Evolution refuting catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brown10985
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
PhilVaz:
Meet theology with theology and science with science please. :cool:

Phil P
Click to expand...
Nonsense!

This is an intellectually dishonest evolutionist conspiracy tatic leading to the scandal of reason that I became aware of since becoming involved in these threads back when they started on Catholic Answers.

Here’s how it works: the game will only work if it can take for granted the reality outside the game.

Evolutionists game will only work becuase it has not actually ever proven to be science, but a philosophy built on top of science itself.

If ANY branch of science were to limit itself by self imposed hostility towards new and different legitimate inquiries from outside sources that would call into question the legitimacy of the conclusions of the scientific inquiry itself.

In astronomy and physics you have ground and space based observatories for visible and invisible light to confirm theories and predictions of natural phenomena in the universe such as black holes!

Evolutionists do not have such tools becuase evolution is a philosophy, NOT science!

That explains the pictures of monkeys turning into men in classroom textbooks - it has never actually been observed.
 
40.png
DavidFilmer:
The English language is a highly ordered product. A random process over an INFINITE time period will NEVER produce more than maybe a very short phrase (a trivial product).
Click to expand...
First, as wanerious said, in a infinite time you will find all possible sequences of letters of all possible finite lengths. For an interesting version of this see Borges’ short story The Library of Babel.

Second, the English language does not stand alone, but is interpreted by the human brain. This allows for a certain amount of error, including words that are incomplet, misspeled or even left . Even beyond minor errors like these you might have something like this:
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a tatol mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
For each piece of standard English text, there are any number of very similar texts that can easily be read and an even larger number of texts that can be read with some degree of difficulty.

Also the analogy of the infinite monkeys is not a good one. Infinite monkeys are a purely random process, whereas evolution is not a purely random process. Evolution works by random mutation and natural selection. Random mutation is indeed a chance process, and it generates random variations in the gene pool of a species. Natural selection is a non-random process which filters the variations generated by random mutation and keeps those that best match the current environment. Any accurate model of evolution must include both the random generation of variations and the non-random selection of those variations.

As an example, consider a protein with 100 amino acids. If we try a purely random process then we might expect it to take about 6.35 x 10^130 years which is far longer than the age of the earth. The calculation uses a very crude model of evolution, basically it assumes the evolution of the whole protein in a single step. This gives a chance of one in 20 ^ 100 for a protein with 100 amino acids. 20 ^ 100 comes to 1.27 x 10^131 so the chance of the protein appearing in one step is 1 in 1.27 x 10^131. The usual calculation is then to halve this number and say that in a species that reproduces annually then at 50% probability, we get the figure of 6.35 x 10^130 years.

The model of evolution implied in the above calculation is not the model used by Darwinian evolution. Under Darwinian evolution changes arise randomly, and may be beneficial or deleterious (neutral changes are not relevant). Once arisen they are selected very non-randomly with the deleterious changes disappearing and the beneficial changes spreading through population. This has the effect of breaking up the development of the protein so that instead of one very large and unlikely jump there are a lot of smaller steps which are individually more likely. Using a better model of evolution gives a time to evolve a protein with 100 amino acids of just over 2 million years. The model is fairly complex, and needs more calculations than the naive model above. Since it is too long to fit inside the post size limit, here is a link to it.

rossum
 
MichelleTherese, thanks for the geology questions and objections. I am no geologist (computer science is my thing), and others on this board have already answered you. I agree with them, there is no grand conspiracy. All you have to do is read a little bit or ask questions of your professors if you are able, and you’ll understand what you have posted is not credible at all from a scientific standpoint. These are some of the resources online that convinced me what you have stated (I have seen your objections many times before) are not credible. Not surprising, TalkOrigins has dealt with all of this in great detail:

On the fossil record, we have plenty of evidence of transitional forms:

Vertebrate Transitional Fossils – in particular the reptile-mammal transition is extremely well documented
An article on the evolution of birds
An article on the evolution of whales from land mammals

I have posted these many times before. More links are here:

The Evolution FAQs

On the geologic column, it exists in its entirety many places around the globe. For example:

The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota

More links in their Flood Geology FAQs

On the age of the earth, there are many lines of evidence from various dating methods. Here are some of those. There is no grand conspiracy, and no “hiding of data.” Its all published.

The Age of the Earth FAQs – covers radiometric, carbon-14, ice cores, tree rings, supernovae and the age of the universe, etc

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale – covers some of the “assumptions” made, why they are made, and why we can trust the dates

Isochron Dating Methods – covers the technical aspects of radiometric dating

The book to get is The Age of the Earth (Stanford Univ Press, 1991) by G. Brent Dalrymple, he lays it all out in somewhat technical detail. Another one is The Age of the Earth from 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by Lewis and Knell (Geological Society, 2001).

