Evolution refuting catholicism?

[PhilVaz]

durel << Dr Colin Patterson, evolutionist and Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, was asked >>

BTW, durel, both your Colin Patterson and Alan Feduccia misquotations and misunderstandings have been annihilated by TalkOrigins right here

Patterson A Tale of Two Cites

Quotations and Misquotations, Feduccia is near the top of the page

It’s all answered at TalkOrigins. Already dealt with your Gould quote in detail. See previous posts.

Now shut up and you’ll accept evolution like a good boy if you know what’s good fer ya. Eat yer spinach, I know it tastes bad at first, but you’ll eventually learn to like it.

Or I’ll take out Feduccia’s book as well and begin quoting in context, he’s at the Tampa USF library rather than St. Pete USF where I am.

Phil P

 

[dcdurel]

wanerious:

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.

 

[PhilVaz]

My gosh please stop. All those hominids were dealt with in detail by TalkOrigins. I’ve already posted the links. Read them and be satisifed with what is said.

Stephen Jay Gould himself has repudiated the “hopeful monster” and punk eq link, see his article here

“In particular, and most offensive to me, the urban legend rests on the false belief that radical, ‘middle-period’ punctuated equilibrium became a saltational theory wedded to Goldschmidt’s hopeful monsters as a mechanism. I have labored to refute this nonsensical charge from the day I first heard it…How about the obvious (and accurate) alternative: that we never made the Goldschmidtian link; that this common error embodies a false construction; and that our efforts at correction have always represented an honorable attempt to relieve the confusion of others.” – Stephen Jay Gould, "Puncuated Equilibrium’s Threefold History"

Here is the quote on transitional forms between larger groups:

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled ‘Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax’ states: ‘The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.’” – Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" (May 1981 reprinted in Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, emphasis added)

Translation: Larger groups like fish to amphibians, reptiles to mammals, reptiles to birds, etc.

There are lies, there are damned lies, there are statistics, and then there are dcdurel’s posts on creation-evolution.

Phil P

 

[dcdurel]

Originally Posted by wanerious
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.

So now SOME evolutionists admit that life animals and plants could not have evolved by Darwinian gradualism

So for the last 100 or more years, all these “scientists” had been insisting that **Darwinian gradualism was a FACT !! They were insisting that it was science !! They were insisting that they were correct, and everyone else was wrong! **

And now some are claiming the Darwinian gradualism is no longer true.
When are we supposed to start trusting these “scientists”

Lets see what scientists themselves say about the “punctuated equilibrium” theory.

The model of punctuated equilibrium or species selection attempts to account for the lack of evidence by relying primarily on the evolution of small isolated populations which would have a diminished chance of leaving a fossil record. This scenario has its difficulties, however, as Valentine and Erwin point out:
The required rapidity of the change implies either a few large steps or many and exceedingly rapid smaller ones. Large steps are tantamount to saltations and raise the problems of fitness barriers; small steps must be numerous and entail the problems discussed under microevolution. The periods of stasis raise the possibility that the lineage would enter the fossil record, and we reiterate that we can identify none of the postulated intermediate forms. Finally, the large numbers of species that must be generated so as to form a pool from which the successful lineage is selected are nowhere to be found. We conclude that the probability that species selection is a general solution to the origin of higher taxa is not great, and that neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans (Valentine and Erwin, 1985, p. 96).
This evidence further substantiates the proposition that minor lower-level evolutionary change cannot be extrapolated to account for major evolutionary change. This appears to be true for the both the tortoise and the hare, Darwinian gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. The tortoise is far too slow to account for the fossil evidence and the hare spends far too much time in stasis.

Darwin admitted that the geological evidence was the “most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”. At the time, he was primarily concerned with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Today, those concerns are compounded by fewer transitional forms than Darwin had in his day, and by the systematically upside-down order of geological succession. Darwin was ironically prophetic in stating that the facts can lead to conclusions directly opposite to those at which he arrived.

Roger Lewin further describes the origin of most major body plans in the Science Research News report, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution”:

Described recently as “the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa,” the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms – Bauplane or phyla – that would exist thereafter, including many that were ‘weeded out’ and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: “unprecedented and unsurpassed,” as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it (Lewin, 1988).
Lewin then asked the all important question:

“Why, in subsequent periods of great evolutionary activity when countless species, genera, and families arose, have there been no new animal body plans produced, no new phyla?” (Lewin, 1988).
If neo-Darwinian theory is true, why should the Cambrian contain a greater number of body plans than exist today, particularly with such low species diversity?

