Evolution refuting catholicism?

[dcdurel]

To those who blindly support evolution. Please explain the following: Don’t link to sites that overlook the problem or that come up with wild theories. I want specific answers.

If a one celled organism could somehow come together from chemicals and actually live, (which is total fantasy)
how could it grow? How could these chemicals know how to reproduce non sexually? Reproduction of one celled organisms is extremely complicated.

Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA? How could sexual reproduction evolve? How could immune systems evolve?

Face facts. Evolution is so stupid that only man’s sinful pride could account for it. And man’s sinful pride is not a theory, but a constant everyday fact.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Darwin created his specific theory of evolution to provide a natural explanation for how life arose and developed on the Earth on its own. His creation of **natural **selection removes God as an agent from the origins of human life.

Are our fallen natures merely an evolved set of traits that we naturally inherited from apes, or do we inherit original sin from Adam and Eve because of their original sin? Can these ideas be combined?

Is the tree of good and evil suppossed to represent an evolutionary stage of development? If Adam is not real, why did Christ refer to him as if he were a real person?

Just a few thoughts.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tom of Assisi:

Darwin created his specific theory of evolution to provide a natural explanation for how life arose and developed on the Earth on its own. His creation of **natural **selection removes God as an agent from the origins of human life.

No. Darwin developed his theory to provide an explanation of how life DEVELOPED on earth. How life AROSE on earth is a separate issue.

There are scientists who think life arose through the chemical reactions created by natural processes in the early history of earth. There is, however, no body of evidence to support this, and experiments are inconclusive (and will remain that why – unless someone actually creates life in the lab.)

But neigher Darwin nor the scientists working on how life was created are any threat to the Catholic Church. To address the key point in this thread (Is evolution refuting Catholicism?) – evolution cannot refute Catholicism. Science poses no threat to our faith – although it does to Fundamentalism.

 

[PhilVaz]

durel << Face facts. Evolution is so stupid that only man’s sinful pride could account for it. And man’s sinful pride is not a theory, but a constant everyday fact. >>

Evolution is only so stupid when you are so dense. The links I provided demonstrate the reptile and avian (bird) features of these creatures. They are transitional fossils by any meaningful definition. Archaeopteryx is not a hoax, there are 8 specimens with very well defined reptile and bird characteristics both. Again transitional fossils. Not to mention thousands of reptile-mammal intermediates, the evolution of whales from land mammals, horses, elephants, the entire vertebrate sequence I’ve summarized here.

You are confusing origin of life, with biological evolution which deals with the development of life once its here. Don’t confuse the two, and you won’t be confused.

You are confusing Archaeoraptor with Archaeopteryx. There are plenty of transitional reptile-birds. You and that apologetics creationist site are wrong.

You haven’t pointed out any real arguments against evolution other than the “argument from incredulity” which is – Evolution can’t be right since “I don’t believe it.” Now end this thread please.

The evidence for macroevolution is quite strong. And make sure you read that genetics-DNA errors and plagiarism article I linked above. If that’s not good evidence I don’t know what is. And No, I don’t have to answer all your questions, just the easy ones.

Phil P

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

dcdurel:

Unfortunately that was the problem with Einstein and other famous physicists who would not accept the expanding universe for years and years. It was only because the inventor of the big bang theory, a Catholic priest, accepted God that he came up with the theory. It was only because Einstein and others rejected God at first that they would not accept the theory. It was resisted for years and years, despite the overwhelming evidence, because of their prior assumption that one must exclude God.

You are making the same assumption. If you exclude God, then you are not being open minded. You are being closed minded.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church has never taught error. The Church has always claimed that truth. Yet, you have obviously blindly believed the Chuch taught error in regards to Galileo, etc. If you were more open and investigated the Church’s claims, you would see the Church taught nothing about Galileo.
For the only teaching authority in the Catholic Church is the Pope and those few bishops in union with the Pope. And the Pope never taught a thing about Galileo, when using his divine teaching authority as head of the Church.
It was some theologians who had errors about Galileo. Theologians are not part of the teaching authority of the Church.

Are you serious? Einstein rejected it through first observation. Christians gererally say that the universe needs a creator, which is false. It’s most likely like:
(1) Whatever begins has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

You might interpet that cause as the creation.

So since God has no beginning you do not believe he had to have a cause. So I will show you how it is possible how the universe need not have had a beginning and indeed could also very well be partially outside of time. Lets take a look, shall we?

