Evolution? please prove it!

[Nickkname]

Evolution is a scientific theory which includes a number of theories about how it came about, and it is not incompatiable with the Catholic Faith because it dose not exclude God from the picture nor dose it deny the reality of the human soul. All evolution dose is try to explain the different species in the world, extinct and otherwise.

However, as soon as evolution says that God dose not exist or He is not the Creator or that the human soul evolved just like the human body did, than that is when evolution becomes hostile to the Catholic Faith, because we believe that God exists, He is the Creator, and the soul is created by God at the instance of conception.

This has not yet happened, though, so evolution is compatible with the Catholic Faith. You are free to accept it or not.

 

[juhothenero]

Evolution is a scientific theory which includes a number of theories about how it came about, and it is not incompatiable with the Catholic Faith because it dose not exclude God from the picture nor dose it deny the reality of the human soul. All evolution dose is try to explain the different species in the world, extinct and otherwise.

However, as soon as evolution says that God dose not exist or He is not the Creator or that the human soul evolved just like the human body did, than that is when evolution becomes hostile to the Catholic Faith, because we believe that God exists, He is the Creator, and the soul is created by God at the instance of conception.

This has not yet happened, though, so evolution is compatible with the Catholic Faith. You are free to accept it or not.

yes according to catholicism you can also not accept it, i don’t know why people don’t use this option more often, that would give a better competition for evolution and without competition results usually are not too well thought off…

 

[buffalo]

Nope. You have been fooled. Berthault’s conclusions based on his experiments cannot be supported by the observations obtained during those experiments.Not needed for evolution to be true. It doesn’t matter how life began.For the way life has developed, it is better than the Bible. Physics is better than the Bible at explaining the formation of stars. Do you not agree?Or maybe it has something to do with studying the subject. Nah, it couldn’t possibly be that.

Peace

Tim

orogeny,

Have other sluice experiments been conducted that definitely disprove his claims?

 

[juhothenero]

orogeny,

Have other sluice experiments been conducted that definitely disprove his claims?

Yeah, this is what I was asking? I suppose this is a quite easy question to answer since he is so out of his mind this maker of the video in his science?

 

[Orogeny]

Maybe but then again that has not been shown just saying won’t actually make it true…

So support your belief that he is correct. I especially like his demonstration that he formed younger layers beneath older layers. I’ll give you a hint on that one - that is only true if by above and below really mean next to. I’ll let you figure the rest of that out.

you are actually right… it just matters for scientific atheism

So you admit that how life began is irrelevant to evolution? Great, you are starting to learn something!

maybe, then again maybe not…

Support you belief. You want scientific “proof” of evolution, here is your chance to give us some scientific “proof” that the story of Genesis is literally true.

actually not sure

Not surprised.

I sense a little pride… but then again i studied it a bit too and haven’t really been convinced…

Yep, I am proud that I spent a lot of time studying geology. I am proud that I can look at the evidence presented by Berthault and see the fraud that he is trying to perpetrate on those that don’t know anything about sedimentology. I am proud that my Church allows me to accept the evidence of an old earth and of common descent of living things. Yep, I am proud.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

i asked you to prove that video false or provide evidence for evolution… now you have not given me anything… i mean come on… if you ask me how to make a forum like this i could teach you since i actually study the subject… so if you studied evolution you probably could teach me too… but i am figuring you probably have no idea about it…

I’ll ask you again, do you understand why Berthault’s conclusions are wrong?

Peace

Tim

 

[juhothenero]

So support your belief that he is correct. I especially like his demonstration that he formed younger layers beneath older layers. I’ll give you a hint on that one - that is only true if by above and below really mean next to. I’ll let you figure the rest of that out.So you admit that how life began is irrelevant to evolution? Great, you are starting to learn something!Support you belief. You want scientific “proof” of evolution, here is your chance to give us some scientific “proof” that the story of Genesis is literally true.Not surprised.Yep, I am proud that I spent a lot of time studying geology. I am proud that I can look at the evidence presented by Berthault and see the fraud that he is trying to perpetrate on those that don’t know anything about sedimentology. I am proud that my Church allows me to accept the evidence of an old earth and of common descent of living things. Yep, I am proud.

Peace

Tim

Sorry i am tired so i don’t really want to try to figure it out, just spell it out like a good boy…

I think it was so that pride was the sin of the devil… just to give you some hint about what it leads to…

 

[Orogeny]

orogeny,

Have other sluice experiments been conducted that definitely disprove his claims?

No experiments are necessary. You just have to look at his own experiments to see that his conclusions are wrong. Even Pierre Julien disagrees with the conclusions Berthault has published.

Peace

Tim

 

[Nickkname]

yes according to catholicism you can also not accept it, i don’t know why people don’t use this option more often, that would give a better competition for evolution and without competition results usually are not too well thought off…

No it wouldn’t. Evolution is grounded in science, not in faith. Science is about facts, faith is about truths. There would be no competition, because there simply is no competition between science and faith. Those who say there is are ignorant of the fact that both science and faith come from God, and He cannot contradict Himself, as well as the fact that the Catholic Church has advanced science in many ways (the Scientific Method, for example). There have been many Catholic scientists, such as Galielo, and the Vatican even has a Pontifical Achamedy of Science.