 

[PhilVaz]

Here are the scientists who accept the dinosaur-to-bird evolution, they are listed in Gregory Paul’s book as follows:

“That birds descended from predatory dinosaurs has become far and away the majority view expressed in many additional studies. A list of researchers who favor this view is worth citing for the record…” and these are:

Gingerich (1973), Osmolska (1976), Kurzanov (1981, 82, 83, 85, 87), Barsbold (1983), R. Thulborn (1984, 85), Currie (1985, 1987), Molnar (1985), Ostrom (1985, 90, 91, 94, 95), Raath (1985), Wellnhofer (1985, 88, 93, 94), Weems (1987), Carroll (1988), Paul (1988a), Chatterjee (1991, 95, 97, 98a,b, 99a), Novas (1991, 97), Rayner (1991), Elzanowski and Wellnohofer (1992, 93, 96), Sanz and Bonoparte (1992), Sereno and Rao (1992), Currie and Zhao (1993b), Russell and Dong (1993a), Olshevsky (1994), Perle et al (1994), Chiappe (1995), Chiappe et al (1996, 97, 98), Ji and Ji (1996, 97a, b), Karhu and Rautian (1996), Horner and Dobb (1997), Larson (1997), Norell and Makovicky (1997, 99), Novas and Puerta (1997), Britt et al (1998), Dingus and Rowe (1998), Forster et al (1998), Griffiths (1998 / 2000), Gower and Weber (1998), Holtz (1998 / 2000), Ji et al (1998), Padian and Chiappe (1998a, c), Clark et al (1999), Elzanowski (1999), Garner et al (1999), Schweitzer et al (1999), Sereno (1999a), Wagner and Gauthier (1999), Barsbold et al (2000), Brochu and Norell (2000), Burnham et al (2000), Christiansen and Bonde (2000), Farlow et al (2000), Gould (2000), Martill et al (2000), Rensberger and Watabe (2000), Sumida and Brochu (2000), Xu et al (2000, 01), Zhou and Wang (2000), Zhou et al (2000), Hutchinson (2001), Ji et al (2001), Norell et al (2001).

Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Birds and Dinosaurs (John Hopkins Univ Press, 2002), page 11

So I’ll raise you 50 researchers to your one Feduccia (which you misunderstand anyway, the guy accepts bird evolution as a fact). I’m sorry you’re gonna have to fold your hand.

Phil P

 

[dcdurel]

By the way, 40% of Scientists believe in an evolution “guided by God”.

This is by:

Michael J. Behe
Science Online
July 7, 2000

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.” Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier’s in the journal Cell: “More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human” (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?

Scott blames “frontier,” “nonhierarchical” religions for the controversy in biology education in the United States. As a member of the decidedly hierarchical, mainstream Roman Catholic Church, I think a better candidate for blame is the policing of orthodoxy by the NCSE and others–abetting lawsuits to suppress discussion of truly open questions and decrying academic advocates of intelligent design for “organiz[ing] conferences” and “writ[ing] op-ed pieces and books.” Among a lot of religious citizens, who aren’t quite the yahoos evolutionists often seem to think they are, such activities raise doubts that the issues are being fairly presented, which might then cause some people to doubt the veracity of scientists in other areas too. Ironically, the activity of Scott and the NCSE might itself be promoting the mistrust of science they deplore.

1. David J. DeRosier, Cell 93, 17 (1998).
   See links:
   arn.org/behe/behehome.htm

 

[dcdurel]

PhilVaz:

Here are the scientists who accept the dinosaur-to-bird evolution, they are listed in Gregory Paul’s book as follows:

“That birds descended from predatory dinosaurs has become far and away the majority view expressed in many additional studies. A list of researchers who favor this view is worth citing for the record…” and these are:

Gingerich (1973), Osmolska (1976), Kurzanov (1981, 82, 83, 85, 87), Barsbold (1983), R. Thulborn (1984, 85), Currie (1985, 1987), Molnar (1985), Ostrom (1985, 90, 91, 94, 95), Raath (1985), Wellnhofer (1985, 88, 93, 94), Weems (1987), Carroll (1988), Paul (1988a), Chatterjee (1991, 95, 97, 98a,b, 99a), Novas (1991, 97), Rayner (1991), Elzanowski and Wellnohofer (1992, 93, 96), Sanz and Bonoparte (1992), Sereno and Rao (1992), Currie and Zhao (1993b), Russell and Dong (1993a), Olshevsky (1994), Perle et al (1994), Chiappe (1995), Chiappe et al (1996, 97, 98), Ji and Ji (1996, 97a, b), Karhu and Rautian (1996), Horner and Dobb (1997), Larson (1997), Norell and Makovicky (1997, 99), Novas and Puerta (1997), Britt et al (1998), Dingus and Rowe (1998), Forster et al (1998), Griffiths (1998 / 2000), Gower and Weber (1998), Holtz (1998 / 2000), Ji et al (1998), Padian and Chiappe (1998a, c), Clark et al (1999), Elzanowski (1999), Garner et al (1999), Schweitzer et al (1999), Sereno (1999a), Wagner and Gauthier (1999), Barsbold et al (2000), Brochu and Norell (2000), Burnham et al (2000), Christiansen and Bonde (2000), Farlow et al (2000), Gould (2000), Martill et al (2000), Rensberger and Watabe (2000), Sumida and Brochu (2000), Xu et al (2000, 01), Zhou and Wang (2000), Zhou et al (2000), Hutchinson (2001), Ji et al (2001), Norell et al (2001).

Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Birds and Dinosaurs (John Hopkins Univ Press, 2002), page 11

So I’ll raise you 50 researchers to your one Feduccia (which you misunderstand anyway, the guy accepts bird evolution as a fact). I’m sorry you’re gonna have to fold your hand.

Phil P

Phil, the problem is that Feduccia is the recognized expert in the field. Everyone admits that.
And he says:

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. **

 

[dcdurel]

PhilVaz:

So I’ll raise you 50 researchers to your one Feduccia (which you misunderstand anyway, the guy accepts bird evolution as a fact). I’m sorry you’re gonna have to fold your hand.
Phil P

Even I accept a God directed evolution, like 40% of scientists do.
The problem is Darwinian evolution excludes God. It is entirely by chance.

Feduccia is the leading expert in the field. He has no transitional species to point to. The nearest thing he can point to is microraptor, which is supposedly a reptile, with supposed feathers. Of course it came from the area of China which has a history of frauds in fossils.

Second, microraptor cannot be a transitional species leading up to birds, because there are well known beaked bird fossils older than microraptor.
NOTE:
Birds before microraptor. !
Birds older than microraptor. !

Thus, microraptor cannot ever be transitional fossil.

Thus, NO transitional fossils between reptiles and birds, and there never will be any.

 

[dcdurel]

buffalo:

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.

I agree these are Catholic Church teachings, thus they are facts.

But, the Church also teaches that the 6 days of creation in the bible could have been 6 literal days or 6 periods of time.
Could have been 6 seconds, 6 days, 6 billion years, etc.

St. Augustine was very very against taking them as 6 literal days. Other Church fathers held the literal view.

We could have a situation where God created everything from a basic one-celled organism, and just added to that organism,
to form all the plants, different animals, etc, and man (since dirt has organisms).
Thus a common ancestor.

Thus, it could be a God directed, miraculous evolution, for DNA and other material would have to be added by God directly, and there would be no chance involved. This could have happened in 6 seconds, 6 days, or 600 million years. This could explain a common ancestor, and at the same time explain those hundreds of contradictions in Darwinian evolution.

It would be evolution, but not by chance, not Darwininan, but a miraculous God created evolution. And nothing would contradict Church teaching or the bible.

Since evolution, like the creation of the universe seems overwhelmingly by intelligent design, this is one likely explanation.

But, of course, it is not necessary that any evolution occured, even by God. He certainly could have formed every living thing with common characteristics. Why not? We have a spirit like angels, but we did not come from angels. And angels are spirits like God, but they did not evolve from God. Why is it necessary at all that anything had to evolve at all?

It isn’t.

 

[Orogeny]

For those who want to argue against evolution, please read dcdurels posts carefully. If you wonder why those of us who accept the evidence for evolution get frustrated, he/she is a perfect example. He/she does not argue from a position of science or logic. Instead, he/she knowingly uses qoutes out of context. We know that because the quotes used have been shown to be out of context, and yet we see the same quotes over and over and over.

dcdurel is intentionally trying to mislead people with his quote mining and deliberate use of false information. What is the term for someone who deliberately and intentionally misleads others? Is that the Christian way of doing things? Arguing against godless evolution by lying is not Christian.