I have summarized much of Dalrymple here

If you don’t like the fact that Dalrymple is an agnostic, then read these:

Radiometric Dating, a Christian Perspective
Schimmrich Answers Woodmorappe

Print these out, or take out a few books from your university library. It’s all out there, the good, the bad, the ugly. It’s not hidden. I don’t believe there is a grand conspiracy of scientists, I believe what the Catechism says here:

283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…

Phil P
 
40.png
rossum:
[snip]

Also the analogy of the infinite monkeys is not a good one. Infinite monkeys are a purely random process, whereas evolution is not a purely random process. Evolution works by random mutation and natural selection. Random mutation is indeed a chance process, and it generates random variations in the gene pool of a species. Natural selection is a non-random process which filters the variations generated by random mutation and keeps those that best match the current environment. Any accurate model of evolution must include both the random generation of variations and the non-random selection of those variations.

As an example, consider a protein with 100 amino acids. If we try a purely random process then we might expect it to take about 6.35 x 10^130 years which is far longer than the age of the earth. The calculation uses a very crude model of evolution, basically it assumes the evolution of the whole protein in a single step. This gives a chance of one in 20 ^ 100 for a protein with 100 amino acids. 20 ^ 100 comes to 1.27 x 10^131 so the chance of the protein appearing in one step is 1 in 1.27 x 10^131. The usual calculation is then to halve this number and say that in a species that reproduces annually then at 50% probability, we get the figure of 6.35 x 10^130 years.

The model of evolution implied in the above calculation is not the model used by Darwinian evolution. Under Darwinian evolution changes arise randomly, and may be beneficial or deleterious (neutral changes are not relevant). Once arisen they are selected very non-randomly with the deleterious changes disappearing and the beneficial changes spreading through population. This has the effect of breaking up the development of the protein so that instead of one very large and unlikely jump there are a lot of smaller steps which are individually more likely. Using a better model of evolution gives a time to evolve a protein with 100 amino acids of just over 2 million years. The model is fairly complex, and needs more calculations than the naive model above. Since it is too long to fit inside the post size limit, here is a link to it.

rossum
Click to expand...
I concur with this even though I disagree with evolution as a whole, but the above represents the evolutionary idea correctly.

May I propose a better way to compare monkeys on typewriters to the evolutionary model would be to assert that
  1. The work of Shakespeare as a whole represents the creatures complete adaption to environment. (if it didn’t the work in its incomplete form would be acceptable)
  2. The letters in the work of Shakespeare represent the building blocks of the creature’s adaptation
Under the new analogy, every time a monkey on a typewriter typed a letter correctly corrosponding to Shakespeare’s work it would represent a successful adaptation, it would be retatined in the evolving work, rather than doing away with the work as a whole every time it did not corrospond.

Furthermore, the work of Shakespeare typed correctly would represent **perfect ** adaptation, which would never occur under evolutionary theory - living organisms are always evolving.

Therefore we would as humans all be incomplete works of literature in progress.
 
SocCatholic, what kind of creationist are you? You might have mentioned in your previous posts. But I understand you don’t like evolution, it’s not science, it is philosophy, and it is nonsense, etc. OK. That’s clear you believe that. 😃

Now what science do you accept? Do you accept the earth is 4.5-4.6 billion years old? If so, why? If not, why?

Do you believe God created the specific “kinds” from scratch and there was no macroevolution? For example, God created the elephant, the dinosaur, the bird, the cockroach, the whale, the kangaroo, all from scratch? These creatures appeared out of thin air by special direct creation at different periods in earth’s history (if you are old earth), or in a 6-day period (if you are young earth) ?

What is it you do believe, and why? And how much evolution do you accept? Are you a “micro” and not “macro” kind of guy? Explain. Or is all evolution acceptable except the human kind? :o

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
SocCatholic, what kind of creationist are you? You might have mentioned in your previous posts. But I understand you don’t like evolution, it’s not science, it is philosophy, and it is nonsense, etc. OK. That’s clear you believe that. 😃

Now what science do you accept? Do you accept the earth is 4.5-4.6 billion years old? If so, why? If not, why?

Do you believe God created the specific “kinds” from scratch and there was no macroevolution? For example, God created the elephant, the dinosaur, the bird, the cockroach, the whale, the kangaroo, all from scratch? These creatures appeared out of thin air by special direct creation at different periods in earth’s history (if you are old earth), or in a 6-day period (if you are young earth) ?

