Evolution refuting catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brown10985
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vern humphrey:
Your interpretations are definitely your own ideas – at least in those cases where you’ve not been influenced by Fundmentalist playbooks.
Show me! Start here:

Which of these are my own ideas?
  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.
 
40.png
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.

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.
The Catholic Church is constantly evolving in thought as should you, Buffalo. Apparently, you are bent on having it suite “your” tastes rather than approve what the Vatican has already endorsed for “all” Catholics. So be it. But, don’t expect me to eat your old fashioned, lunch bag sandwich or try to feed me a bowl of rice crispies that have lost their “snap crackle pop” in today’s society.

Please read the entirety of my next two posting ~
 
40.png
ISABUS:
The Catholic Church is constantly evolving in thought as should you, Buffalo. Apparently, you are bent on having it suite “your” tastes rather than approve what the Vatican has already endorsed for “all” Catholics. So be it. But, don’t expect me to eat your old fashioned, lunch bag sandwich or try to feed me a bowl of rice crispies that have lost their “snap crackle pop” in today’s society.

Please read the entirety of my next two posting ~
No doubt. The Church is constantly growing. It is called organic growth. What this means is that teachings given protection by the Holy Spirit cannot be changed. Organic growth does not permit reversals.

The 5 teachings I have quoted have been given that protection.

BTW. What other of Christ’s teachings do you find unsuitable for todays society?
 
Theories of Evolution

John Paul II****

Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.

***Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, ***October 22, 1996
  1. In celebrating the sixtieth anniversary of the academy’s refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research and thereby to assist him in his reflections.
He asked those whom he called the Church’s senatus scientificus to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.
  1. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth. Moreover, to shed greater light on the Church’s relations with science between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries is of great importance.
During this plenary session, you are undertaking a reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium, starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity’s future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications gives rise to new questions. The better the Church’s knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission, she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

(continued)
 
In Paragraph 2 the Pope is saying exactly what I have been posting right along.
 
**(part 2 of 2) **

Theories of Evolution

John Paul II****

Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.

***Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, ***October 22, 1996
  1. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.

For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy’s plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.
  1. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of “evolutionism” a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.
Today, nearly half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
 
40.png
buffalo:
In Paragraph 2 the Pope is saying exactly what I have been posting right along.
I honestly am beginning to think you may not be able to understand what Pope John Paul II is stating in paragraph 2:
  1. "I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth. Moreover, to shed greater light on the Church’s relations with science between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries is of great importance."
Buffalo, the Pope is definately asking scientists and theologians for help in those two questions I’ve highlighted in red. The scientists know the origins in man (evolution). Now the theologians will have to amend what was previously written in biblical text so to comply with scientific data.

I’ve taught Catholic children for about 15 years. Are you aware over the course of 15 years how the text within Catholic bibles provided to adults and children has changed? A lot!
 
CAF - Evolution Refuting

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

Science distinguishes between facts and theories. In order not to get too much emotion involved I will use Gravity as an example. The fact of Gravity can easily be observed. Hold a pencil above your desk. Let go of the pencil. The pencil will fall onto your desk. This is the fact of Gravity. No theory is involved, just observation.

The Theory of Gravity is the current best attempt by scientists to explain Gravity. The best used to be Newton’s Theory of Gravity. That was good, but not good enough, it could not adequately explain the precession of the orbit of Mercury. Einstein then came up with Einstein’s Theory of Gravity. This was better, it included all the results from Newton’s Theory but in also explained the precession of the orbit of Mercury and some other things that Newton could not. Even Einstein’s Theory of Gravity is not prefect, it breaks down at the quantum level. Scientists are still looking for a theory of quantum gravity that will incorporate both Newton and Einstein as well as the quantum gravitational effects that Einstein’s Theory cannot currently explain.

While the different theories were changing, the fact of Gravity remained the same.

Now for evolution. The fact of evolution is that the genes in a population change over time. That is all there is to it. Obvious examples are the way some bacteria now have genetic immunity to some antibiotics, some weeds have genetic immunity to some weedkillers and some mosquitos have genetic immunity to DDT. All these are examples of changes in the genes of those populations over time. If you want to do the experiment yourself you will need a bit more equipment than a pencil and a desk, but you could if you really wanted to. I would suggest the bacteria since they have the shortest generation time.

The rest of evolution is theory, which is where the controversy lies. There is no controversy over the fact that the genes in a population change over time. Even Young Earth Creationists agree with this as they need this change to account for the current diversity of species after the bottleneck of the flood and Noah’s Ark. See Answers in Genesis.