I have posted before that I don’t have a problem if you chose to accept Genesis as literal, nor do I have a problem if you feel you have legitimate scientific issues with all or parts of evolution. dcdurel doesn’t seem to be either, he/she seems to just want to mislead.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

ISABUS:

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!

The Church cannot amend Revelation. As in my previous post:

“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.”

What you are suggesting is that the Church amend Revelation to coincide with limited (by definition) science to the exception of metaphysics and Revelation. I think not. It would require new Revelation and the Church has already pronounced Revelation ended with the Apostles.

What the Pope is suggesting here is that science has to reconcile with the truths that are under protection of the Holy Spirit not the other way around.

“We know in fact truth cannot contradict truth” - that means that science cannot contradict the Revealed truth and science must look further at the coincident points.

Another point - theologians in the Catholic Church do not have teaching authority. That rests with with the Magisterium. Issues advanced by theologians have no weight unless approved by the Church, so be careful here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Orogeny:

For those who want to argue against evolution, please read dcdurels posts carefully. If you wonder why those of us who accept the evidence for evolution get frustrated, he/she is a perfect example. He/she does not argue from a position of science or logic. Instead, he/she knowingly uses qoutes out of context. We know that because the quotes used have been shown to be out of context, and yet we see the same quotes over and over and over.

dcdurel is intentionally trying to mislead people with his quote mining and deliberate use of false information. What is the term for someone who deliberately and intentionally misleads others? Is that the Christian way of doing things? Arguing against godless evolution by lying is not Christian.

I have posted before that I don’t have a problem if you chose to accept Genesis as literal, nor do I have a problem if you feel you have legitimate scientific issues with all or parts of evolution. dcdurel doesn’t seem to be either, he/she seems to just want to mislead.

Peace

Tim

His arguments come straight out of the Fundamentalist play book.

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

His arguments come straight out of the Fundamentalist play book.

Do you consider Church teachings before 1950 to be fundamental?

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Do you consider Church teachings before 1950 to be fundamental?

No, I consider Fundamentalists to be Fundamentalists – and when they come trolling in a Catholic forum, using the tired old Fundamentalist play book – the one that was developed to support “Creation Science” – they’re easy to spot.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

rossum:

CAF - Evolution Refuting

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.

Now this is a fine explanation even though we disagree on evolution.

The truth and pattern of how good and honest scientists like you are being decieved into believing evolution is becoming more blatantly obvious the more scientists try to refute my findings from discussions.

The key part here is that we disagree on the facts. You claim that evolution is based on the fact that “genes in a population change over time”. That is one thing, but it quite another to also assert that monkeys change into men over time.

Now you, or Alec, or any other respectable scientist should not get your facts derived from science confused with facts derived from evolution.

A fact we can all agree on regardless of whether or not you believe monkeys change into men, is that this view did not exist prior to Darwin’s Origin of the Speices.

Sure there was other legitimate naturalist and biology experimentation going on prior to Origin of the Species, but it was not as extreme as claiming monkeys changing into men over time.

Evolution is a philosophy becuase it is an interpretation of the facts of science, which makes valid observations on how the universe behaves.

It is a happy/sad relationship with evolutionists. I love you and the science in you, but we need to get that evolution part out.

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

Nice try but everything you referred to is built on and connected by truth. Evolution is not.

 

[wanerious]

SocaliCatholic:

The key part here is that we disagree on the facts. You claim that evolution is based on the fact that “genes in a population change over time”. That is one thing, but it quite another to also assert that monkeys change into men over time.

I’m assuming that you’re just being flippant about “monkeys change into men”, and you know that it’s a poor characterization of evolutionary theory, and you further know that the theory only predicts that monkeys and men had a common ancestor in the past.

You have just hit upon the difference between those things considered to be “fact” in science and those that are “theories”. I fully agree that the two statements are very different, but you ought not assume a low probability of likelihood for the theory just because you find it hard to believe. Do you believe that the model of curved space-time is a good theory of gravitational behavior? In my opinion, that is, on the surface, much harder to believe. You simply have a difference of opinion with scientists who study the field as to how likely the evolutionary statement is. They will trot out corresponding and congruent evidence from many different fields of science, by far the strongest of which is not the fossil record, but the genetic record, and you will have none of it. Ok.

Now you, or Alec, or any other respectable scientist should not get your facts derived from science confused with facts derived from evolution.

