B
buffalo
Guest
What? explain more
Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
It is because he is wrong and we know so much more now.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, but I was roundly chastised for showing macro-evolution is being eliminated as the best explanation. We know have another one.
P
Pattylt
Guest
About flagella? Or are you making your usual statement of wishful thinking?
Of course we know more now and we’ll know even more in another ten years. If the science actually does show that ID has more and better evidence then I’m happy to accept it. But for now, it doesn’t. And claiming,”yet!” doesn’t mean anything. It may be that ten years from now we’ll have even more evidence for evolution that fills in our gaps. Until we know more it’s a bit childish to claim some nebulous future victory.
Of course we know more now and we’ll know even more in another ten years. If the science actually does show that ID has more and better evidence then I’m happy to accept it. But for now, it doesn’t. And claiming,”yet!” doesn’t mean anything. It may be that ten years from now we’ll have even more evidence for evolution that fills in our gaps. Until we know more it’s a bit childish to claim some nebulous future victory.
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
The video posted by PattyIT suffices.
Macro-evolution hasn’t been eliminated at all. Certainly not by the article you posted here, which actually supports macro-evolution quite nicely.
Perhaps you have some other material to present that disproves macro-evolution?
Peace and God bless!
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
The Catholic Church believes in actual design.
B
buffalo
Guest
Over and over I have. It is all pointing to design.
B
buffalo
Guest
How so?..
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
That Op-Ed is explicitly referring to Teleology, a philosophical proposition, not Intelligent Design as a science. These are two utterly different categories. It can be confusing because the term design is used for both, but they refer to very different things.
Last edited:
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
I haven’t seen anything posted on this thread by you that contradicts macro-evolution.
A pluripotent primordial cell would be more likely than a cell with a “rigid” functional structure to possess the necessary genetic tool-kit and cellular functions to differentiate into multiple lineages of animal life. Macro-evolution doesn’t require a pluripotent primordial cell, but such an origin negates a lot of the arguments against macro-evolution because radical differentiation would no longer require so many steps of random mutation; the number of necessary steps from single-cell to colony to multicellular organism becomes much smaller, and if the genetic code of these organisms was sufficiently robust it could account for a lot of the differentiation we see without needing to presume random additions to the genetic code.
At the very least such a finding, if it is indeed correct, does nothing at all to negate macro-evolution.
Peace and God bless
E
edwest211
Guest
Not true. The Cardinal states that the immanent design in nature is real.
In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of “evolution” as used by mainstream biologists – that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.
The commission’s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that “the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”
Furthermore, according to the commission, “An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist.”
Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”
Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the “death of God” that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.
Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.
Op-Ed Contributor Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.
In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of “evolution” as used by mainstream biologists – that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.
The commission’s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that “the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”
Furthermore, according to the commission, “An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist.”
Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”
Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the “death of God” that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.
Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.
Op-Ed Contributor Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
Again, this is referring to teleology, or Aquinas’ Fifth Way, not Intelligent Design as espoused by the likes of Behe.
From the Summa Theologica:
Peace and God bless!
From the Summa Theologica:
This is not even remotely about intelligent design as we are discussing. They are two different arguments based on different premises and focusing on different types of data. The Fifth Way doesn’t even have to discuss living things at all, as it applies even to the force of gravity.
Peace and God bless!
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Immense capability right there at the beginning.
B
buffalo
Guest
"Darwinian evolution proceeds mainly by damaging or breaking genes, which, counterintuitively, sometimes helps survival. In other words, the mechanism is powerfully de volutionary. It promotes the rapid loss of genetic information. Laboratory experiments, field research, and theoretical studies all forcefully indicate that, as a result, random mutation and natural selection make evolution self-limiting. That is, the very same factors that promote diversity at the simplest levels of biology actively prevent it at more complex ones. Darwin’s mechanism works chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain . Darwin Devolves
Last edited:
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
First of all, this isn’t the beginning of life, it is the beginning of animal life. Second, this kind of genetic information could be accumulated like a snow on a snowball, and wouldn’t necessarily be used to create discreet structures in the early cells; this “capability” represents raw material, not actual cellular activity. This is information provides no evidence against macro-evolution whatsoever.
Peace and God bless!
A
Aloysium
Guest
To clarify: I assume you are talking about Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, which establishes a formula describing universal phenomenon of attraction acting between all matter. To continue in the spirit of lecturing to one another, I would add that he saw it as a force, while Einstein described it as a bending of space-time, that caused objects, following a straight line, to orbit others and for us, to be held to the ground. This can’t be disproven, but rather sublties can be discovered that demonstrate that there’s more to gravity that we had known. So, gravity is something a two year old knows too well, having quite enjoyed playing Daddy pick up the spoon to brighten up very many mealtimes. As I said, gravity is the name we give to what we observe, and as we have observed more and more, especially with modern technology that can detect gravitational waves, the definition becomes more complex.
One of my favourite quotes is from American theoretical physicist, John Archibald Wheeler, who remarked, “We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.” In that light, I’m sort of proud of my lack of understanding, having taken quite some effort, with God’s grace, to get there. What I do know does disprove the Theory of Evolution. That said, it’s your business what you choose to believe, as it is mine to tell others what I do know.
A
Aloysium
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, seems to be.
Sure it does. It is showing top down rather than bottom up. There will still be doubters but the science trend is surely showing ID.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Holy See approval :Techno2000:
I assume there is only one Our Lady of the Roses and her revelations are nonsense. Here is a good little summary from EWTN.
The revelations were judged by the Church as FALSE.
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bayside.htm
Our Lady of La Salette
“For the time has come when the most astonishing wonders will take place on the earth and in the air… [Satan] will have great power over nature: there will be churches built to serve these spirits. People will be transported from one place to another by these evil spirits, even priests…”
G
Gorgias
Guest
Right.
Close. The problem here is that we don’t have anything backed by solid science on this question. So, it’s not the lack of an “exact explanation”, it’s that the issue itself is quite unclear. And so, the best we could possibly say is “things usually happen naturally; so, the odds are so did the formation of life.” And that’s about it.
- Status