Evolution refuting catholicism?

[Orogeny]

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

Angle: Not by SocaliCatholic, so it must not be true.

**

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: Thus sayeth SocaliCatholic, so it must be true.

**

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: See previous Angle.

**

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: See previous Angle.

**

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 understand it, so it must not be true.

**

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.**
Angle: No angle needed.

Peace

Tim

 

[wanerious]

dcdurel and buffalo,

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

In what manner? By repeating those statements shown to be untrue? I consider dcdurel to be intellectually dishonest. If this is your idea of a “great job”, we may have very little dialogue left.

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.

You are certainly the Rush Limbaugh of the forum, framing the debate in easy and casual terms.

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

This illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science. There is no governing body, no authority, other than Nature herself. Those statements claimed as fact are wide open for contrary discovery. Are descendant organisms not genetically different from each parent? This is the fact of evolution.

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?

Evolution is not a branch of science, but an emergent discovery developed from many independent areas of science. I don’t know what you could mean by “stand on its own”. These other disciplines lend supporting evidence.

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.

… and we’re still waiting for a single item of “disproof” to be proffered from this beacon of reason. Just one will do. The subject of whether evolution is science or not was debated some time ago and seemingly abandoned by you, only to be recycled in its original form again here. Are you willing to go around again, or what say you regarding the points made earlier?

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

What do you mean by “law in physics”? Which one? They are all theories, just like evolution.

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.

Now this is just a bad statement, and reflects poorly on you. If you really don’t understand something there, just say so and we’ll try to work it out. There are many things there I don’t understand, since I’m not a biologist by training. What about it is unnecessarily complex? What would you pare away to make it just the right amount of complex? Science can be a complicated business and demands some effort to understand. If you aren’t willing to put forth the effort, don’t honor your willing ignorance by smugly belittling an earnest explanation.

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.

Don’t hate what you don’t understand.

 

[dcdurel]

rossum:

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

Those are just speculations by people trying desparately to find evidence to fit the theory, just like a few years ago, they were all claiming dinosaurs evolved into birds, and they had transition fossils to prove it. Now all those have fallen by the wayside. This has been going on for centuries, all the phony ape men, the phony horse evolution, etc, etc. When will you realize that when well respected evolutionists like Gould and others admit there are no missing links in the fossil record, that they are telling the truth.

Here is what one writer said:

** Dr. Patterson, a well known and highly respected evolutionist, had just finished writing a book about evolution. Even though he believes in evolution, Dr. Patterson failed to illustrate any interspecific fossil forms. Dr. Patterson didn’t include any pictures of transitional fossils.**
** "I wrote to Dr. Patterson and asked him why he didn’t put a single picture of an intermediate form or a connecting link in his book on evolution. Dr. Patterson now, who has seven million fossils in his museum, said the following when he answered my letter: **

** ‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living, I certainly would have included it.… I will lay it on the line. There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.’"**

Another writer wrote:
"Dr. Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum, has been a respected evolutionary scientist for many years.

'True science involves a willingness to cast aside pre-conceived notions, the strength to stand up to peer pressure, and a commitment to follow the search for truth wherever it might lead. An historic demonstration of such science in action took place on November 5, 1981, when Dr. Colin Patterson spoke to over fifty classification specialists and guests at an open meeting at the American Museum of Natural History in New York,

Why was Dr. Patterson willing to express his anti-evolutionary or non-evolutionary views to the scientific community? Because, as he put it, he woke up one morning after twenty years of research on evolution and realized that there was not yet one thing he knew about evolution for sure. Shocked to learn that he had been misled so long, he asked other leaders in evolutionary thinking:
"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?"
In Chicago, his question was greeted only by** silence** from the geology staff at the Field Museum and at the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago. He received the same silence in reply everywhere he asked it."

Now, you make say that these are from Creationists web sites.
So what. They are quoting highly respected scientists in the evolutionary field, who still barely believe in evolution.