While (1) can be challenged on a number of fronts, let me just mention one rebuttal that has been made from physics. Quantum electrodynamics is a fifty-year-old theory of the interactions of electrons and photons that has made successful predictions to accuracies as great as twelve significant figures. Fundamental to that theory is the spontaneous appearance of electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs for brief periods of time, literally out of “nothing.” Thus we have a counter example to statement (1), something that begins without cause.

For this purpose, it should be adequate for me to provide a scenario in which the universe occupies both halves of the time axis. I do not feel compelled to prove that this scenario is true, just show how this is possible within the framework of existing knowledge.

My scenario is provided by inflationary big bang cosmology. Most creations and evolutionists both agree that the big bang is strongly supported by astronomical observations. Inflation remains less firmly established, but remains the only current theory that successfully explains a wide range of observations. Furthermore, the model is falsifiable, and so maintains good scientific credentials. Indeed, with the 1992 COBE observation of a 1/100,000 fluctuation in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, inflation passed at least one risky falsification test.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

(continued)

Suppose the universe was at some point in time completely empty of matter, radiation, or energy of any type. It was about as nothing as nothing can be, a void. Physicists can still describe the void in terms of general relativity. It is completely flat geometrically, with space and time axes that run from minus infinity to plus infinity. Anything else and matter, radiation, or spacetime curvature would have to exist and this universe would no longer be a void. In the absence of matter and radiation, Einstein’s equations of general relativity yield the de Sitter solution, which simply expresses the curvature of space as proportional to the cosmological constant. When the universe is flat, this term is zero and the equation then reads: 0 = 0. This denotes the void.

This is the way things would have stayed were it not for quantum mechanics, which we can also apply to an empty void. The uncertainty principle allows for the spontaneous, uncaused appearance of energy in a small region of space without violating energy conservation . If that energy appears as matter (that is, rest energy) or radiation (kinetic energy of massless particles like photons), then it will have to disappear in a short time interval to maintain energy conservation. This can be expected to happen randomly throughout the spacetime void, with no significant permanent result.
However, another possibility exists that can lead to a quite significant and permanent result. The fluctuation energy can appear instead as spacetime curvature within this tiny region, which is called a “bubble of false vacuum.” This bubble still contains no matter or radiation, but is no longer a “true vacuum” because of the curvature, as expressed by a non-zero cosmological constant. According to the de Sitter solution, the bubble will expand exponentially in what is called inflation.

The energy density is constant for a brief interval of time. As the volume of the bubble increases exponentially during that interval, the energy contained within also increases exponentially. Although the first law of thermodynamics may seem to be violated, it is not. The pressure is negative and the bubble does work on itself as it expands. By the time it has inflated to the size of a proton, in perhaps 10 42 second, the bubble contains sufficient energy to produce all the matter in the visible universe today. Frictional processes bring inflation to a halt, particle production begins, and the familiar Hubble expansion of the big bang takes over.

We can label as t = 0 the time at which the initial quantum fluctuation takes place. The expansion then proceeds on the positive side of the t-axis, as defined by the increasing entropy on that side. As first suggested a century ago, the direction of time is by definition the direction in which the entropy of the bubble universe increases.

Now, what about the negative side of the t-axis, the other half dimension? If we look at Einstein’s equations, nothing forbids an expansion in that direction as well. Physicists usually simply ignore that solution because most share prejudice, expressed above, that time “proceeds only and always forward.” But the equations of classical or quantum physics, including those of general relativity, make no fundamental distinction between the two time directions. Where that distinction appears, it is put in by hand as a boundary condition.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

(cont…)

However, a completely time-symmetric solution of Einstein’s equations for the vacuum will give exponential inflation on both sides of the time axis, proceeding away from t = 0 where the initial quantum fluctuation was located. This implies the existence of another part of our universe, separated from our present part along the time axis. From our point of view, that part is in our deep past, exponentially deflating to the void prior to the quantum fluctuation that then grew to our current universe. However, from the point of view of an observer in the universe at that time, their future is into our past–the direction of increasing entropy on that side of the axis. They would experience a universe expanding into their future, just as we experience one expanding into our future.

Would these different parts of the universe be identical, kind of mirror images of each other? Not unless physics is completely deterministic, which we do not believe to be the case. The two parts would more likely be two very different worlds, each expanding in its own merry way, filled with all the other random events that lead to the evolution of galaxies, stars, and perhaps some totally different kind of life.

