Evolution refuting catholicism?

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic2003:

Here, Q is something like irreducible complexity. A generation ago, evolution was having trouble explaning P, e.g., the lack of a mechanism that can cause large scale mutations in the DNA structure. Now we know several such mechanisms, and I’m sure in another generation, there will be an explanation for irreducible complexity.

The problem is, irreducible complexity doesn’t exist. The evolution of complex organs like the eye and the ear is well understood – although a century ago, it wasn’t.

Take the eye – some life forms developed a sensitivity to light. That was a survival advantage. Concentration of the light-sensing cells in a spot or two was another advantage. When the cell became slightly cup-shaped, the organism had the capability of directional light sensing, another advantage. As the cup deepened, the primitive eye formed. And in fact, you can find creatures with almost every step in the development of the eye living today.

The development of the ear follows a similar progression.

 

[dcdurel]

Orogeny:

dcduel,

Since you don’t seem to be able to respond to the technical criticisms of your posts, let’s just get to the bottom line.

I have stated in several posts what my faith is. I have also made it clear that I accept evolution as factual based on the evidence. Now, tell me.

1. 
   *] Am I a godless athiest with the intent of driving God out of all parts of our lives?
   *]Am I going to hell because I accept the insurmountable evidence of evolution?
   *]Did God leave this evidence and give me the intellect to understand it and recognize it as a way to trick me?
   
   These are all single word (yes or no) answers. You don’t even have to do any quote mining to do it. I want YOUR opinion for a change.
   Peace
   Tim

1. 
   I am not judging you or where you are going. I am discussing the well known, well documented problems with evolution that the best evolutionists admit. Lets not evade the problems of evolution by going off the subject into what I think about you, or your future, etc. Lets not evade the problem by associating every problem of evolution with fundamentalists, implying all fundamentalists are wrong, therefore the contradictions of evolution are without merit. Lets not evade the problem by saying “all scientists believe in evolution”, when of course they don’t.
   I am pointing out the well known, well documented problems with the Darwinian theory of evolution, two of which are:
   1. The well known lack of fossil evidence. This is admitted by the best evolutionists, such as Gould, and others.
   2. The lack of continuum.
   Those who promote evolution, simply evade the problems.
   
   As for the lack of fossil evidence, they either make up proposals which always fall apart, or they admit the truth, such as Gould did.
   Yet, when objective people point out that the best evolutionists admit the lack of fossil evidence, instead of admitting the problem, they will say, “well Gould and these other evolutionists still believe in evolution anyway”
   
   How does that solve the problem? The theory is supposed to be based on evidence. Evidence that does not exist. Just because Gould still believes in evolution it does not solve the problem. It evades the problem. Evades, evades evades.
   
   As a Catholic I can believe in some form of evolution as long as I believe that God infused a soul into Adam and Eve.
   
   I used to blindly believe the theory of Darwinian evolution.
   That was until I noticed that every single example of evolution I learned in the past was a fraud, fake or false. Every single one. And I noticed that ardent evolutionists, as Gould, admitted that lack of fossil evidence. I learned even from athiests, that animals and plants can only change a certain amount, then they become sterile or revert back to type. I learned that evolutionists can’t even begin to explain birds from reptiles.
   Legs would have to become useless, before they became useful wings, and that cannot be explained by evolution. Evolution cannot explain the developement of feathers, which are extremely complex. If needed for warmth, hairs would be tremendously more evolutionary efficient. Somehow if they did develope, the correct feathers in the correct places, the animal would have to develope an extremely complex nervous system, very specific muscles, hollow bones, specialized lungs, all at the same time. In other words, birds are irriducibly complex. They cannot develope from reptiles. That is why there are no intermediate fossils. That is why they will never find intermediate fossils.

 

[dcdurel]

Not only are their no intermediate fossils between phyla, there are no intermediate fossils between species. Typically a species will appear suddenly. Hundreds and thousands of fossils of this species will be found. Then it will disappear, without evolving into something else. This happens over and over and over. This cannot be explained by evolution.
I remember reading in Scientific American, years ago, when some young woman spent years studying a particular species of dinosaur. She thought it was odd that this species appeared suddenly, without intermediate species evolving into it, then it suddenly dissappeared from the fossil record.

Poor thing. She spent her life up to that point studing a species with the idea that it had evolved from a previous species. She thought her species was an odd case. She did not know that this is the rule with all species. She had been misled by evolutionists. Do you expect me to think highly of evolutionists after they did this to her?