The fact is that I know there are no missing links in the fossil record because evolutionists themselves have been saying this for years. S. J. Gould, who died a while back, was a Harvard evolutionist, who admitted the same thing over and over. That is why he came up with the hopeful monster theory. I first read about him in Time magazine over 20 years ago. Time magazine is not a creationist publication.

Do lesser respected evolutionists come up with missing links from time to time? Of course, look at all the phony ape men, look at the phony bird fossils, which were just birds. In the end, these missing links always fall apart.

To be objective, you must look at both sides of the argument.

There are tons of facts disputing evolution.
The only response evolutionists ever give is, well, we can’t accept a creator, therefore evolution must be true.

 

[dcdurel]

For those who believe in evolution, you MUST understand the theory first. It proposes small mutations in each species would occur over thousands of generations, and the enviroment would select for the most adaptive of these to survive. Thus, there should always be a continuum of species.

Here is how one writer put it very well.
** Before we do that, however, let’s look at what we should see in the fossil record if Darwinian evolution is true. Classic evolution theory says that species gradually developed from previous species. In fact, the process was so slow, it would be impossible to p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly when a new species emerged. Each generation would possess infinitesimal differences from the previous generation. Only after several thousands, or even millions of generations, would one be able to recognize species differences. This is much like looking at a motion picture. Each frame captures a split second of time. If you look at each frame one at a time, it would be hard to recognize movement. There isn’t much change between frames. Only if you look at the frames in rapid succession do you see motion. This is what classical evolution says we should see in the fossil record. Fossils represent individual frames in the movie-of-life. As we discover more and more fossils, the frames in evolution’s progress, we should be able to piece them together into a film that shows how life evolved. Like the images on the individual frames in a film, the difference from one frame to the next ought to be too small to distinguish. Fossils should show such gradual changes that eventually we ought to have a fossil record with no exact boundaries between species. **

This is what honest evolutionists understand, that others don’t understand. And when they find no continuum in the fossil record, the honest ones like Gould and Dr. Colin Patterson admit that fact.

Do those who are evolutionists understand how continuous the fossil record would have to be? Are do you just blindly accept the theory because some people say it is true?

 

[dcdurel]

Orogeny:

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

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.

Tim

As one writer put it:
“Stephen Jay Gould explain away the missing gaps by evoking the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis. This popular loophole proposes that it is when species’ populations reach their lowest levels in the most isolated habitats that natural mutations work most efficiently to enable new species to emerge. Thus, new species appeared through brief episodes of relatively rapid mutations that occurred between long periods of stasis (hence, the lack of evidence for transitional species). The problem with this hypothesis is that it has no evidentiary basis. Contrary to the hypothesis, empirical evidence indicates that the odds of more advanced species appearing decreases in direct proportion to the number of mutations and the window of time allowed for mutations to occur. Recent research confirms that the smaller the population and habitat, the greater the likelihood of extinction.[[2]](file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/ADAMEVE…htm#_edn2) Other field studies have provided the first direct evidence that inbreeding brought about by habitat and population reduction is, quite literally, a dead end.”[[3]](file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/ADAMEVE…htm#_edn3)

 

[SocaliCatholic]

wanerious:

In what manner? By repeating those statements shown to be untrue? I consider dcdurel to be intellectually dishonest. If this is your idea of a “great job”, we may have very little dialogue left.

You are certainly the Rush Limbaugh of the forum, framing the debate in easy and casual terms.

This illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science. There is no governing body, no authority, other than Nature herself. Those statements claimed as fact are wide open for contrary discovery. Are descendant organisms not genetically different from each parent? This is the fact of evolution.

Evolution is not a branch of science, but an emergent discovery developed from many independent areas of science. I don’t know what you could mean by “stand on its own”. These other disciplines lend supporting evidence.

… and we’re still waiting for a single item of “disproof” to be proffered from this beacon of reason. Just one will do. The subject of whether evolution is science or not was debated some time ago and seemingly abandoned by you, only to be recycled in its original form again here. Are you willing to go around again, or what say you regarding the points made earlier?

