Evolution, creationism, intelligence design, and fossils

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eucharisted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eucharisted

Guest
Evolution is the fact of how God created us creatures. Obviously not everyone believes in God, so not everyone has a God-centered view of evolution, but, I do.

Creationism and intelligence design are two sides of the same coin: pseudoscience. Creationism says God created everything in a week. Intelligent design says God didn’t use evolution but just created everything as we know it today. Creationism is wrong for two reasons: Genesis isn’t literal and science shows the Universe took billions of years to evolve. Intelligent design is wrong for two reasons: Genesis isn’t literal and evolution is a fact.

Now, as with every human group, divisions form, due to man’s imperfections and weaknesses. This is also the case for creationism and intelligent design. Some creationist don’t take Genesis literally, others believe Genesis is to be taken literally and the “days” are billions of years. Some intelligent designers don’t take Genesis literally, others believe all animals evolved except for human beings. And that’s just a few of the divisions.

The best way to refute creationism and intelligent design is to show that Genesis isn’t a science textbook and that evolution is a fact. Some people won’t accept certain evidence for evolution, though, based on superstitions they hold. Some of these include:

Fossils. Some people believe fossils are from Satan. However, Satan can’t create matter - only God can do that. Other people believe fossils are forgeries of man. But carbon dating proves this is wrong.

Carbon dating. Some people believe carbon dating is a demonic or artificial trick. It’s actually just a mechanism God created that man uses to date things - to give a Godly little spin on carbon dating. Other people believe carbon dating is done wrong, but there is no evidence for this.

Rocks. Some people believe the rocks used to prove the age of the Earth are not as old as scientist say, and they back this up with circular reasoning. Other people believe the rocks are from outer space and so can’t be used to prove the age of the world. Yet there is no evidence for this.
 
Science is silent about God and the supernatural, remember? Where are you drawing these conclusions from?

Peace,
Ed
 
Eucharisted said:
Evolution is the fact of how God created us creatures. Obviously not everyone believes in God, so not everyone has a God-centered view of evolution, but, I do.

Creationism and intelligence design are two sides of the same coin: pseudoscience. Creationism says God created everything in a week.** Intelligent design says God didn’t use evolution but just created everything as we know it today.**
Click to expand...
Oh PLEASE. Stop repeating this myth.

Intelligent design does NOT say that God created everything as we know it today. ID even accepts evolution in a limited sense. Before making such outrageous statements you should read this.

intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
 
When live penguins are carbon dated to 600 yrs old, I’d say there are good reasons to doubt any single test report that lacks backup samples and blind tests. Carbon dating is only valid less than about 40,000 years.

There is no proof of macroevolution, only theories. No one has ever seen a dog give birth to anything that wasn’t a dog. There are no transitional fossils representing the multitude of theoretical changes posed, in fact this lack of fossil evidence led Stephen Gould to back away from traditional ideas of evolutionary theory and postulate punctuated equilibrium theory. Nice theory, could be true, but we haven’t seen any evidence that proves it.

The only evolution we’ve ever observed is microevolution; adaptive changes in one kind to changes in their environment. That is a far cry from something of one kind gave way to another and another then some became plants while some became animals, etc. etc.

Until someone can prove it, it remains a theory, just like the Big Bang does.
 
It never ceases to amaze me that many people insist on something like a magical “big bang” as the start of the universe. The universe, in all of its glory and splendor, just happened all by itself. All of these stars, planets, beings, plants, etc just came about by chance after chance after chance.

I have no doubt how it happened. Lord, thank you for such a beautiful place to live. Amen.
 
edwest2 said:
I recommend that my fellow Catholics know what Pope Benedict has said about this subject:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece#

Evolution cannot be proven.
Click to expand...
Ed,

Excellent link. You should also have read all the way to the final paragraph: “The comments of this Pope, like those of John Paul II, best adhere to the doctrine of theistic evolution, which sees God creating by a process of evolution. This is accepted – openly or tacitly – by Roman Catholicism and the mainstream Protestant denominations.”

Evolution by natural selection is still in the process of being validated, just like the theory of plate tectonics and the theories of general and special relativity. But in science, if a “theory” does not support the observations and facts, it is wholly rejected. The only true “theories” in science have substantial evidential backing, as evolution by natural selection does.

Has life changed over time? Yes. Evolution, in that sense, is a proven fact. Life has changed through time. Has it changed by way of natural selection? It sure appears so, according to modern science. Does evolution by natural selection explain everything? No, but it is the best current model that we have, and so it is accepted in that (temporal) sense, as long as it continues to best explain our observations.

It is fully acceptable for Catholics to accept theistic evolution, and is the most logical position–it is the unified position of faith and reason based upon the two ways God reveals Himself to humanity–physically, through nature, and the Word of God.