There should be a continuum between living species, according to the theory of evolution. Thus, we should not find only two elephant species, we should find thousands of closely related species still living today , all adapted to different enviroments, with gradual changes from the earliest, to the present, and still changing to what will be in the future. We have none.

The problems go on and on and on. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

If you don’t know about these problems, it is because you refuse to find out. They are everywhere.

And the origin of life can ONLY be explained by intelligent design. THERE IS NO OTHER SANE LOGICAL POSSIBILITY.

If so, please explain.

I know, evade, evade, evade,

“We don’t discuss the origin of life” (meaning lets evade the issue, because to discuss it would have to admit intelligent design)

“Well, the best scientists still believe in evolution”
(Lets not discuss the problems, but evade the issue, by using popular vote to make evolution true. )

“Evolution is a fact”
(meaning lets not discuss the problems why it cannot be a fact)

“all animals show similarities, DNA, etc, therefore they must have evolved” (How does that prove Darwinian evolution which specifies evolution by chance alone, without intelligent design? After all, golf clubs show similarities, and they never evolved by chance)

“You are calling me an athiest”

(meaning, lets not discuss the problems of evolution, but lets evade the problems by discussing what I supposedly believe about you)

Now, if your really don’t want to evade the issue, please explain reasonably how life could start from chance.
Lets not evade the issue. Evolutionist have tried and tried and tried and tried for years to come up with a theory and failed, failed, failed.

So how do they solve the prolbem?

Evade, evade, evade, and claim we are NOW only concerned with the evolution of life after it has started.

Would they be concerned with the origin of life if they had even a remotely reasonable theory? Of course. They would drive it into the ground, repeat it over and over, claim it is a fact over and over, claim all scientists believe it over and over, assert that only fundamentalists don’t believe it, assert that only the ignorant don’t believe it, etc. etc.,

I am sorry, evolutionists to me are just as credible as those who believe Jesus Christ founded the Protestant religion.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

dcdurel:

And the origin of life can ONLY be explained by intelligent design. THERE IS NO OTHER SANE LOGICAL POSSIBILITY.

“Evolution is a fact”
(meaning lets not discuss the problems why it cannot be a fact)

“all animals show similarities, DNA, etc, therefore they must have evolved” (How does that prove Darwinian evolution which specifies evolution by chance alone, without intelligent design? After all, golf clubs show similarities, and they never evolved by chance)

“You are calling me an athiest”

(meaning, lets not discuss the problems of evolution, but lets evade the problems by discussing what I supposedly believe about you)

Now, if your really don’t want to evade the issue, please explain reasonably how life could start from chance.
Lets not evade the issue. Evolutionist have tried and tried and tried and tried for years to come up with a theory and failed, failed, failed.

So how do they solve the prolbem?

Evade, evade, evade, and claim we are NOW only concerned with the evolution of life after it has started.

Would they be concerned with the origin of life if they had even a remotely reasonable theory? Of course. They would drive it into the ground, repeat it over and over, claim it is a fact over and over, claim all scientists believe it over and over, assert that only fundamentalists don’t believe it, assert that only the ignorant don’t believe it, etc. etc.,

I am sorry, evolutionists to me are just as credible as those who believe Jesus Christ founded the Protestant religion.

Intresting post. I am also curious to hear from the “Evolution is science, and the Catholic Church accepts science” crowd: Did God purposely cause each of those billions of beneficial mutations to occur in living reproductive cells–thus personally guiding evolution for billions of years, or instead did he create the natural laws at the beginning of time, and then stand back and let the chips fall where they may?

I am curious what the disciples of the scientific process have to say. What does science (and therefore the faith) tell us about that?

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Orogeny:

dcduel,

Am I going to hell because I accept the insurmountable evidence of evolution?
Did God leave this evidence and give me the intellect to understand it and recognize it as a way to trick me?

Peace

Tim

I know this post was not directed at me, but I am curious what scientific research you have done regarding anthropology, genetics, or biology. In your research, what facts of evolution have you recognized? Are your papers posted on the net, so students or interested people can read them?

Do you teach at UT Houston? I have a friend who’s an anthro major there. MAybe she’s in one of your classes.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

vern humphrey:

Don’t play the fool. Thre Church’s position is that there is no conflict between science and religion, and that those areas where the Church has concerns (such as the soul) are outside the realm of science.

Given that you are the one advancing the positive issue, the burden of proof is on you to show that they ARE objective.

We have seen many posts in this thread, however, that quote respected scientists who have concluded that they are not objective.