This scenario also serves to explain why we experience such a large asymmetry in time, while our basic equations do not exhibit an asymmetry at all. Fundamentally, the universe as a whole is time-symmetric, running all the way from minus eternity to plus eternity with no preferred direction, no “arrow” of time. Indeed, the whole notion of beginning is meaningless in a time-symmetric universe. And, without a beginning, the kaläm cosmological argument for a creator fails because of the failure of step (2)

I have described a scenario for an infinite, eternal, and symmetric universe that had no beginning. The quantum fluctuation occurs at one particular spatial point in an infinite void. Obviously it could have happened elsewhere in this void as well. This multiple universe scenario is exactly what is suggested by the chaotic inflationary model of Andre Linde. While multiple universes are not required to deflate the kaläm argument, they can be used to provide a scenario by which the so-called anthropic coincidences may have arisen naturally. Again, this scenario cannot be proven, just presented as a possibility that provides a non-supernatural alternative to the theistic creation. Thanks to the works of Strenger for a good portion of this…

Indeed it seems complex but again what do you expect when you talk about something as complex as the universe? It’s more than the ol’ “big guy in the sky” stuff.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

dcdurel:

you were more open and investigated the Church’s claims, you would see the Church taught nothing about Galileo.
For the only teaching authority in the Catholic Church is the Pope and those few bishops in union with the Pope. And the Pope never taught a thing about Galileo, when using his divine teaching authority as head of the Church.
It was some theologians who had errors about Galileo. Theologians are not part of the teaching authority of the Church.

The Church taught nothing about Galileo huh? Galileo was actually summoned to the inquisition after the pope had a little childish fit when he read Galileo’s book. It wasn’t until 1992 that the Vatican finally swollowed their pride and admitted Galileo was right. So the Church literally “taught error” for about a 400 years.

 

[clmowry]

Led Zeppelin75:

The Church taught nothing about Galileo huh? Galileo was actually summoned to the inquisition after the pope had a little childish fit when he read Galileo’s book. It wasn’t until 1992 that the Vatican finally swollowed their pride and admitted Galileo was right. So the Church literally “taught error” for about a 400 years.

Galileo was right? The sun is the center of the universe? And the tides are caused by the Earths rotation?

Chuck

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

clmowry:

Galileo was right? The sun is the center of the universe? And the tides are caused by the Earths rotation?

Chuck

Oh, wise guy, huh. What I was refrring to is the heliocentric theory. And the fact that the PLANETS of our solar system revolve around the sun. And the Church taught that was wrong for almost 400 years.

 

[clmowry]

Led Zeppelin75:

Oh, wise guy, huh. What I was refrring to is the heliocentric theory. And the fact that the PLANETS of our solar system revolve around the sun. And the Church taught that was wrong for almost 400 years.

Yeah I was being a wise guy. But then again, so were you!

But the Church taught neither Ptolemaic or Copernican astronomy. The “Church” doesn’t teach science. It teaches theologhy. i.e. It can’t be accused of teach anything wrong on either theory of astronomy.

Now I would concur that the chruch overreacted to Galileo’s breaking his promise not to puplicly proclaim Copernican astronomy as true.

This is probably the most overblown conflict in Church history.

Chuck

 

[Orogeny]

dcdurel:

Face facts. Evolution is so stupid that only man’s sinful pride could account for it. And man’s sinful pride is not a theory, but a constant everyday fact.

Let’s see. Evolution = man’s sinful pride. Man’s sinful pride = constant everyday fact. Therefore, evolution = constant everyday fact!

Bingo!

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

PhilVaz:

durel << Face facts. Evolution is so stupid that only man’s sinful pride could account for it. And man’s sinful pride is not a theory, but a constant everyday fact. >>

Hey, Phil.

I think this is a waste of time. Ignorance such as this is willful, not accidental. I appreciate and respect anyone who is searching for answers and comes to the conclusion that evolution is not valid, but intentional ignorance will never be worth an attempt to correct.

Peace

Tim

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

clmowry:

. The “Church” doesn’t teach science.

True, now it dosen’t, but back in the days of Galileo it did. The official Church teaching was that of the geocentric theory. And those who didn’t accept the geocentric theory were considered “heritics”. Those who experssed belief in the heliocentric theory were typically pusished by the Inquesition. Galileo had to make up a repentece in order to stay alive. But he was never a free man again.

Today, the Church dosen’t teach science becasue they can’t. If they did, there is a possiblity they would be wrong. They would be proven wrong and will lose a lot of adhearents. It’s power scheme.

 

[clmowry]

Led Zeppelin75:

True, now it dosen’t, but back in the days of Galileo it did. The official Church teaching was that of the geocentric theory. And those who didn’t accept the geocentric theory were considered “heritics”. Those who experssed belief in the heliocentric theory were typically pusished by the Inquesition. Galileo had to make up a repentece in order to stay alive. But he was never a free man again.