What do you mean by “law in physics”? Which one? They are all theories, just like evolution.

Now this is just a bad statement, and reflects poorly on you. If you really don’t understand something there, just say so and we’ll try to work it out. There are many things there I don’t understand, since I’m not a biologist by training. What about it is unnecessarily complex? What would you pare away to make it just the right amount of complex? Science can be a complicated business and demands some effort to understand. If you aren’t willing to put forth the effort, don’t honor your willing ignorance by smugly belittling an earnest explanation.

Don’t hate what you don’t understand.

I win becuase I love you and not the lie of evolution.

 

[MaggieOH]

buffalo:

No matter what the theory of evolution shows cosmology has eclipsed it in the search for God. That is where to look as it deals with the whole universe not just origins on earth. It deals with the fundamental laws, those laws of which life depends on.

Don’t waste time with atheistic evolution arguments as they seem to be rapidly being discarded.

I am not a scientist, but I have no problem accepting certain aspects of the theory of evolution in terms of the Creation story in Genesis. I do not know what is meant by macroevolution so I will have to plead ignorance on that score.

From what I can see about this debate of evolution vs. creation, is that there is an element of black/white with no shades of grey that brings about a compromise and an increasing understanding of how the world was created out of a void by God, over a period of time.

The black/white issue is the acceptance of the notion that Creation occurred in a literal 6 days, rather than the 6 days representing periods of time over which the world evolved. The story of Creation is an explanation of Evolution that is told in very simple terms in order to satisfy the needs of primitive man, but it does not (and should not) include Darwin’s theory of man evolving from apes. I have not read of any substantial evidence, other than journalistic hype that man evolved from apes. I would think that man is a member of the same group of mammals, yet man is separate and distinct.

Whilst it is true that Darwin’s theory of evolution, that is that man was descended from apes is the theory of an atheist, I do not believe that this automatically negates the fact that the world (the universe) evolved over time in an ordered manner. This order is described in the Book of Genesis.

MaggieOH

 

[Orogeny]

dcdurel:

For those who believe in evolution, you MUST understand the theory first.

Oh, that’s just TOO funny!!!

Peace

Tim

 

[vern_humphrey]

Orogeny:

Oh, that’s just TOO funny!!!

Peace

Tim

I sprayed coffee all over my keyboard when I read that.

 

[wanerious]

dcdurel:

For those who believe in evolution, you MUST understand the theory first. It proposes small mutations in each species would occur over thousands of generations, and the enviroment would select for the most adaptive of these to survive. Thus, there should always be a continuum of species.

Look, I don’t know if you understand this or not, but it’s like your’re basically just arguing against geocentrism. Darwinian gradualism has been dead for a long time. Please acquaint yourself with modern theories so we can have a meaningful conversation. You’ll be able to find lots of quotes arguing against gradualism because nobody believes that model any more. Nature is much more complex than that. We don’t really believe Newton’s gravitational prescription, either, but you won’t win any debate points by constantly pointing out imprecisions in his force of gravity. We know it already. Let’s move on. To insinuate that these scientists who point out problems with gradualism do not believe in evolutionary theory is intellectually dishonest.

 

[ISABUS]

MaggieOH:

I am not a scientist,

[snip]

. . . Darwin’s theory of evolution, that is that man was descended from apes is the theory of an atheist . . .

As a Catholic who believes in Providence, I find it awe inspiring to know an atheist, whose wife believed in God, spent most of his life scientifically proving EVOLUTION was a fact.

Please don’t create an environment of pessimism by egotistically segregating atheists as incapable beings of grand works. It’s contrary to true Christian perfection and represents a warped view of the uniqueness found within every individual.

~ Mary ~

 

[ISABUS]

vern humphrey:

I sprayed coffee all over my keyboard when I read that.