Again, don’t play the fool. Behe et al are NOT authorized by the Church to teach theology.

Well considering how much specific knowledge you seem to have, I was expecting an actual answer from you to his questions. Instead you responded twice by saying he’s a fool. I think you have said that to me occasionally too. I cannot begin to explain just how persuasive that is: The Church accepts science: if you don’t accept science you are a fool.

The students (fools) in your science classes must love your wit.

You are mistaken to suggest that the Church’s concerns are outside the realm of scientific observation. Some are to be sure: many aren’t. The Church is quite neutral on rushing to accept/reject any scientific theories. So far they have shown a lot more wisdom than you. The Church has not accepted evolution (which the atheists have accepted) as a cosmology, nor have they accepted creationism ala (the foolish) fundamentalists.

let me begin your response for you: “Tom, don’t play the fool”–translation “Tom, you are obviously a hick for not rushing to judgement on this issue like me.”

Of course I know you rush to judgement because so are so darn smart.

 

[Orogeny]

dcdurel:

I am not judging you or where you are going. I am discussing the well known, well documented problems with evolution that the best evolutionists admit. Lets not evade the problems of evolution by going off the subject into what I think about you, or your future, etc. Lets not evade the problem by associating every problem of evolution with fundamentalists, implying all fundamentalists are wrong, therefore the contradictions of evolution are without merit. Lets not evade the problem by saying “all scientists believe in evolution”, when of course they don’t.

I didn’t think you would respond with one word answers as I requested.

I am pointing out the well known, well documented problems with the Darwinian theory of evolution, two of which are:

1. The well known lack of fossil evidence. This is admitted by the best evolutionists, such as Gould, and others.

Your information is wrong. A quote from Gould:

“The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. It in fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism. …] Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record. All major theories of speciation maintain that splitting takes place rapidly in very small populations. The theory of geographic, or allopatric, speciation is preferred by most evolutionists for most situations (allopatric means ‘in another place’). A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare—as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.
“What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale.”

— “The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change,” The Panda’s Thumb, New York: W. W. Norton, 1980, pp. 182-184.

-continued in the next post

Peace

Tim

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tom of Assisi:

Well considering how much specific knowledge you seem to have, I was expecting an actual answer from you to his questions. Instead you responded twice by saying he’s a fool. I think you have said that to me occasionally too. I cannot begin to explain just how persuasive that is: The Church accepts science: if you don’t accept science you are a fool.

The students (fools) in your science classes must love your wit…

There’s a snotty post for you!
Tom of Assisi:

You are mistaken to suggest that the Church’s concerns are outside the realm of scientific observation. Some are to be sure: many aren’t. The Church is quite neutral on rushing to accept/reject any scientific theories. .

And they don’t rush to accept non-scientific Fundamentalist approaches, like Creation Science or Intelligent Design
Tom of Assisi:

So far they have shown a lot more wisdom than you. The Church has not accepted evolution (which the atheists have accepted) as a cosmology, nor have they accepted creationism ala (the foolish) fundamentalists…

Nor have they accepted Intellitgent Design a la (the foolish) fundamentalists.
Tom of Assisi:

let me begin your response for you: “Tom, don’t play the fool”–translation “Tom, you are obviously a hick for not rushing to judgement on this issue like me.”

Of course I know you rush to judgement because so are so darn smart.

Even snottier.

May I suggest you drop the “of Assisi” from your handle? Your approach is nothing like that of Francis of Assisi.

 

[Orogeny]

-continued from previous post

dcdurel:

1. The lack of continuum.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html

Those who promote evolution, simply evade the problems.

Your problems have been addressed in previous posts. Here is a link that addresses most if not all of your problems.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

As for the lack of fossil evidence, they either make up proposals which always fall apart, or they admit the truth, such as Gould did.

Debunked in the previous post. Will you now retract that statement?

Yet, when objective people point out that the best evolutionists admit the lack of fossil evidence, instead of admitting the problem, they will say, “well Gould and these other evolutionists still believe in evolution anyway”

Again, debunked in the previous post. Will you now retract that statement?

How does that solve the problem? The theory is supposed to be based on evidence. Evidence that does not exist. Just because Gould still believes in evolution it does not solve the problem. It evades the problem. Evades, evades evades.

Wrong. But you already know that anyway.

As a Catholic I can believe in some form of evolution as long as I believe that God infused a soul into Adam and Eve.

Agreed.

I used to blindly believe the theory of Darwinian evolution.
That was until I noticed that every single example of evolution I learned in the past was a fraud, fake or false. Every single one.

