Evolution In The Classroom

  • Thread starter Thread starter ctconnor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s what the claim is but something more needs to be shown in order to prove it.
For example, selective breeding uses microevolution to create different varieties of dogs – but macroevolutionary changes do not occur. New species do not emerge even with an intelligent agent manipulating the (name removed by moderator)uts to try to create new results. No matter what breeds of dogs are mixed, they still remain dogs.

So, the knowledge and expertise of intelligent breeders do not create macroevolutionary changes, why should unintelligent, purposeless, unconscious forces achieve more than this?

From that kind of evidence, it appears that there are limits to the changes that can occur and they’re limited to microevolutionary changes within species.
You can end the debate here, as it is clear there is a lack of even the most fundamental understanding of evolution.

Macro evolution IS micro evolution, they are the SAME, one cannot believe in one and not the other.
 
I show you a car. Intelligently designed or not?

I show you a plant. Intelligently designed or not?

Archaeologists regularly separate the Intelligently designed from the unintelligently formed objects in the ground. Their method is scientific and involves observation.

Peace,
Ed
Show me a car that can mate and reproduce.
 
You can end the debate here, as it is clear there is a lack of even the most fundamental understanding of evolution.
That whole “I’m more qualified than you are, and have convinced myself I understand issues better than you, so just stop questioning and believe me” argument, isn’t really going to convince anyone, unless they also believe in your objective authority and understanding to be greater than your own.
Macro evolution IS micro evolution, they are the SAME, one cannot believe in one and not the other.
Is yet another assumption to heap on top of all the other assumptions which appear to be required for the exclusivist belief in evolution (as fact) - and your faith, despite your assertion would appear to be very strong 😉

Why would belief in adaption require the whole of belief in evolutionary theory? It is a far less assumptious theory. It’s like saying because you find 2 rocks can sometimes land on top of each other, stone dwellings are natural formations. I think I’ve argued this already…
 
Is this an admission that not all passages in the bible are literal? Might I apply this logic to say, Adam and Eve?
Hello. You are on a Catholic forum. Catholics read the Bible literally not literalistically.

Adam and Eve - what was the author conveying?

The clear continuous teaching and understanding of the Church is where we look.

So we can look to the dogmas first as I have posted numerous times. Do I need to again?

However, as the Catechism teaches the other senses of Scripture are built upon the literal.
 
No, to understand science you must understand the method. Once you do you can see why the great theories are accepted. This is why religiosity drops off as one becomes more scientifically educated.
Usually forgotten in this process is the fact that what we can know about the universe is limited by sciences own definition. We are limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

So do the scientifically educated maintain that is all there is? Or is there more?

Now science has postulated additional dimensions.

What essentially happens is the scientifically educated as you say get trapped in a trap of their own making. A trap that is very difficult to get out of.

The pursuit of truth must be open.

To understand the highest of all sciences, divine science aka theology, one must study it. All truth flows downward from God. Science is a subset of truth.
 
You can end the debate here, as it is clear there is a lack of even the most fundamental understanding of evolution.

Macro evolution IS micro evolution, they are the SAME, one cannot believe in one and not the other.
So your claim is change within species (adaptation) is the same as speciation?
 
So your claim is change within species (adaptation) is the same as speciation?
The only differences are time scale and environment, the mechanism is the same. When two subsets of one species have “microvolved” to the point where they can no longer produce viable off spring, they are then two separate species.
 
The only differences are time scale and environment, the mechanism is the same. When two subsets of one species have “microvolved” to the point where they can no longer produce viable off spring, they are then two separate species.
Does everyone agree with this definition of species?

Polar bears and grizzly bears are still bears.
 
Hello. You are on a Catholic forum. Catholics read the Bible literally not literalistically.

Adam and Eve - what was the author conveying?

The clear continuous teaching and understanding of the Church is where we look.

So we can look to the dogmas first as I have posted numerous times. Do I need to again?

