to do that. I merely questioned whether your training positioned you to pronounce the evidence “overwhelming”. You still haven’t made that clear to me. Like me, you rely on the consensus of the scientific community (i.e., experts other than ourselves). But I at least admit that I am not qualified to judge the evidence for biological evolution. But I reserve the right to ask questions. How else am I going to learn? Paleontology has a collection of bones. The bones are organized into a family tree. But if there isn’t a way to prove heredity between the members of that tree (I’m speaking hypothetically here because I don’t know if there is a way or not), then heredity is just an assumption. It may be a good assumption. It may be a bad assumption. But without proof, it remains an assumption. I accept the scientific method too. And part of that method is not jumping to conclusions without proof. As I pointed out, this is not my critique, molecular biologists made this critique of paleontologists in the past. I don’t know if the critique is still valid. Maybe you could enlighten me.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Good morning everyone. I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on speaking with people who believe in Evolution. They believe in God, but state that Evolution is true as well.

Thanks have a great day
Randy

sigh, not agian

evolution is not a thing to “believe” in or not
it is a robust collection of theroies that conforms strongly with observable data almost to the point of certainty

if you want to know why it is not in contradiction with Christianity, I sugest you ask JP2

 

[Orogeny]

miguel:

I never pronounced the evidence “not overwhelming”. My training doesn’t position me to do that. I merely questioned whether your training positioned you to pronounce the evidence “overwhelming”. You still haven’t made that clear to me. Like me, you rely on the consensus of the scientific community (i.e., experts other than ourselves). But I at least admit that I am not qualified to judge the evidence for biological evolution.

Just a question, and I am not arguing here, but curious. What level of education do you believe one must have to be able to judge evidence?

But I reserve the right to ask questions. How else am I going to learn?

No problems there!

Paleontology has a collection of bones. The bones are organized into a family tree. But if there isn’t a way to prove heredity between the members of that tree (I’m speaking hypothetically here because I don’t know if there is a way or not), then heredity is just an assumption. It may be a good assumption. It may be a bad assumption. But without proof, it remains an assumption.

Bad assumption, in my honest opinion. When you are speaking of fossilized bones, you must understand that the bones themselves are gone. The actual bone is replaced by minerals, which have no DNA. Which gets to the point I was trying to make earlier. How do you do genetic studies on rocks, which the bones have become?

I don’t know the article you are referencing, but I find it odd that a molecular biologist would even make that argument.

I accept the scientific method too. And part of that method is not jumping to conclusions without proof. As I pointed out, this is not my critique, molecular biologists made this critique of paleontologists in the past. I don’t know if the critique is still valid. Maybe you could enlighten me.

Only one small correction. I think you mean evidence, not proof.

Peace

Tim