I’ve been reading this for some time, and I still encourage you to familiarize yourself with the genetic science. Your assertion that the genetic evidence for evolution is somehow derived from evolutionary theory itself is just plain wrong. It is a completely separate branch of science whose recent findings (in the last 30 or so years) to a very large degree corroborate fossil evidence. Often, where they differ, the evidence is so strong that changes have been made in our taxonomic understandings.

A fact we can all agree on regardless of whether or not you believe monkeys change into men, is that this view did not exist prior to Darwin’s Origin of the Speices.

…and the notion of curved space had no application to gravitational theory before Einstein. What of it?

Evolution is a philosophy becuase it is an interpretation of the facts of science, which makes valid observations on how the universe behaves.

This is sophistry. We can wrangle around with what is a philosophy, what is a science, what is a theory, what is a fact for a very long time. In the end, the “evolution” we are arguing about is a scientific theory. Is it supported by evidence, or isn’t it? If not, where are the contradictions?

It is a happy/sad relationship with evolutionists. I love you and the science in you, but we need to get that evolution part out.

You have made repeated valiant assertions that evolution is not science. I’m assuming you want some kind of self-consistency in your worldview, so I’d like to know what other disciplines you consider to be science, and any others you consider to be not science. I’m trying to draw out some concrete distinctions between the two, other than personal incredulity. How, for example, can you possibly call gravitational theory “science”? How is it to be distinguished from evolutionary theory?

 

[rossum]

dcdurel:

Here is what one writer said: …

Another writer wrote: …

I am not surprised keep your sources anonymous, they have misinformed you. Though with a little help from Google the guilty parties are perhaps bibleprobe.org/objection.html and icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-108.htm respectively.

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.

Your expression here is confusing, I assume that you are saying (incorrectly) that no missing-links have been found as opposed to saying that all the links have been found and hence that none are missing.

I too can quote Steven Gould:
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”

from Evolution as Fact and Theory

You, or your source, have misrepresented Dr Gould’s views about the existence of transitionals, which he says are “abundant”. I have said before that creationist sources are not always reliable; this is another case in point. Strike One.

Dr Patterson’s views have also been misrepresented by creationists, see this webpage. Strike Two.

The only response evolutionists ever give is, well, we can’t accept a creator, therefore evolution must be true.

Again this is a false statement. Theodosius Dobzhansky who wrote Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution was Russian Orthodox, and certainly not an atheist. Indeed he refers to the Creator in the essay linked above:
One of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, published a book entitled Omphalos (“the Navel”). The gist of this amazing book is that Adam, though he had no mother, was created with a navel, and that fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now - a deliberate act on His part, to give the appearance of great antiquity and geologic upheaveals. It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for. These are not the words of a man who “can’t accept a creator”.

Ken Miller is a Catholic so he also accepts a creator. You do not do yourself any favours by making false statements. The creationist sources you are using have yet again shown themselves to be unreliable. Strike Three. “dcdurel, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.”

Purely for amusement I would like to illustrate the effectiveness of the quote-mining technique.

Christianity is a religion only for Israeli sheep without GPS:

I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. [Matthew 15:24]

Sheep have souls, so they can be saved:

one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep. [KJV - Numbers 31:28]

These Israeli sheep hate their parents:

For I have come to set a man against his father [Matthew 10:35]

They eat mutton:

he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life [John 6:54]

But they can’t eat lobsters:

But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales … is an abomination to you. [Leviticus 11:10]

Finally, they are all atheists:

There is no God [Psalms 53:1]

(With apologies to all mutton eating, Christian, lobster avoiding, parent hating, GPS-less, atheist, Israeli sheep with souls.)

It is quite amazing what you can “prove” with quotes taken out of context and misinterpreted. Your arguments against evolution are just about as effective since they are based on the same techniques. For a change, why not try to provide some positive evidence for what you do believe in, rather than merely regurgiposting unreliable creationist quote-mines.

I also note that in a later post you have repeated your error in confusing the Archaeoraptor forgery with Archaeopteryx. I already mentioned this to you once. The first time might have been a mistake, the second time is looking more like carelessness. You need to be much more careful about checking the facts in what you post.

rossum

 

[SocaliCatholic]

wanerious:

You have just hit upon the difference between those things considered to be “fact” in science and those that are “theories”. I fully agree that the two statements are very different, but you ought not assume a low probability of likelihood for the theory just because you find it hard to believe.

Yes. The fact that you acknowledge that there is an important distinction between the big-picture interrelatedness of the variation of genes over time, and the story of “monkeys turning into men” gives me hope we can still be best of friends.

