Evolution-Creation?

[Brad]

Brad:

I agree with Buffalo’s response. I’m not arguing for bringing God into science class. I’m arguing for teaching philosophy and religion in school and not teaching seriously questioned hypotheses as fact in science class.

On further reflection, this would be the perfect mix. In philosphy and religion classes, the possibilities taught in science could be tempered by what is ethical and what is right. The way it is set up now, science trumps philosophy and theology and all other disciplines. Why should science be the superior mode of understanding in the schools of our children when we know it has purposely defined limitations and can cause grave danger if done in a vacuum?

 

[buffalo]

Brad:

Why should science be the superior mode of understanding in the schools of our children when we know it has purposely defined limitations and can cause grave danger if done in a vacuum?

Why indeed. So now the next question is - Whose agenda is this? and Why? Attack it there.

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

I agree with Buffalo’s response. I’m not arguing for bringing God into science class. I’m arguing for teaching philosophy and religion in school and not teaching seriously questioned hypotheses as fact in science class.

Then we agree on the religion class. You are wrong about evolution being seriously questioned, however. There are very few legitimate scientists that question evolution. How evolution occurrs may be agrued, but whether or not evolution occurrs is not in dispute.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

The way it is set up now, science trumps philosophy and theology and all other disciplines.

In science classes, yes. As it should be.

Why should science be the superior mode of understanding in the schools of our children when we know it has purposely defined limitations and can cause grave danger if done in a vacuum?

ALL science has purposely defined limitations. Do you oppose to teaching all science as science or would you prefer to teach all science as philosophy?

Peace

Tim

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Then we agree on the religion class. You are wrong about evolution being seriously questioned, however. There are very few legitimate scientists that question evolution. How evolution occurrs may be agrued, but whether or not evolution occurrs is not in dispute.

Peace

Tim

Positions #1 and #2 that I stated in post #99 and which are the most critical components for a Christian are also the most servely held onto by secular educators. There are many, many scientists that question these positions. Here is a whole boatload of them:

creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html

To say that these 2 positions are not in dispute is simply not true.

Regarding species to species transition fossils, even the articles you supplied showing support for them fail to produce any and question themselves.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

In science classes, yes. As it should be.

I’m not talking about science class. I’m talking about the whole school in general. Regarding science class, facts should be taught as facts, hypotheses should be taught as hypotheses, and opposing arguments to hypotheses should not be ignored.

Orogeny:

ALL science has purposely defined limitations. Do you oppose to teaching all science as science or would you prefer to teach all science as philosophy?

Neither. I oppose the supremacy of science in schools at the expense of other at least equally solid learning disciplines.

 

[buffalo]

Brad:

Neither. I oppose the supremacy of science in schools at the expense of other at least equally solid learning disciplines.

I agree!!! That is what is currently missing.

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

I’m not talking about science class. I’m talking about the whole school in general. Regarding science class, facts should be taught as facts, hypotheses should be taught as hypotheses, and opposing arguments to hypotheses should not be ignored.

Neither. I oppose the supremacy of science in schools at the expense of other at least equally solid learning disciplines.

How does science trump mathematics, literature, history, music, physical education, economics, etc…? I think you may be exagerating just a bit.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

There are many, many scientists that question these positions. Here is a whole boatload of them:

creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html

To say that these 2 positions are not in dispute is simply not true.

Don’t make me break out Project Steve on you!

I didn’t address your 2 positions. My claim is this - the fact that evolution occurs is not in dispute in the scientific world. Period. The mechanisms may be (which is really what your 2 positions address), but the fact of evolution is not.

Regarding species to species transition fossils, even the articles you supplied showing support for them fail to produce any and question themselves.

I’m sorry, I thought you were capable of reading at least layman’s explaination of the evidence. It doesn’t get much simpler than that. While I know that you won’t (because you can’t), could you please provide some scientific evidence falsifying the theory of evolution?

Brad, there is no evidence that would be acceptable for you. You have your mind made up and nothing will change it. That’s clear.