What is it you do believe, and why? And how much evolution do you accept? Are you a “micro” and not “macro” kind of guy? Explain. Or is all evolution acceptable except the human kind? :o

Phil P
Click to expand...
Hecd2 (Alec), whom I respect very much, and I agreed in previous threads that at a minimum we could both agree that evolution makes sense within the context of what certain scientist believe to be a sufficient case for evolution.

Very few people seem to understand the subtle yet far reaching conclusions of what we agreed on because there is a barrier (a creation vs. evolution mentality)

Its simple - Before anyone ever discovered what we believe to be evidence for evolution, there had to be a scientific method of inquiry or world view that allowed for the discovery of the theory of evolution in the first place. That scientific method of inquiry or world view must make logical coherent sense to provide the framework in which one goes about making scientific discoveries. That worldview is not limited to Evolutionists or Christians, but includes both. This is the domain in which I am challenging evolution, or what some refer to as philosophy, but I would like to go by the name of reason to include all who use reason to understand the world around them.

The reason that this debate rages on averaging about 200 posts every thread is becuase creationsts tend to not know about science to talk in those terms, so (to evolutionists amusement) they fall back on the conclusions of other creationists who share their scientific concluisions

conversely,

Evolutionists inablity to see beyond their scientific method of inquiry without regard to the reason that exists outside of their proprietary scientific tools (to creationists amusement) hence their inablity to dialouge without refferring the infallible body of knowledge found at www.TalkOrigins.org

The ideal model which both Evolutionist and Creationist both would agree on is both practical and built from love and charity should be:

"I grew up a Biblical creationist but I don’t know as much about science as these guys do so I’ll listen to what they have to say makes reasonable sense and take the time to listen and understand what these evolutionists believe to be logical rather than experiment with pride by regurgitating the illogical analogies of creationists "

conversely,

“I grew up a Evolutionist but in the interests of reason, truth and science I will approach what they have to say with humble respect for reason becuase that is where my scientific tools owe their origin and maybe my tools that I learned at school and books at the bookstore are proprietary and don’t account for all reason has to teach us about the truth”
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
SocCatholic << Amen. >>

And my one word response to DaveFilmer’s post is: cr-p. 😃

Please, you anti-evolutionists aren’t getting anywhere misunderstanding the science. If evolution is wrong, what is the alternative? I’m sorry but “God did it” is not a scientific alternative. Although I myself believe “God did it” somehow, someway (using macroevolution), the statement “God did it” cannot be measured, tested, observed, or falsified by science. Evolution can and here is the evidence.

Please don’t kid yourself. Evolution has not been measured or observed. There is no missing link. If you or any evolutionist use the regular tests of true science like replication, you cannot prove evolution. You are just using a different faith and different assumptions than are creation scientists. It really is so much easier to believe in creation than in evolution. To believe in design as opposed to pure chance. What a fantastic leap of faith chance requires.
Even if one were, for example, to accept the Big Bang Theory,
what or who, if not God, provided the initial energy and/or mass?
Those who believe in evolution do so by accepting the truth of several nonscientific unproven assumptions. Honest science demands replication. Anything else is either a guess or an act of faith.
Intellectually honest scholars wouldn’t be afraid to have a design theory taught alongside an evolutionary theory. Creation versus chance. Faith against faith.
Newman60
Click to expand...
 
This site has something on evolution:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

Evolution and Christianity are conpatible. Evolution is an undeniable fact. This is another reason to believe in the Catholic Church, the Church accepts TRUE and PROVEN facts while some Protestants don’t.
 
Led Zeppelin75:
This site has something on evolution:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

Evolution and Christianity are conpatible. Evolution is an undeniable fact. This is another reason to believe in the Catholic Church, the Church accepts TRUE and PROVEN facts while some Protestants don’t.
Click to expand...
Evolution is not “an undeniable fact”!
Whether you wish to have evolution and Christianity be compatible is not the same as saying evolution is proven. It simply has not been proven. It is a series of assumptions. It requires a serious act of faith. It is a THEORY. No amount of rhetoric changes that.
If you wish to believe in theistic evolution, I think you are making our God smaller than He is. But that would be your act of faith. Saying that evolution is fact means that you are confusing assumptions and facts, faith and reality.
Newman60
 
40.png
Newman60:
Evolution is not “an undeniable fact”!
Whether you wish to have evolution and Christianity be compatible is not the same as saying evolution is proven. It simply has not been proven. It is a series of assumptions. It requires a serious act of faith. It is a THEORY. No amount of rhetoric changes that.
If you wish to believe in theistic evolution, I think you are making our God smaller than He is. But that would be your act of faith. Saying that evolution is fact means that you are confusing assumptions and facts, faith and reality.
Newman60
Click to expand...
Being truly scientific, evolution is a theory, not a law. It’s not proven, but it’s pretty undeniable. It’s undeniable to the point where denial of it is pure ignorance. The pope accepts evolution! I was taught evolution in a Catholic school. Every Catholic I know accepts evolution, our preists, ect. Maybe it’s because I live in the UK, away from American radicalism. Tell me how I’m dishonoring God by accepting evolution?
 