Today, the Church dosen’t teach science becasue they can’t. If they did, there is a possiblity they would be wrong. They would be proven wrong and will lose a lot of adhearents. It’s power scheme.

Show me where the church taught science.

If you want to accuse the church of censoring which scientific thoughts were theologically acceptable, then I can buy into that. (i.e. the church’s position on evolution discussed in this thread.) But that is not the same as “teaching science.”

Now granted many universities were of Catholic origin and many scientist are and were Catholic’s, but that doesn’t mean the Church taught scince either.

On this one I’ll have to be from Missouri, If they taught science, I’d like to see a copy of the text book please.

Chuck

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

clmowry:

Show me where the church taught science.

If you want to accuse the church of censoring which scientific thoughts were theologically acceptable, then I can buy into that. (i.e. the church’s position on evolution discussed in this thread.) But that is not the same as “teaching science.”

Now granted many universities were of Catholic origin and many scientist are and were Catholic’s, but that doesn’t mean the Church taught scince either.

On this one I’ll have to be from Missouri, If they taught science, I’d like to see a copy of the text book please.

Chuck

Chuck,

In almost any history textbook you’ll find something that says Galileo was tried for heresy before the inquisition, or that the Church had doctrines for some science. The Church has attempted to explain some things but never got it right. People would gererally expect that an institution founded by God would be able to teach science. So they did, or at least tried to. When a scientist came along and proved a Church theory wrong they would persecute the scientist and basically say to the people “they come from the devil, don’t listen to them!!!”. This was done so they could retain followers, and for no other real reason.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Led Zeppelin75:

Chuck,

In almost any history textbook you’ll find something that says Galileo was tried for heresy before the inquisition, or that the Church had doctrines for some science.QUOTE]

Galilieo was indeed tried for heresy, but the heresy was not his science, but the inferences he drew from it (the classic being that the Bible was in error saying Joshua made the sun stand still.)

The controversy had gone on for a long time (Cardinal Belarmino was dead.) Galilieo had made enemies (most notably by ridiculing other scientists who had studies comets by saying comets were optical illusions – something he knew to be false.)

When a new Pope – whom he hoped would be an ally – was elected, he tried to push his issues. The Pope would not be used like that, and Galilieo paid the consequences.

 

[clmowry]

Led Zeppelin75:

Chuck,

In almost any history textbook you’ll find something that says Galileo was tried for heresy before the inquisition, or that the Church had doctrines for some science. The Church has attempted to explain some things but never got it right. People would gererally expect that an institution founded by God would be able to teach science. So they did, or at least tried to. When a scientist came along and proved a Church theory wrong they would persecute the scientist and basically say to the people “they come from the devil, don’t listen to them!!!”. This was done so they could retain followers, and for no other real reason.

Galileo went before the inquisition? Yes.

The Church taught science? No.

I believe you are mistaken and overstate your case.

I would also submit that you are mistaken about why Galileo was brought before the inquistion and why he was “imprisioned”

Again, Show me the “data.”

If you don’t want too. Or don’t have time too. Fine. But I’m not going to concede the point because you say “almost any history book says…the church had doctrine on science”.

Show me the data that supports that the claim that the Church proposed scientific theories and then persecuted those who disagreed with its science.

Chuck

 

[RSiscoe]

Vern:

Galilieo was indeed tried for heresy, but the heresy was not his science, but the inferences he drew from it (the classic being that the Bible was in error saying Joshua made the sun stand still.)

Interesting. Galileo was tried for heresy for claiming that a historical fact from the Bible was in error? I find that very interesting, and informative as to the Churches understanding of the infallibility of the Bible, don’t you?

 

[RSiscoe]

Led Zeppelin75:

Chuck,

In almost any history textbook you’ll find something that says Galileo was tried for heresy before the inquisition, or that the Church had doctrines for some science. The Church has attempted to explain some things but never got it right. People would gererally expect that an institution founded by God would be able to teach science. So they did, or at least tried to. When a scientist came along and proved a Church theory wrong they would persecute the scientist and basically say to the people “they come from the devil, don’t listen to them!!!”. This was done so they could retain followers, and for no other real reason.

Actually, that is not right. The problem was not that he believed and taught that the earth revolved around the sun, but that the Bible contained errors. Others much earlier than Galileo had discussed this possibility. One of them was St. Thomas Aquinas who is known as one of the Churches greatest theologians.

Again, Galileo was not condemned for teaching that the earth revolved around the sun, but for claiming that the Bible had errors. If anyone tells you otherwise they are not being honest.

It is true than many people disagreed with Galileo’s science, and thought he was wrong, but that is not why he was condemned.