Luckily, the scientific world doesn’t need you to accept the evidence.

Peace

Tim

 

[rheins2000]

Your claim is bogus and without merit. I ask you to back up your assertion.

Ummm…well, to back up my assertion, I would have to then provide to you with a negative proof (i.e. that does not exist) The burden of proof on someone who says there are transitional fossils, is on them to provide where they would be found.

Sir, there is such a large body of evidence, evolution is not in doubt. The actual mechanism(s) may be debatable, but evolution is as true as the sunrise.

Wow, this is so wrong it hurts me. Well, you seem to be more sure than any evolutionary scientist, who wouldn’t dare to have the guts to say such a ridiculous statement as that. If evolution is as sure as the sunrise(and, lets get this straight, the micro changes in organisms to adapt to their surroundings is not evolution…you seem to be using that as proof…I can get micro changes from breeding dogs all day long, but you will never get a dog to turn into a cat…and you will never get a beneficial mutation. Thats fact, my friend.

Evolution is not in doubt?!?!?! Then you should have testable scientific EVIDENCE that would prove that. That’s quite a ridiculous statement, to tell you the truth. Noone has ever witnessed macro changes that would prove evolution. Ever. That is a scientific and obvious fact.

As per your questions…give me a little help in understanding what you’re saying"

Where are the mammal or fish fossils in Cambrian sediments?

Are you saying there are or their arent any? And tell me what your answer proves

Where is the flower pollen in coal deposits from the Carboniferous period?

Again, same thing

How about evidence of humans in the Morrison Formation?

Please, same thing. You have to tell me what this proves before I can give you a rebuttal…give me your logic.

From the Catechism:

Looks like you disagree with the Church. Sorry about that.

Absolutely Wrong. I disagree with the Church on nothing. You are the one disagreeing with the Church. My views of a 7 day creation in no way conflict with Church teaching. Read CreolMary’s post(and Im sorry for calling him a girl)

Gibberish.

Nice evidence

If you have been following this or any of the other threads on this topic, you have been provided with a large body of evidence. That evidence only scratches the surface.

I have not seen one piece of evidence…I have no idea where you are seeing evidence. Do you understand what evidence is? Evidence is not people formulating theories based on what they found. Evidence is testable and mathematically certain.

There is a difference. Evolution is not a religion, so why would someone give up their lives for it?

Looks like you need to read the definition of religion. Evolution is a religion. You give this “Evolution” the place of God as your power of creation

CreosMary is a man.

Once again, sorry.

How can you support this man’s theology on creation while ignoring his obvious anti-Catholicism? Is this what you are willing to stoop to?

If a pagan came up to me and showed me how 2 + 2 = 4, should I not believe him because he’s a pagan? Please, that is the second most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Because he is not a Catholic, does not make him a bad scientist…what makes bad scientists is people who indoctrinate and deceive based lies of so-called evidence. You need to get some of his debate CD’s…where he challenges any professor, scientist, group of scientists, boards of anything, to debate him. He gets denied 2000 times for every one debate he gets. You will see what evidence evolutionists have for their side…believe me…its none, and they will agree…Its only a theory

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Ummm…well, to back up my assertion, I would have to then provide to you with a negative proof (i.e. that does not exist) The burden of proof on someone who says there are transitional fossils, is on them to provide where they would be found.

You can make unsubstantiated claims without proof? Isn’t that what you claim scientists are doing?

Wow, this is so wrong it hurts me.

Sorry about that. Sometimes, the truth does hurt.

Well, you seem to be more sure than any evolutionary scientist, who wouldn’t dare to have the guts to say such a ridiculous statement as that.

talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
I guess that you can retract that statement now.

If evolution is as sure as the sunrise(and, lets get this straight, the micro changes in organisms to adapt to their surroundings is not evolution…

Sorry, but that most assuredly is evolution.

you seem to be using that as proof…I can get micro changes from breeding dogs all day long, but you will never get a dog to turn into a cat…and you will never get a beneficial mutation. Thats fact, my friend.