Thanks SocCatholic for the post. Basically you are saying both sides should use good reason, respect science, and respect each other. OK, I agree. Now on to Newman60’s recent post who hasn’t read or learned a darn thing in the 4.5 billion posts on this subject. 😃

Newman60 << Please don’t kid yourself. >>

Okay I’ll try not to.

Newman60 << Evolution has not been measured or observed. >>

Yes it has. And it has again. These are observed instances of speciation, and evolution is directly measured and observed small scale. The evidence for macroevolution is partly an extrapolation of that, but its based on other evidence as well. Here is a summary of that article with many “missing links” = transitional fossils.

Newman << There is no missing link. >>

There are plenty of “missing links” if you mean by that transitional forms in the fossil record. I’ve provided them, look to the posts above. There are the mammal-reptiles and reptile-mammals, the evolution of birds, of elephants, of horses, of whales from land mammals. The missing links are no longer missing, see my found links above (pun intended). Here is one, Ambulocetus Natans, the walking whale that swims

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ambulocetus.jpg

I’m just scratching the surface, many folks who have posted on this subject on these boards are much more knowledgeable.

Newman60 << If you or any evolutionist use the regular tests of true science like replication, you cannot prove evolution. >>

Evolution is not about "proof" but evidence. Science doesn’t deal in absolutes but does deal in data, evidence, observations, and making predictions based on those, and yes repeatability. But it also makes inferences from these. There is lots of good evidence from various scientific disciplines. And in case you didn’t know, Evolution is considered both a Fact (common descent) and a Theory (natural selection).

Newman60 << You are just using a different faith and different assumptions than are creation scientists. It really is so much easier to believe in creation than in evolution. >>

Creationism might be easier for some from a faith standpoint, but not a science standpoint. Classic “creation science” (or creationism) is bad science and this has been shown in the courts (starting with the Arkansas Creationist Trial in 1981-2). It has also not demonstrated its case to the scientific community. There’s a few more missing links for you to chew on. 😃 I am looking to meld together good science with good theology, not terrible science and okay theology. 😛

Phil P
 
Led Zeppelin75:
Being truly scientific, evolution is a theory, not a law. It’s not proven, but it’s pretty undeniable. It’s undeniable to the point where denial of it is pure ignorance. The pope accepts evolution! I was taught evolution in a Catholic school. Every Catholic I know accepts evolution, our preists, ect. Maybe it’s because I live in the UK, away from American radicalism. Tell me how I’m dishonoring God by accepting evolution?
Click to expand...
Led Zeppelin75,
Please don’t take it that way. I merely meant that God seems smaller if one accepts evolution and the amount of chance inherent in that belief as opposed to God being the designer of our wonderful world. Contemplating things like our eyes or our hands or other wonders of our bodies as being designed to me ascribes greater magnificence to God. It certainly isn’t that you somehow dishonored God. Obviously God is not any different because of our differing worldviews. He is awesome and magnificent regardless of our thoughts.
We probably do have different perspectives on our different sides of the Atlantic. When I get the opportunity to visit with my sister-in-law’s friends from Sunderland, we mostly agree but we do have different perspectives. He unfortunately, like my own sisters, chooses not to be on-line.
On the other hand I don’t feel ignorant for not accepting theistic evolution as I once did. As I said before it is deniable because it simply has not been proven. It is just another faith system requiring some very significant assumptions to be true.
I have been paying attention to geological debates about our Mount St Helens volcano and the Grand Canyon. It’s not Catholic or protestant or atheistic. It is just geology with scientists on both sides making differing assumptions from the same available data.
Isn’t it marvelous that we can be exposed to all of these ideas? More information at our fingertips than we can even begin to study.
Newman60
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Thanks SocCatholic for the post. Basically you are saying both sides should use good reason, respect science, and respect each other. OK, I agree.