Keep inquiring.
 
edwest2 said:
Science is silent about God and the supernatural, remember? Where are you drawing these conclusions from?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I didn’t say science speaks about God. Where are you getting that from?
 
DOShea said:
When live penguins are carbon dated to 600 yrs old, I’d say there are good reasons to doubt any single test report that lacks backup samples and blind tests.
Click to expand...
Has it ever occurred to you to wonder why scientists would Carbon Date a recently dead penguin? If it had just died then they would know exactly how old it was. What they were doing was calibrating the method - to measure the Carbon age of something which they already knew the age of. You do not give a reference but I suspect that the paper the dated penguin comes from is dated in the 1950s or early 1960s when the new radiometric dating methods were being calibrated.

The reason for the anomalous date for the penguin is old carbon - the sea contains old carbon from dissolved limestone. Fish absorb this old carbon and penguins eat a lot of fish. This alters the usual ratios of carbon isotopes and throws off the dating. You will note that nowadays carbon dating is never used on marine organic remains or where fish form a significant part of the diet.
Carbon dating is only valid less than about 40,000 years.
Click to expand...
Basically correct. Very sensitive equipment and a very clean sample can extend that to about 60,000 years.
There is no proof of macroevolution, only theories.
Click to expand...
We have numerous observed examples of macroevolution in the lab and in the wild.
No one has ever seen a dog give birth to anything that wasn’t a dog.
Click to expand...
If they had then evolution would be in big trouble.
There are no transitional fossils representing the multitude of theoretical changes posed,
Click to expand...
Your creationist sources are lying to you. Have a look at Darwinopterus, another new transitional fossil in the news this month.
in fact this lack of fossil evidence led Stephen Gould to back away from traditional ideas of evolutionary theory and postulate punctuated equilibrium theory.
Click to expand...
Have you ever read any Darwin? To quote:But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.andthe periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.
Both quotes from “On the Origin of Species”. Darwin acknowledged from the start that evolution did not always proceed smoothly but could operate in fits and starts.
The only evolution we’ve ever observed is microevolution; adaptive changes in one kind to changes in their environment.
Click to expand...
Unless and until you can provide an objective definition of “kind”, that statement is meaningless. Are kangaroos and wombats two different kinds or both part of a single marsupial kind? Why?
Until someone can prove it, it remains a theory, just like the Big Bang does.
Click to expand...
And just like gravity as well. Theory is the best that science does - it does not get any better. Evolution is the best of science.

rossum
 
edwest2 said:
I recommend that my fellow Catholics know what Pope Benedict has said about this subject:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece#

Evolution cannot be proven.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
There is little merit in recommending a link to a popular media source on anything the Pope says. The popular media seldom get the facts straight. The article you linked to is no exception. There is a similar problem when resorting to the popular media for a report on any technical matter such a scientific discovery.

It’s too easy to search the internet for anything that seems to support one’s views. Net surfing is being used as substitute for real thinking and research.

The main point of Benedict’s talk was not that “evolution cannot be proven”. So, what we have here is a report by the Timesonline that hardly measures up to mediocre in quality, followed by Ed’s misrepresentation of that most mediocre report. Are we having fun yet, folks?

But let us assume for the sake of argument that evolution cannot be proven. What does that mean? There are various theories of evolution. Darwin himself promoted five theories of evolution. Which of the 5 cannot be proven? Ed cannot say.

There is also a major difference between “cannot be proven” and “has not been proven”. It is absolutely gratuitous to say all 5 of Darwin’s theories cannot be proven. No one who thinks would assert such a thing. The Pope surely has not said any such thing. In fact, he has spoken about the overwhelming amount of evidence from many sciences that are supportive of evolution in its general sense.

What cannot be proven is the neo-Darwinian materialist version of evolution. It cannot be proven because we know philosophical materialism cannot be proven.

On the other hand, the pope does not endorse ID theory. However, the popular media and ID supporters like Ed think whenever a Church official speaks of intelligent design they mean ID theory. Cardinal Schonborn’s op-ed piece in the NYT was badly misrepresented by ID supporters. Schonborn has subsequently clearly stated that he does not support ID theory.

It’s interesting that the Pope has tended to avoid the phrase “intelligent design”, preferring instead to refer to an “intelligent project.”

Furthermore, as to what has not been proven, we can definitely include ID Theory as something that has not been proven. Furthermore, I would say that Irreducible Complexity has not only not been proven, but that it cannot be proven. The reason that the existence of systems that are IC cannot be proven is because the hypothesis makes a false assumption about Creation, and also, ID theory is based on confused philosophical concepts.

In conclusion, the best that can be said about Ed’s statement that “Evolution cannot be proven” is that it is reckless and unwarranted. In other words, it has not been proven that evolution cannot be proven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top