Wow, the old “dog into a cat” argument. I do apologize. I assumed that you understood the scientific idea of evolution.

As per your questions…give me a little help in understanding what you’re saying"
Where are the mammal or fish fossils in Cambrian sediments?
Are you saying there are or their arent any? And tell me what your answer proves
Where is the flower pollen in coal deposits from the Carboniferous period?
Again, same thing
How about evidence of humans in the Morrison Formation?
Please, same thing. You have to tell me what this proves before I can give you a rebuttal…give me your logic.

I won’t explain other than that they are part of the massive amount of evidence I mentioned before. Try doing a little research.

Looks like you need to read the definition of religion. Evolution is a religion. You give this “Evolution” the place of God as your power of creation

You may think that you know me, but you are wrong. You don’t know what I believe.

If a pagan came up to me and showed me how 2 + 2 = 4, should I not believe him because he’s a pagan? Please, that is the second most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Because he is not a Catholic, does not make him a bad scientist

I thought you said evolution is religion not science. If you are correct, you are relying on the word of a man who is vehemently anti-Catholic for your viewpoint on a religious matter.
By the way, “Dr. Dino” is very poorly thought of by other fundamentalist, anti-evolutionist groups because even they recognize that he is a crackpot.

Peace

Tim

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

How does science trump mathematics, literature, history, music, physical education, economics, etc…? I think you may be exagerating just a bit.

Peace

Tim

Am I exaggerating? If science is able to proclaim debatable hypotheses as fact, then it trumps the disciplines you mentioned above. In addition, keeping philosphy and religion out of school allows science to answer questions it is incapable of answering.

Hardly an exaggeration. This is the way that it is. Again, I’d recommend Philip Johnson’s books that explain this in detail.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Don’t make me break out Project Steve on you!

I didn’t address your 2 positions. My claim is this - the fact that evolution occurs is not in dispute in the scientific world. Period. The mechanisms may be (which is really what your 2 positions address), but the fact of evolution is not.

I’m not sure what you mean by the “fact of evolution”. This is way too vague a term. If it includes the 2 positions I mentioned, then it is in serious debate. You are saying it does not. Schools say it does.

Orogeny:

I’m sorry, I thought you were capable of reading at least layman’s explaination of the evidence. It doesn’t get much simpler than that. While I know that you won’t (because you can’t), could you please provide some scientific evidence falsifying the theory of evolution?

Brad, there is no evidence that would be acceptable for you. You have your mind made up and nothing will change it. That’s clear.

Luckily, the scientific world doesn’t need you to accept the evidence.

Peace

Tim

Funny, that instead of responding to my post #109, you resort to insulting my “scientific knowledge”. Then you proceed to accuse me of being narrow minded and unable to do reading comprehension. Is this part of the scientific method? When questions arrise that cannot be answered, attack the protestor’s credentials and intelligence? Seems to be the practice nowadays.

Posting a link doesn’t cut it. Your link does not show species to species transition within the fossil record. It has nothing to do with my reading comprehension. It has to do with what is written. Can you post a piece from that link that disproves what I’m saying or do you just want to hurl another insult?

Regarding falsifying species to species transition, it’s easy thus far. There are no transitional fossils. Darwin’s tree of life is destroyed by the Cambrian explosion. The drawings of embryos that showed similiarities between different species are incorrect drawings.

Saying that there is no evidence that would be acceptable to me is a copout. I posted one link that shows many many reputable scientists that question evolution. Yet you act as if there are no questions and wonder why people even question and ignore the scientists (some of the brilliant) that question this theory.

 

[Milliardo]

Anyone has any take on this:

"Leviathan and behemoth. Have you done an exegesis of this? Besides, there are many ancient drawings that attest to this co-existence of man and dinosaurs. The Palestrina Mosaic dated AD 100 contain men hunting a dinosaur and the petroglyps of Anasazi also portray dinosaur-like creatures that have no resemblance to modern lizards.

Some pre-Incaic people carved the rock cliffs of the Marcahuasi Plateau of Peru into huge representations of lions, camels, and something resembling a STEGOSAURUS."