Phil P
Click to expand...
PhilVaz, You must not agree as you said or you would not have gone on to talk about “bad science” and “terrible science” while claiming “good science” exclusively for your viewpoint.
Believe what you want to. But you are doing just that - believing. Evolution is only a theory with many believers and many others who have merely been brainwashed because that is what they are constantly being told. That is all they are being told. They are not even given a chance to be exposed to any other reasoning.
Why must believers in evolution be so afraid of debating an alternate belief? It should make you stronger in your belief or at least face the holes in your theory and try to correct them.
Do you realize that you sound fearful and dogmatic like the losers in the Scopes trial?
Newman60
 
40.png
Newman60:
I have been paying attention to geological debates about our Mount St Helens volcano and the Grand Canyon. It’s not Catholic or protestant or atheistic. It is just geology with scientists on both sides making differing assumptions from the same available data.
Click to expand...
What debate? There is no debate that includes the Grand Canyon and Mt. St. Helens in the geological community. There are some people who, either because they don’t understand geology or are purposely trying to deceive, have tried to use Mt. St. Helens as an example of how the Grand Canyon was formed quickly. But trust me on this, or better yet, do some legitimate research on your own, there is NO debate in the geologic community about this.

Peace

Tim
 
Newman60 << I have been paying attention to geological debates about our Mount St Helens volcano and the Grand Canyon. It’s not Catholic or protestant or atheistic. It is just geology with scientists on both sides making differing assumptions from the same available data. >>

Well, okay if you define “debate” as one lone creationist geologist with a Ph.D. (Steve Austin, a man barely alive, we can re-build him), vs. 20,000 other Ph.D. geologists in the world. Some debate. 😃 A couple relevant links below, and No they aren’t all TalkOrigins this time. 😛

The Geology of the Grand Canyon

Young-earth creationism and the Grand Canyon

ICR’s Grand Canyon Project by Chris Stassen

Another critique of Steve Austin by Glenn Morton

Another critique of Steve Austin by Tim Heaton, earth sciences prof

In one corner, ladies and gentlemen we have

Grand Canyon Geology by Oxford University Press – representing 20,000 geologists

And in the other, cowering 😃

Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe by Steve Austin

If you mean the lava flows and dating at Mount St. Helens, you forgot to check TalkOrigins first 👍

Dating Mount St. Helens dacite
Mount St. Helens and Grand Canyon
Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mt. St. Helens

TalkOrigins has spoken, the canyon is closed. :cool:

Phil P
 
Orogeny and PhilVaz,
There was no debate in Nazi Germany either. My goodness what are you afraid of? You sound like liberals who define tolerance as only for those who hold your viewpoint.
There really are intelligent people who reasonably hold a different viewpoint. That’s remarkable since schools and the news media have been exclusively devoted to evolution for generations.
But the theory has still not been proven despite all of the advances of modern science. By this time Darwin himself might have changed his mind.
When the Pro-Life candidate for the Senate from Illinois was soundly beaten in this election, that did not invalidate the Pro-Life position.
Yes the overwhelming numbers are on your side. But your faith or belief in evolution is still just that: a system of assumptions which make that theory work. There is no hard proof.
Newman60
 
40.png
Newman60:
Orogeny and PhilVaz,
There was no debate in Nazi Germany either.
Click to expand...
Nazi Germany? Are you serious? There is no debate on this issue (geology of Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon) not because of ideology but because there is NO science in the position you are taking. That is not about faith. You can choose to ignore ALL the evidence if you want, but remember, it was you that brought up the DEBATE. If you can’t DEBATE, don’t start with the name calling. I take GREAT OFFENSE to being equated with Nazi Germany.
My goodness what are you afraid of? You sound like liberals who define tolerance as only for those who hold your viewpoint.
Click to expand...
You are the one doing the name calling because we don’t agree with you. So I guess it is only tolerance if we agree with your viewpoint.
There really are intelligent people who reasonably hold a different viewpoint. That’s remarkable since schools and the news media have been exclusively devoted to evolution for generations.
Click to expand...
Not on this issue of geology. Not a single legitimate scientist. Not one. And I am including Steve Austin in this group.
But the theory has still not been proven despite all of the advances of modern science. By this time Darwin himself might have changed his mind.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with evolution. Erosion observed following the eruption of Mt. St. Helens has no correlation to the Grand Canyon. Don’t use that as an argument against evolution.
Yes the overwhelming numbers are on your side. But your faith or belief in evolution is still just that: a system of assumptions which make that theory work. There is no hard proof.
Newman60
Click to expand...
None that you accept, but then again, there can’t be any that you accept because you have a position to prove and you can’t be bothered by mere evidence.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Thanks SocCatholic for the post. Basically you are saying both sides should use good reason, respect science, and respect each other.
Click to expand...
Yeah. What I am trying to say is that I agree with you about evolution on whatever constraints YOU SAY are neccessary for it to be possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top