To answer SocaliCatholic’s question, the determination of evolution as a fact is done in the same way as the determination that gravity is a fact. We can observe gravity and we can observe the genes in populations changing over time. For science observation is the source of knowledge and only observations can confirm facts. Theories are also tested by observations, although less directly.
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?
By your argument Chemistry is not science since it does not stand alone but needs to refer to other legitimate disciplines such as Physics. Is Christianity not a religion because it needs to refer to Jewish scriptures and is thus not able to stand on its own? No, I don’t think thit is a good argument either. I do not find this line of argument at all convincing.

rossum
 

***John Paul II "***Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences" on October 22, 1996 was

ten years ago!!!

Science has collected enough data today to make EVOLUTION a FACT!

Yahoo!

Here’s a fork in this thread!😃
( I learned that from Phil. Thx.)
 
(part 3 of 4)
Theories of Evolution


John Paul II****

Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.

***Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, ***October 22, 1996

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
  1. The Church’s magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is “the only creature on earth that God willed for itself.”
In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity, and self- giving with his peers.

St. Thomas observes that man’s likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God’s relationship with what he has created. But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity.

All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
  1. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable.
(continued)
 
(part 4 of 4)
Theories of Evolution

John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.

Address to the PontificalAcademy***** of Sciences, ***October 22, 1996

The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual is not the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans.
  1. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life and which I called precisely Evangelium Vitae.
It is significant that in St. John’s Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude.

To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”

Even more, “life” is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God.

I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you.

(Reprinted from Origins, December 5, 1996)

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html

THE END

***John Paul II "***Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences" on October 22, 1996 was

ten years ago!!!
Science has collected enough data today to make EVOLUTION a FACT!

:dancing:
 
Hey, I was supposed to end this thread with a bang, a Big Bang 👍

“Common descent is a general descriptive theory that proposes to explain the origins of living organisms…Because it is so well supported scientifically, macroevolution is often called the ‘fact of evolution’ by biologists…the evidence and the conclusion are independent of any specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. This is why scientists call universal common descent the ‘fact of evolution.’ None of the evidence above assumes that natural selection is true or that it is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Thus, the macroevolutionary conclusion stands, regardless of the mechanism.” – from my Nov 2002 summary of Doug Theobald’s Evidences

“Evolution is the central unifying concept of natural history; it is the foundation of all of modern paleontology and biology…Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community – organisms become new species through modification over time… ‘it simply has not been an issue for a century’ [citing Futuyma]…The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory…” (Evolution and the Fossil Record PDF booklet published jointly by the American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society, pages 1, 10, 13)

“Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.” (Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, March 1973)

“Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, ‘evolution is just a theory,’ the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true… But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning.” (Statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America, 2003)

Oh there’s more where that came from…
 
“Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity…The evidence for evolution is now quite overwhelming. It is presented in great detail by Futuyma (1983, 1998), Ridley (1996), and Strickberger (1996)…” (What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr, page 12-13)

“Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to ‘intelligent design,’ to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.” (Project Steve, the NCSE response to creationists “lists”)

“The title of this book, modeled on that of the greatest biological work ever written, is in homage to the greatest biologist who has ever lived. Darwin puzzled over but could not cover the ground that is reviewed here, simply because the relevant fossils, genes, and their molecules, and even the bodyplans of many of the phyla, were quite unknown in his day. Nevertheless, the evidence from these many additional sources of data simply confirm that Darwin was correct in his conclusions that all living things have descended from a common ancestor and can be placed within a tree of life, and that the principle process guiding their descent has been natural selection. And he was correct in so much more.” (James W. Valentine, On the Origin of Phyla, Univ of Chicago Press, 2004, preface page xxiii)

“One of the wonderful coincidences of science is that immediately after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, his famous explication of the mechanism behind evolution, dramatic support for his hypothesis appeared in Bavaria. In 1860, a feather and, in 1861, the skeleton of a Mesozoic vertebrate obviously intermediate in form between modern birds and their reptilian ancestors were uncovered in lithographic slate quarries. This vertebrate was, of course, the urvogel (original bird) Archaeopteryx. As our knowledge of fossil birds has expanded in the subsequent fourteen decades, the question of how birds arose has become ever more fascinating. Most paleontologists now agree that birds – always popular with the public – happily happen to be the direct descendents of the best-liked group of extinct creatures, the dinosaurs. Of course, public opinion has no relevance to scientific debate, but the broad appeal of a dinosaur-bird link vexes the shrinking minority of researchers who dispute the link…That birds descended from predatory dinosaurs has become far and away the majority view expressed in many additional studies…From China has come the feathered dinosaurs Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, and Microraptor as well as many hundreds of specimens of the bird Confuciusornis…the fossils are coming so fast that it was hard to keep up with the new data during preparation of this book…” (Gregory Paul, Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds, John Hopkins Univ Press, 2002, page 1, 11, 15)