Now, as Catholics we should believe in the Creation, though we are also cautioned, based on scientific evidence, to not go overboard and ignore science. However, points such as the one I showed above are quite out of it, and would take a lot to even digest. Anyone who knows what refutations there are to such wild claims?

 

[garfield]

can I write how I like to think of creation

I am impressd with the way the genesis story does fit with what we have discovered about the ancient earth.

Firstly the physical universe is formed,’ let there be light’ in all its complexity- the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation in all its glory, the stars, suns, moons and planets that populate the vastnesses of space

The earth takes shape and the oceans are defined.

Then life is created and spreads through the world.

Science has shown we are all related, we share genes with even the simplest of organisms- life and it’s genetic structures are the living clay from which God forms us in his image, with a soul which is the spark of divine life which reflects his.

I don’t see a conflict between science and religion, for me they are complementary. Science is the means by which we study the created world, we can even speculate how it came to be the way it is now, we can discover the amazing creatures that walked the earth before us and appreciate them and it increases rather than lessens my belief in God.

To use an analogy, studying the mechanism of a clock makes you see the workmanship, and appreciate the design better than if you just glance at it to tell the time

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Don’t make me break out Project Steve on you!

Why ID Has No “Project Steve”

The National Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE) has a widely publicized, in their words, “tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of ‘scientists who doubt evolution’ or ‘scientists who dissent from Darwinism’.” They call it “Project Steve.” (Go here for a description of the project and here for the list; go here for the list of dissenters from Darwinism that prompted Project Steve.)

 	 It’s a source of continual merriment at the NCSE that the list of scientists with first names “Steve” that they have been able to get to sign their list as supporting Darwinism is much longer than the list of scientists who are willing to put down their names as dissenters from Darwinism. I want to suggest that Project Steve might not warrant the triumphalism that the NCSE, for now, seems to associate with it. Take the following note from a math colleague who helped me solve a combinatorial problem needed to prove a theorem I was after (the relevant paper is on my designinference.com website [here](http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.03.Searching_Large_Spaces.pdf)). In context, I was asking him whether he felt comfortable having me acknowledging him by name in the article:

more…

 

[RyanL]

garfield:

I don’t see a conflict between science and religion, for me they are complementary. Science is the means by which we study the created world, we can even speculate how it came to be the way it is now, we can discover the amazing creatures that walked the earth before us and appreciate them and it increases rather than lessens my belief in God.

to add my 2 cents, science tells us the “what/when/where” of the problem - religion tells us the “who” and “why”. these answers are simply NOT opposed. when one attempts to answer the questions of the other, they are leaving their respective fields of expertise and are indulging in pure speculation. i could also speculate about a great many things, but i would never expect anyone to listen…

RyanL

 

[Brad]

garfield:

Science has shown we are all related, we share genes with even the simplest of organisms- life and it’s genetic structures are the living clay from which God forms us in his image, with a soul which is the spark of divine life which reflects his.

Science has not shown this.

garfield:

I don’t see a conflict between science and religion, for me they are complementary. Science is the means by which we study the created world, we can even speculate how it came to be the way it is now, we can discover the amazing creatures that walked the earth before us and appreciate them and it increases rather than lessens my belief in God.

There is no conflict between science and religion. There is a conflict when people try to use science to trump religion and ordain items as fact that are nothing more than theory. Science and religion are indeed 2 seperate fields of study. Science can make no claims regarding the supernatural. That doesn’t mean the supernatural is not real.

 

[Brad]

RyanL:

to add my 2 cents, science tells us the “what/when/where” of the problem - religion tells us the “who” and “why”. these answers are simply NOT opposed. when one attempts to answer the questions of the other, they are leaving their respective fields of expertise and are indulging in pure speculation. i could also speculate about a great many things, but i would never expect anyone to listen…

RyanL

I’d mostly agree with this.

 

[garfield]

excuse me brad but are you disputing the fact that physically we are all made up from the same proteins and nucleic acids as the rest of the living organisms on earth?

have you studied any science at all?