Wrong

And I noticed that ardent evolutionists, as Gould, admitted that lack of fossil evidence.

Disproved in the previous post. Will you now retract that statement?

I learned even from athiests, that animals and plants can only change a certain amount, then they become sterile or revert back to type. I learned that evolutionists can’t even begin to explain birds from reptiles.
Legs would have to become useless, before they became useful wings, and that cannot be explained by evolution. Evolution cannot explain the developement of feathers, which are extremely complex. If needed for warmth, hairs would be tremendously more evolutionary efficient. Somehow if they did develope, the correct feathers in the correct places, the animal would have to develope an extremely complex nervous system, very specific muscles, hollow bones, specialized lungs, all at the same time. In other words, birds are irriducibly complex. They cannot develope from reptiles. That is why there are no intermediate fossils. That is why they will never find intermediate fossils.

Wrong.

Peace

Tim

 

[vern_humphrey]

Orogeny:

Your problems have been addressed in previous posts. Here is a link that addresses most if not all of your problems.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Peace

Tim

These people hate science. And if there’s one thing I learned, nothing makes a hater madder that someone else who won’t hate.

 

[Orogeny]

dcdurel:

Not only are their no intermediate fossils between phyla, there are no intermediate fossils between species. Typically a species will appear suddenly. Hundreds and thousands of fossils of this species will be found. Then it will disappear, without evolving into something else. This happens over and over and over. This cannot be explained by evolution.

Yes it can.

I remember reading in Scientific American, years ago, when some young woman spent years studying a particular species of dinosaur. She thought it was odd that this species appeared suddenly, without intermediate species evolving into it, then it suddenly dissappeared from the fossil record.

Poor thing. She spent her life up to that point studing a species with the idea that it had evolved from a previous species. She thought her species was an odd case. She did not know that this is the rule with all species. She had been misled by evolutionists. Do you expect me to think highly of evolutionists after they did this to her?

How touching!

There should be a continuum between living species, according to the theory of evolution. Thus, we should not find only two elephant species, we should find thousands of closely related species still living today , all adapted to different enviroments, with gradual changes from the earliest, to the present, and still changing to what will be in the future. We have none.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html

If you don’t know about these problems, it is because you refuse to find out. They are everywhere.

You mean, like at Answers in Genesis?

And the origin of life can ONLY be explained by intelligent design.

Agreed.

If so, please explain.

Explain what?

I know, evade, evade, evade,

Some evasion, huh.

“We don’t discuss the origin of life” (meaning lets evade the issue, because to discuss it would have to admit intelligent design)
Give me a scientific way to detect God and I will show you a natural God, not a supernatural God.

“Well, the best scientists still believe in evolution”
(Lets not discuss the problems, but evade the issue, by using popular vote to make evolution true. )

Or, in your case, let’s stick our head in the sand and ignore all the evidence God has left for us.

“Evolution is a fact”
(meaning lets not discuss the problems why it cannot be a fact)

Evolution is a fact. Please, let’s discuss the scientific reasons it isn’t a fact.

“all animals show similarities, DNA, etc, therefore they must have evolved” (How does that prove Darwinian evolution which specifies evolution by chance alone, without intelligent design? After all, golf clubs show similarities, and they never evolved by chance)

Chance alone? Oh, I thought you wanted to discuss evolution. My bad.

“You are calling me an athiest”

(meaning, lets not discuss the problems of evolution, but lets evade the problems by discussing what I supposedly believe about you)

Evade, evade, evade…

Now, if your really don’t want to evade the issue, please explain reasonably how life could start from chance.

It didn’t.

Lets not evade the issue. Evolutionist have tried and tried and tried and tried for years to come up with a theory and failed, failed, failed.

How would you know?

So how do they solve the prolbem?

Evade, evade, evade, and claim we are NOW only concerned with the evolution of life after it has started.

Again, I thought you wanted to discuss evolution, not abiogenesis.

I am sorry, evolutionists to me are just as credible as those who believe Jesus Christ founded the Protestant religion.

So, why are you trying to hold a discussion with us un-credible people?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Tom of Assisi:

I know this post was not directed at me, but I am curious what scientific research you have done regarding anthropology, genetics, or biology.

None. I am a geologist.

In your research, what facts of evolution have you recognized? Are your papers posted on the net, so students or interested people can read them?

None. No papers posted on the net.

Do you teach at UT Houston? I have a friend who’s an anthro major there. MAybe she’s in one of your classes.