I’ve been reading this for some time, and I still encourage you to familiarize yourself with the genetic science.

Yes. Believe me, ever since PhilVaz & Co. starting posting link after link to TalkOrigins, I have been using much of my spare curved spacetime to read up on the specifics, but it is an enormous endeavor and I need more time to learn to talk your exact language like phylogeny and clades and know what they actually mean so I don’t sound stupid.

Your assertion that the genetic evidence for evolution is somehow derived from evolutionary theory itself is just plain wrong. It is a completely separate branch of science whose recent findings (in the last 30 or so years) to a very large degree corroborate fossil evidence. Often, where they differ, the evidence is so strong that changes have been made in our taxonomic understandings.

No. I consider any genetic research done by any scientist practicing good upstanding science to be perfectly good and fine.

…and the notion of curved space had no application to gravitational theory before Einstein. What of it?

I dont understand what you mean.

This is sophistry. We can wrangle around with what is a philosophy, what is a science, what is a theory, what is a fact for a very long time.

No. Science is what is always has been, and it is clearly different than evolution in the respect that it does not follow the pattern of science which has been my position all along.

In the end, the “evolution” we are arguing about is a scientific theory. Is it supported by evidence, or isn’t it? If not, where are the contradictions?

No. Evolution is not supported by scientific evidence. If it was, then why would I be arguing with you in the first place?

The contradictions are most fundamental, macroevolution has never been observed.

You have made repeated valiant assertions that evolution is not science. I’m assuming you want some kind of self-consistency in your worldview, so I’d like to know what other disciplines you consider to be science, and any others you consider to be not science. I’m trying to draw out some concrete distinctions between the two, other than personal incredulity. How, for example, can you possibly call gravitational theory “science”? How is it to be distinguished from evolutionary theory?

Lets make it a step easier. Do you believe that you can have science without observation?

 

[vern_humphrey]

SocaliCatholic:

No. Evolution is not supported by scientific evidence. If it was, then why would I be arguing with you in the first place?

Evolution is supported by scientific evidence – here in Stone County, Arkansas, I can go to any road cut, or stream bank and find fossils, evidence of plants and animals that lived in this county long ago.

By and large, however, I cannot find LIVING specimens of those same plants and animals. Nor can I (with very few exceptions) find in the fossil record the plants and animals that live here today.

I can extend my search to the entire world, and the results are the same. I cannot, for example, find anywhere in the world a living tree like the fossil my youngest daughter found in Lick Fork Creek.

Clearly, the living population of this county (and the whole earth) has turned over – old species passing away, new ones coming into existance.

If I go into the fossil record at different layers, I find the story repeated over and over – the plants and animals that flourished at one point disappear, and are replaced by different species at another point.

That is evolution, and that is a FACT.

The Theory of Evolution is merely our explanation of how it happened.

 

[wanerious]

SocaliCatholic:

Yes. The fact that you acknowledge that there is an important distinction between the big-picture interrelatedness of the variation of genes over time, and the story of “monkeys turning into men” gives me hope we can still be best of friends.

Sure we can. I just think you’re dead wrong.

Yes. Believe me, ever since PhilVaz & Co. starting posting link after link to TalkOrigins, I have been using much of my spare curved spacetime to read up on the specifics, but it is an enormous endeavor and I need more time to learn to talk your exact language like phylogeny and clades and know what they actually mean so I don’t sound stupid.

I’m reading up also, since it isn’t my field. Yes, it takes a lot of effort.

No. Science is what is always has been, and it is clearly different than evolution in the respect that it does not follow the pattern of science which has been my position all along.

…and I’ve been trying to convince you that there is no philosophical or methodological difference between evolutionary theory and any other theory of modern science. I’ve been picking on general relativity, assuming that’s one that you may hold in high enough regard.

No. Evolution is not supported by scientific evidence. If it was, then why would I be arguing with you in the first place?

A question that has come to mind many times. What say you to the tip of the iceberg that is talk.origins? Are there any things in particular that you can point to and say, “Aha! That is not supported by the evidence!”

The contradictions are most fundamental, macroevolution has never been observed.

and it need not be, for evolution to be a successful model. To extend the canonical example, the curvature of space-time has never been observed either, but it still serves as the best available explanatory model of gravitational observations.

Lets make it a step easier. Do you believe that you can have science without observation?

Nope. But I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that you’re about to say something I’m not going to agree with. IT SMELLS LIKE A TRAP!!!