Merry Christmas all you anti-evolutionist-creationist-intelligent-designers, and to all a good night. Hint: the last two I typed in myself after going to USF library this morning. 😃

Phil P
 
PhilVaz"One of the wonderful coincidences of science is that immediately after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species said:
”][/URL]Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds

, John Hopkins Univ Press, 2002, page 1, 11, 15)

Merry Christmas all you anti-evolutionist-creationist-intelligent-designers, and to all a good night. Hint: the last two I typed in myself after going to USF library this morning. 😃

Phil PDr Colin Patterson, evolutionist and Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, was asked why he had included no transitional forms in his book on evolution. He replied:
’… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils … I will lay it on the line there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.'
 
PhilVazthe link…That birds descended from predatory dinosaurs has become far and away the majority view expressed in many additional studies…From China has come the feathered dinosaurs Sinosauropteryx said:
Phil, these are fake fossils. Read the following.
"Discover: What about all the other evidence for feathered dinosaurs?
Feduccia: When we see actual feathers preserved on specimens, we need to carefully determine if we are looking at secondarily flightless birds that have retained feathers and only superficially resemble dinosaurs, or if the specimens are in fact related to dinosaurs. That’s a difficult issue to deal with right now, given the existence of fake fossils.
Discover: So far, only one feathered dinosaur, Archaeoraptor, has been publicly acknowledged as a forgery. You think there are others?
Feduccia: Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it’s difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard that there is a fake-fossil factory in northeastern China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found.
Journals like Nature don’t require specimens to be authenticated, and the specimens immediately end up back in China, so nobody can examine them. They may be miraculous discoveries, they may be missing links as they are claimed, but there is no way to authenticate any of this stuff.
Discover: Why would anyone fake a fossil?
Feduccia: Money. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business. These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, for huge sums of money. Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to profit.
It is not unreasonable to apply Feduccia’s scepticism to the current find. Even the original paper should make us cautious. Commenting on the paper point-by-point:
Notes on the specimens. Of the six specimens in the present study, IVPP V13476 was collected by the Liaoxi expedition team of the IVPP in 2001, IVPP V13352, V13320, V13477 and V13351 were purchased by the IVPP during the field seasons of 2001 and 2002, and TNP00996 was purchased by Tianjin Museum of Natural History in 2002.
It is highly suspicious to rely on purchased fossils, since one has no proof of the geological context or whether they have been doctored. As Dr Feduccia says, no-one from Nature would have checked the authenticity of the specimen. Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. has also noted that Nature’s reliability on this issue is highly suspect:
‘The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith.’
It’s vital to note that only one of the supposed feathers was found on the specimen actually collected by the authors (IVPP V13476). And this ‘feather’ was sufficiently indistinct that the authors could not discern its asymmetry (question mark in Table 1). Furthermore, this fossil that the authors actually collected was so unexciting that it did not even warrant having its photograph displayed for the reader to verify the feather claim. There are 18 illustrations of fossils in this paper, but all are of the purchased fossils. All the illustrated feathers (16 photos) are on the bought fossils, but especially IVPP V13352 (see Table 1). We have to rely solely on the authors’ claim that the fossil they collected had a feather on it and that it was clearly part of the Microraptor gui fossil.
…We observed that there are some pieces of blocks mistakenly glued to the specimens; …
So they admit that there were some dubious aspects to these specimens!
…however, we excluded all the dubious parts from the study (Fig. 1b). We carefully examined the specimens under the microscope and with high-resolution X-ray computerized tomography (CT) to test the authenticity of one of the studied specimens [ref.] (IVPP V13352) …
But this is involves X-rays, so can test only for the authenticity of the bones, not the feathers.
…and can guarantee the accuracy of the information that we provide in this study.
Wow, that guarantee should reassure us all, despite the history of frauds from that region, and the fact that China has had major industries of faking ‘ancient’ artefacts for many years, e.g. ‘Ming’ vases, etc.!
 
Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing contends that Archaeopteryx is a combination of two fossils: one of the body and head of a birdlike creature and the other of the tail of a dinosaur. Xing says he has found another fossil, in a private collection in China, that contains the mirror image of the supposed tail of the Archaeoraptor. National Geographic published a note in its March 2000 issue saying that CT scans of the fossil appear to confirm Xing’s observations and "revealed anomalies in the fossil’s reconstruction."35

To sum it up, here is what Dr. Austin Clark,** a leading biologist of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington** had to day about the subject: "No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life on earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the major groups of phyla. Scientists have sometimes come up with a few things that they have elected as candidates as transitions, but on a later closer examination these have been seen to be misinterpretations. There are no such things as missing links. … Missing links are misinterpretations."
 
*Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958) was unusual. Few men have so dedicated their lives to vindicating evolution, as did Goldschmidt. He spent 25 exhausting years breeding the gypsy moth, trying to induce evolutionary change. But he found himself up against a solid wall. Any changes which occurred were, within a few generations, erased either by extinction or by moving back toward the norm.

By 1940, Goldschmidt could take no more. He published a paper which constituted one of the most powerful attacks on evolution ever produced. And it came from an expert who had tried in every way to induce cross-species change.

Goldschmidt’s theory was that, once every so many millennia, a new species (“hopeful monsters”) just sprang (in German, “saltated”) into existence. This was the saltation theory.

According to this theory, one day a mother rhinoceros produced an elephant. Another time, an oak tree produced an acorn which grew into a pine tree.

Goldschmidt was asking for even bigger miracles than *A.H. Clark had proposed in his “zoogenesis” theory!

The scientifically accurate thrashing Goldschmidt gave to Darwinism (natural selection theory) and neo-Darwinism (mutation theory) combined with the idiotic foolishness of his hopeful monster theory—left evolutionists dazed. What could they say?
 
NEANDERTHAL MAN: When this prehistoric man was first discovered, only part of an arm was recovered. Yet, the scientific community fabricated an entire ancient society around an arm bone. Scientists have since found quite a few Neanderthals and after careful study have concluded that these ancestors were regular humans with bone disease, probably rickets.30

PILTDOWN MAN: For more than 50 years we were led to believe that this ancient creature was another supposed ancestor of modern man. Two scientists eventually took a closer look and found out that Piltdown man was a fraud. This invented creature was a composite of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a small child. The original "discoverers " had stained these bone fragments to gain recognition and promote the falsehood of evolution.30

NEBRASKA MAN: One ancient tooth was discovered in Nebraska. Eager evolutionists built a whole
imaginary society and lifestyle around this single tooth! When they found the rest of the skull some two years later, it was clear that the tooth belonged to a pig. For many years, evolutionists described Nebraska Man as a missing link.30

JAVA MAN: This prehistoric man was found on the island of Java and was reported to be the missing link between man and ape. After serious study it was found that the two pieces of Java Man were from two different skulls from two different areas of the island. Both were from the same species, probably an Orangutan, but they were not the parts of a man. Recent human skulls have now been discovered in the same layer of rock.30

PEKING MAN: This manlike creature was found in China during the early part of this century. No other scientists have directly observed this site and it has not actually been seen in more than 50 years. All of the examples of Peking Man were reported to have the back of their skulls smashed in, exactly matching the result when people of that region hunt for monkey brains. Also, modern human remains were found at the same site.30

LUCY: Lucy is the latest find that has been almost universally accepted as mankind’s ancestor.
Lucy is an Australopithecus, that is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, they were found to match a chimpanzee, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations.30

LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS: These footprints were found in the same strata as the Lucy bones. Evolutionary scientists have said that Lucy-like animals made these, but a podiatrist concluded they are modern human footprints. It appears that Lucy is not an ancestor of modern man, but simply a monkey.
 
Evolutionists will actually understand these
questions better than an ordinary person, as these are based on some knowledge of Darwinian evolution,

** But the evolutionist will be totally clueless as to the answers.**
Where has macroevolution ever been observed? What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? (this is impossible according to evolution)

How could metamorphosis evolve?

If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?

Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?

How could the first living cell begin?

Evolutionists have actually given up on even speculating on how life “evolved” from chemicals. They have no clue anymore and **they prefer not to discuss it. **

If by blind faith they still believe a cell could assemble itself from chemicals, and suddenly gain life, then they have another problem. How could that first cell reproduce?

Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time.

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?

These are excellent questions to give to biology teachers who believe in evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top