Please wake me up from this nightmare! Tell me it’s a bad bad dream!:banghead:

Thank God, we do have some “real” intelligent men on this message board. Thanks fellows for keeping Darwin ALIVE! You are doing a splendid job. Too bad so many minds are stuck in the muck. Continue on . . . if need be use karate !

Mary ~

 

[buffalo]

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.

No! Research the issue. The Catholic church has been defending against evolution since the beginning. Theistic evolution is not Catholic for the following reasons:

1: The truth of God’s existence excludes the possibility of materialism as an explanation of the universe.

1. Science does not have the ability to provide any ultimate explanation of the origin of its subject matter, and therefore its own rationale. It needs pre-scientific knowledge, metaphysics and Revelation.

The current Pope has reflected on Pius XII:

1. Science is not absolutely autonomous in the pursuit of its goals. It cannot be absolutely independent and self-sufficient in unraveling the intelligibility of its subject matter.
2. On a least one point, the origin of the cosmos, fundamental to all the rest, the doctrine of creation as traditonally expounded by the Church (and not evolutionism) provides the clue, the key, the paradigm or context for discerning the sense of all the rest.

 

[buffalo]

MaggieOH:

I am not a scientist, but I have no problem accepting certain aspects of the theory of evolution in terms of the Creation story in Genesis. I do not know what is meant by macroevolution so I will have to plead ignorance on that score.

From what I can see about this debate of evolution vs. creation, is that there is an element of black/white with no shades of grey that brings about a compromise and an increasing understanding of how the world was created out of a void by God, over a period of time.

The black/white issue is the acceptance of the notion that Creation occurred in a literal 6 days, rather than the 6 days representing periods of time over which the world evolved. The story of Creation is an explanation of Evolution that is told in very simple terms in order to satisfy the needs of primitive man, but it does not (and should not) include Darwin’s theory of man evolving from apes. I have not read of any substantial evidence, other than journalistic hype that man evolved from apes. I would think that man is a member of the same group of mammals, yet man is separate and distinct.

Whilst it is true that Darwin’s theory of evolution, that is that man was descended from apes is the theory of an atheist, I do not believe that this automatically negates the fact that the world (the universe) evolved over time in an ordered manner. This order is described in the Book of Genesis.

MaggieOH

No!. One thing Catholics are permitted to do in Genesis is to discuss the “six” days as long as the final judgement was left to the Church. The Church has not yet made such a judgement. However, the Church does not forbid the literal interpretation of “day”.

 

[ISABUS]

I’ve reached my own theory about IDists and the theory behind the Intelligent Design (ID) movement.

IDists are being trained in the art of RHETORIC (A language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous.) This makes perfect sense to me because all they present is a chaos of mythology in hope that those Ancient Meditarian Furies might return with Socrates at their side debating with robust rebuttal how imperfect our understanding of knowing is and claiming as Socrates did, “So I made myself spokesman for the oracle, and asked myself whether I would rather be as I was – neither wise with their wisdom nor ignorant with their ignorance – or possess both qualities as they did. I replied through myself to the oracle that it was best for me to be as I was.” ". . . I had practiclly no understanding myself . . … " :whacky:

 

[vern_humphrey]

ISABUS:

I’ve reached my own theory about IDists and the theory behind the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. :whacky:

Just about everyone with an undestanding of science and the Church’s position has reached the same conclusion.

I love it when they use the SAME anti-evolution arguments used by the thoroughly-discredited Creation Scientists, and they huff indignantly, “They keep saying we’re Creation Scientists.”

 

[buffalo]

ISABUS:

I’ve reached my own theory about IDists and the theory behind the Intelligent Design (ID) movement.