 

[Orogeny]

Sorry i am tired so i don’t really want to try to figure it out, just spell it out like a good boy…

Not suprised. If you figured it out, you would likely have a crisis of faith on your hands.

I think it was so that pride was the sin of the devil… just to give you some hint about what it leads to…

Well, if your knowledge of that equals your apparent scientific knowledge, I am comfortable ignoring your hint.

Peace

Tim

 

[juhothenero]

No it wouldn’t. Evolution is grounded in science, not in faith. Science is about facts, faith is about truths. There would be no competition, because there simply is no competition between science and faith. Those who say there is are ignorant of the fact that both science and faith come from God, and He cannot contradict Himself, as well as the fact that the Catholic Church has advanced science in many ways (the Scientific Method, for example). There have been many Catholic scientists, such as Galielo, and the Vatican even has a Pontifical Achamedy of Science.

Well scientific theory can be discussed later, actually it produces scientific facts, which means that they are bound to the conclusion that science itself is reliable as means of finding truth, which in itself is highly questionable… the subject here is totally different though, how to disprove that video…

 

[buffalo]

No experiments are necessary. You just have to look at his own experiments to see that his conclusions are wrong. Even Pierre Julien disagrees with the conclusions Berthault has published.

Peace

Tim

What are his conclusions?

What are the objections?

 

[juhothenero]

Not suprised. If you figured it out, you would likely have a crisis of faith on your hands.Well, if your knowledge of that equals your apparent scientific knowledge, I am comfortable ignoring your hint.

Peace

Tim

My knowledge of theology i suppose is on quite different level of my knowledge of other sciences, also i have quite OK knowledge of philosophy, which two subjects i always found the most interesting… anyway you just spell it out i guarantee i will not have any crisis, hence i don’t really care evolution is true or not… God is still God whether he use evolution as a tool or not doesn’t make a difference…

I am not stupid you know… probably not smarter then you either, but we studied a bit different things that’s all…

Devil’s fault was non serviam, which means i do not serve, that is caused by his pride which is a cardinal sin number one… want me to tell you all others? or to which demons they belong to? according to catholicism of course…

 

[Wirraway]

why aren’t you reading the faq on evolution? you said you would. but you haven’t.

argument from personal incredulity is flawed reasoning.

 

[juhothenero]

why aren’t you reading the faq on evolution? you said you would. but you haven’t.

argument from personal incredulity is flawed reasoning.

because you didn’t post a link… i am reading 29+ evidences though…

that origeny guy started up with such a fantastic flawed reasoning just gotta be a bit critical to it…

by the way this kind of forum is so full with flawed reasoning i am gonna believe santa soon…

 

[Orogeny]

What are his conclusions?

His conclusions are that his experiment demonstrated that younger layers were formed below older layers, that his experiment has overturned a basic geologic principle.

What are the objections?

That his experiment did neither. His “younger” layers were above his “older” layers in every single part of his test. Only if one changes above and below from a vertical dimension to a lateral dimension can that conclusion be reached.

He also has extrapolated his results to the Tonto Group in the Grand Canyon. His interpretation of this unit is laughable. He actually has to change the meaning of “transgression” as it is used in geology to support his conclusion. He ignores the actual geology that he writes about in his article (he has no suggestion as to how the carbonates are formed). He can’t explain the fossil faunas. He can’t explain the trackmarks in the Coconino.

I can go on, but I don’t think it is necessary. He set out to find scientific support for the stories in Genesis. He was willing to do real science (the flume testing was valid work) but then twist the results into something they are not just to support Genesis. He did so intentionally.

Peace

Tim

 

[juhothenero]

His conclusions are that his experiment demonstrated that younger layers were formed below older layers, that his experiment has overturned a basic geologic principle.That his experiment did neither. His “younger” layers were above his “older” layers in every single part of his test. Only if one changes above and below from a vertical dimension to a lateral dimension can that conclusion be reached.

He also has extrapolated his results to the Tonto Group in the Grand Canyon. His interpretation of this unit is laughable. He actually has to change the meaning of “transgression” as it is used in geology to support his conclusion. He ignores the actual geology that he writes about in his article (he has no suggestion as to how the carbonates are formed). He can’t explain the fossil faunas. He can’t explain the trackmarks in the Coconino.

I can go on, but I don’t think it is necessary. He set out to find scientific support for the stories in Genesis. He was willing to do real science (the flume testing was valid work) but then twist the results into something they are not just to support Genesis. He did so intentionally.

Peace

Tim

Finally… thanks for the answer Tim… give you one more hint… next time just say it in the beginning and save a lot of trouble… also don’t be so hasty to condemn others who don’t know things and don’t be proud… just for your own sake… thanks for the answer…

This is what i was looking for from the beginning

 

[Nickkname]

Well scientific theory can be discussed later, actually it produces scientific facts, which means that they are bound to the conclusion that science itself is reliable as means of finding truth, which in itself is highly questionable… the subject here is totally different though, how to disprove that video…

ROFL XD

 

[Orogeny]

that origeny guy started up with such a fantastic flawed reasoning just gotta be a bit critical to it…

What flawed reasoning have I suggested?

Peace

Tim

 

[juhothenero]

ROFL XD

Actually there is nothing to laugh about it. find me one philosophy book that proves logically and without a doubt that scientific theory is real… best try was so far from Wittgenstein and even he didn’t succeed… this is a different matter actually and much more higher level then you think…