However, as the Catechism teaches the other senses of Scripture are built upon the literal.
I’m not seeing the argument- we know that mountains can’t skip around, so we chalk that up as non literal. We know, with near equal certainty, that the Earth is much older than traditional biblical scholars find, and that a single set of human parents is untenable- but we ignore the evidence and bunker down?
 
So it all boils down to whether or not we accept Magisterial Infallibility? Oh joy.
That is the Catholic way - the deposit of faith and its accurate preservation and transmittal is a three legged stool resting on Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium (protected by the Holy Spirit). Take away any one of these and the stool topples.

Pretty neat system if you ask me.
 
That is the Catholic way - the deposit of faith and its accurate preservation and transmittal is a three legged stool resting on Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium (protected by the Holy Spirit). Take away any one of these and the stool topples.

Pretty neat system if you ask me.
My apologies for the late edit of the prior post! I opted to steer away from that direction because (yet another) debate on infallibility didn’t seem to be a pleasant prospect.
 
I’m not seeing the argument- we know that mountains can’t skip around, so we chalk that up as non literal. We know, with near equal certainty, that the Earth is much older than traditional biblical scholars find, and that a single set of human parents is untenable- but we ignore the evidence and bunker down?
The dogma of a single set of parents and original sin is never going to change. It is solid teaching. I think science will eventually catch up to this Revealed truth.

How old do you think Catholics think the world is?
 
The dogma of a single set of parents and original sin is never going to change. It is solid teaching. I think science will eventually catch up to this Revealed truth.

How old do you think Catholics think the world is?
While a single set of parents is hypothetically possible- it’s unlikely, evolution takes place in groups rather than individuals. I’m also somewhat certain incest-related issues would have hurt our viability, but there may be some tricky ways around that.
It varies of course- As a Catholic I believe the Earth is 4.2 billion years old but I’m not married to that number.

And a Catholic who used the genealogy of Christ to find his/her way back to the creation of man would arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is about 6000 years old. Admittedly, I have heard Catholic creationists throwing around figures in the tens of thousands, but never really investigated that figure.
 
While a single set of parents is hypothetically possible- it’s unlikely, evolution takes place in groups rather than individuals. I’m also somewhat certain incest-related issues would have hurt our viability, but there may be some tricky ways around that.
It varies of course- As a Catholic I believe the Earth is 4.2 billion years old but I’m not married to that number.

And a Catholic who used the genealogy of Christ to find his/her way back to the creation of man would arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is about 6000 years old. Admittedly, I have heard Catholic creationists throwing around figures in the tens of thousands, but never really investigated that figure.
Read this link at then let’s discuss:

Good News and Bad News Regarding Scriptural Chronologies

edit:

I should have linked this one:

Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis
 
The dogma of a single set of parents and original sin is never going to change. It is solid teaching. I think science will eventually catch up to this Revealed truth.How old do you think Catholics think the world is?
Buffalo, you make the very concept of “revealed truth” just plain silly by insisting on a woodenly literal interpretation of it. There is no way in the world that “science will eventually catch up” to the “revealed truth” about a single Adamic pair, because scientifically it did not happen this way.

In fact, there is no way “science will eventually catch up” to any cosmogonic myth." You might was well expect science to catch up to the revealed truth of Indigenous American cosmogony that the world rests on the back of a turtle who sits on the backs of other turtles in a stack that reaches all the way down.

If you want scientific society to continue separating itself from an increasingly irrelevant and marginalized literalist Christianity, yours is the way to accomplish it. If you wish to foster dialogue between religious believers and the scientific community, there are other avenues to explore, such as the approaches taken at the conference in Rome last March.

StAnastasia
 
I did in fact read the link, although I was under the impression that the genealogy of Christ found here biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203:23-38;&version=NIV; was the one commonly used to determine how far back existence went.
OK - so we know that 4000 BC is incorrect.

What do you think about this?

SInce the first Genesis account seems to be written from God’s perspective, I would like to propose this idea to help harmonize Genesis with what we think we see in modern science:

God looks at His creation and for Him time is rolled up much like a measuring tape.