Do you mean the University of Houston? No, I am not in academia.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

vern humphrey:

These people hate science. And if there’s one thing I learned, nothing makes a hater madder that someone else who won’t hate.

Well, I refuse to hate anyone just because they disagree with me.

Peace

Tim

 

[vern_humphrey]

Orogeny:

Well, I refuse to hate anyone just because they disagree with me.

Peace

Tim

So do I – but their goal is to get YOU to hate science and scientists.

Note how vociferously they claim ID is not Fundmentalism – and yet every argument they use to “refute” evolution is straight out of the Fundamentalist playbook.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and associates with ducks . . . http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Orogeny]

vern humphrey:

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and associates with ducks . . . http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

It’s a duck?

Peace

Tim

 

[vern_humphrey]

Orogeny:

It’s a duck?

Peace

Tim

It’s a duck – and all those Fundy arguments are duck eggs.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[rossum]

dcdurel:

Not only are their no intermediate fossils between phyla

You are incorrect, there are intermediate fossils between phyla. google for Halkieria, Wiwaxia or Anomalocaris among others. For a general article on the subject by Glenn Morton see Transitional Forms and the Evolution of Phyla.
“The claim is often made in Christian circles that there is no evidence for phylum level evolution. Evidence, in the form of morphological similarities, is presented showing that transitional forms connecting phyla do exist. Specific morphological connections are examined which unite the lobopods, arthropods, brachiopods, molluscs, and annelids.”

You really do need to check your sources more thoroughly. You are providing incorrect information. This weakens your arguments which I am sure you would wish to avoid.

rossum

 

[SocaliCatholic]

dcdurel and buffalo,

You have done a great job in exposing the lie of evolution.

Here is a list of the clever angles and agendas that I have discovered. I know it will take some of the fun out of the debate by reducing the mystery, but it should protect innocent bystanders who dont know how the game is being played.

Angle:
Evolution is a fact
Agenda:
At what point, and by whom, had the authority do determine it as a fact

Angle:
Evolution is science
Agenda:
If evolution is science then why cant it stand on its own?
Why the need to refer to other legitimate disciplines such as biology and geology?

Angle:
You have to understand science to prove evolution is false.
Agenda:
Evolution is not science thus science it can be disproven outside science using reason a beacon of light.

Angle:
Creation vs. Evolution debate rages on and on
Agenda:
Evolution is not science thus not elegantly proven relative to a theorem in mathematics, or law in physics

Angle:
Link to infallible TalkOrigins
Agenda:
If we didnt obfuscate the truth enough already, here is a link to add more unneccessary complexity to hide the truth.

Angle:
SocaliCatholic doesn’t like evolutionists
Agenda:
SocaliCatholic can seperate the person and the theory: he loves both the evolutionist and science, but hates the lie of evolution itself.

 

[RobbyS]

twf:

I think we need to remember that Divine Revelation can not be wrong. If the theories of man suggests that we have not descended from one man and one woman, then their interpretation of the data is simply wrong. That is an important point: interpretation. Facts are facts…but when it comes to historical science, one must interpret the facts. It is impossible to prove that macroevolution has occured. What scientists do is look at the facts, and try to compose a theory that best explains all the data. I know most people would laugh at me in todays society for saying such a thing…but I am a creationist myself…and I believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution only because the evidence is being interpreted within a pre-conceived framework of billions of years and evolution.
Check out answersingenesis.org and especially answersingenesis.org/home/area/about.asp, which includes links to a couple introductory articles that explain this issue. Creationists, at least the ones at organizations like AiG and ICR, don’t try to pit a pile of ‘evidence for creation’ against another pile of ‘evidence for evolution’…they simply interpret the evidence within the framework of a recent, special creation. I strongly believe that, despite what many on this forum will tell you, if one looks at what creationists actually say, the evidence does fit very well with the creation model. There are always new developments in the creation model as well…such as catostrophic plate tectonics, but I’ll let you do your own investigation.

In Christ,
Tyler

Genesis, at least according to Catholic theologians, says that the universe was created from nothing and that life was developed in stages, ending with the creation of man from the earth. Only in the 20th century has science confirmed this revelation with the big bang theory. So far as the development of liofe is concerned, the evidence shows that life began with a structure and likewise intelligence. Even the evolutionists have got away from a gradualism. Punctured evolution allows the sudden appearance of new species. Hence the notion of several human species is not necessarily the case

 

[redeemed1]

Your own pope is condoning the evolution thing so what are you saying. So who is right? Do you believe God in Genesis or the RCC?

Romans 3:3-4 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.