IDists are being trained in the art of RHETORIC (A language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous.) This makes perfect sense to me because all they present is a chaos of mythology in hope that those Ancient Meditarian Furies might return with Socrates at their side debating with robust rebuttal how imperfect our understanding of knowing is and claiming as Socrates did, “So I made myself spokesman for the oracle, and asked myself whether I would rather be as I was – neither wise with their wisdom nor ignorant with their ignorance – or possess both qualities as they did. I replied through myself to the oracle that it was best for me to be as I was.” ". . . I had practiclly no understanding myself . . … " :whacky:

Isabus and Vern,

Take some time and review all the Pope’s and Council’s writings that pertain to origins. You will quickly see that evolution has been fought by the Church since the beginning. It took various forms - Pantheism. Appollinarianism, Pelagianism, Monophytism and others.

You will find consistent Catholic teachings:

1. the creation of the entire universe in the beginning of time by God
2. the special creation of the fiirst man
3. the formation of the first woman from the first man by God
4. the unity of the human race
5. the initial happiness of our first parents in the state of original justice.

The very first part of our creed states the same

Evolution is radically flawed as an attempt to answer questions primarily theological.

The Church in ancient times (as well as today) never denied that natural knowledge could contribute to the understanding of this world and its origins. But in the case of conflict , the truths of Revelation could not be reinterpreted to fit the new theory. She stated that the theory has to be readjusted to fit the facts of Revelation certified by the Church.

Theistic evolution is syncretism.

 

[ISABUS]

buffalo:

Isabus and Vern,

Take some time and review all the Pope’s and Council’s writings that pertain to origins. You will quickly see that evolution has been fought by the Church since the beginning. It took various forms - Pantheism. Appollinarianism, Pelagianism, Monophytism and others.

You will find consistent Catholic teachings:

1. the creation of the entire universe in the beginning of time by God
2. the special creation of the fiirst man
3. the formation of the first woman from the first man by God
4. the unity of the human race
5. the initial happiness of our first parents in the state of original justice.

The very first part of our creed states the same

Evolution is radically flawed as an attempt to answer questions primarily theological.

The Church in ancient times (as well as today) never denied that natural knowledge could contribute to the understanding of this world and its origins. But in the case of conflict , the truths of Revelation could not be reinterpreted to fit the new theory. She stated that the theory has to be readjusted to fit the facts of Revelation certified by the Church.

Theistic evolution is syncretism.

You can live in the dark ages Buffalo, I’ll live in the light of modern Catholic teachings which desire all children to be taught science in school. Evolution is a way of life that can only enhance their future by allowing them as adults to realize how science and technology are wonderful blessings which only makes one’s faith in God grow and grow.

I nor the Vatican support your panpsychism of ideas of mixing science with theology. Please strive for a higher level of consciousness by tossing aside outdated Greek philosophies. It would be wonderful if you would join us in the 21st Century.

Best of wishes ~
Mary

 

[buffalo]

ISABUS:

You can live in the dark ages Buffalo, I’ll live in the light of modern Catholic teachings which desire all children to be taught science in school. Evolution is a way of life that can only enhance their future by allowing them as adults to realize how science and technology is a blessing and their faith in God will grow and grow and grow because of it.

I nor the Vatican support your panpsychism of ideas that mix science with theology. Please strive for a higher level of consciousness by tossing aside outdated Greek philosophies. It would be wonderful if you would join us in the 21st Century.

Best of wishes ~
Mary

So you are saying that 2,000 years of Catholic teaching is wrong. Suddenly within the last 100 years or so, all teaching based on Revelation is old school? And are you really Catholic?

The Church’s writings and teachings are not my own ideas.

If you really want to know the truth then study the past writings and teachings. They have a bearing on this discussion. This will require you to open your mind and heart. After you come face to face with these teachings then we can continue the discussion.

Start with Pope Pius XII (circa 1950); Pope Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X., Vatican I, Lateran IV.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

So you are saying that 2,000 years of Catholic teaching is wrong. Suddenly within the last 100 years or so, all teaching based on Revelation is old school? And are you really Catholic?

The Church’s writings and teachings are not my own ideas. .

Your interpretations are definitely your own ideas – at least in those cases where you’ve not been influenced by Fundmentalist playbooks.