He sees seven layers. Since we live on the tape itself we cannot see these layers as we are inside the frame of reference. When we look back what do we see? We see the numbers on the tape all the way back. We then mark geological periods on each of these corresponding marks on the tape. Who is to say that the ages further back than Adam are not more tightly wound, so to speak?
 
Buffalo, you make the very concept of “revealed truth” just plain silly by insisting on a woodenly literal interpretation of it. There is no way in the world that “science will eventually catch up” to the “revealed truth” about a single Adamic pair, because scientifically it did not happen this way.

In fact, there is no way “science will eventually catch up” to any cosmogonic myth." You might was well expect science to catch up to the revealed truth of Indigenous American cosmogony that the world rests on the back of a turtle who sits on the backs of other turtles in a stack that reaches all the way down.

If you want scientific society to continue separating itself from an increasingly irrelevant and marginalized literalist Christianity, yours is the way to accomplish it. If you wish to foster dialogue between religious believers and the scientific community, there are other avenues to explore, such as the approaches taken at the conference in Rome last March.

StAnastasia
How long did it take for science to catch up with the truths of the very first line of Genesis? Until just recently.

In the beginning (time) God Created
the heavens (space)

and the earth. (matter)

Space, time and matter just recently verified by modern science, but there it is, all contained in the very first line.
 
“MISSING LINK” FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?

May 19, 2009—Meet “Ida,” the small “missing link” found in Germany that’s created a big media splash and will likely continue to make waves among those who study human origins.

In a new book, documentary, and promotional Web site, paleontologist Jorn Hurum, who led the team that analyzed the 47-million-year-old fossil seen above, suggests Ida is a critical missing-link species in primate evolution (interactive guide to human evolution from National Geographic magazine).

(Among the team members was University of Michigan paleontologist Philip Gingerich, a member of the Committee for Research and Exploration of the National Geographic Society, which owns National Geographic News.)

The fossil, he says, bridges the evolutionary split between higher primates such as monkeys, apes, and humans and their more distant relatives such as lemurs.

“This is the first link to all humans,” Hurum, of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, said in a statement. Ida represents “the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor.”

Ida, properly known as Darwinius masillae, has a unique anatomy. The lemur-like skeleton features primate-like characteristics, including grasping hands, opposable thumbs, clawless digits with nails, and relatively short limbs.

“This specimen looks like a really early fossil monkey that belongs to the group that includes us,” said Brian Richmond, a biological anthropologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study, published this week in the journal PLoS ONE.

But there’s a big gap in the fossil record from this time period, Richmond noted. Researchers are unsure when and where the primate group that includes monkeys, apes, and humans split from the other group of primates that includes lemurs.

“[Ida] is one of the important branching points on the evolutionary tree,” Richmond said, “but it’s not the only branching point.”

At least one aspect of Ida is unquestionably unique: her incredible preservation, unheard of in specimens from the Eocene era, when early primates underwent a period of rapid evolution. (Explore a prehistoric time line.)

“From this time period there are very few fossils, and they tend to be an isolated tooth here or maybe a tailbone there,” Richmond explained. “So you can’t say a whole lot of what that [type of fossil] represents in terms of evolutionary history or biology.”

In Ida’s case, scientists were able to examine fossil evidence of fur and soft tissue and even picked through the remains of her last meal: fruits, seeds, and leaves.

What’s more, the newly described “missing link” was found in Germany’s Messel Pit. Ida’s European origins are intriguing, Richmond said, because they could suggest—contrary to common assumptions—that the continent was an important area for primate evolution.

MORE: National Geographic magazine’s Chris Sloan on the controversy over the “missing link” and its media blitz >>
 
How long did it take for science to catch up with the truths of the very first line of Genesis? Until just recently.

In the beginning (time) God Created
the heavens (space)

and the earth. (matter)

Space, time and matter just recently verified by modern science, but there it is, all contained in the very first line.
Stating “I think science will show this later” is a non argument, especially when the evidence is against it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top