EVOLUTION: what about this

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Evolution has become god. The source of good and bad and what is to come.

If any Catholic here wants any further proof that Atheism is the new ideology for the intellectual elite, here it is.

Peace,
Ed

If evolution were capable of explaining everything, why would that put God “out of court” in any way at all ? That could happen only if evolution & God were beings on the same “level”. They aren’t. Therefore, God is as He was - as is evolution.​

Why does it follow that because evolution can, or might, according to some, explain everything, God is excluded ? This looks like God-of-the-gaps to me.

 

[reggieM]

Science will go ahead with or without your approval.

As long as people keep paying for it – then yes.

 

[reggieM]

"If life was designed, an idiot did it. This is, of course, an exaggeration …

The designer of that analogy could have prevented that exaggeration that he had to explain.

 

[Namesake]

If evolution were capable of explaining everything, why would that put God “out of court” in any way at all ? That could happen only if evolution & God were beings on the same “level”. They aren’t. Therefore, God is as He was - as is evolution.​

Why does it follow that because evolution can, or might, according to some, explain everything, God is excluded ? This looks like God-of-the-gaps to me.

I don’t know anyone who claims that the theory of evolution explains everything. In fact, I don’t know anyone who thinks that the theory of evolution is complete or without flaws. Those sorts of ideas are made up by people who want to throw up straw man arguments. Serious scientists don’t think that the theory of evolution is complete or without flaws. I can’t think of a scientific theory that is complete and without flaws.

Most times we don’t know what the flaws are but we are on the track to find them out. Same with the theory of evolution. We are learning more everyday.

 

[reggieM]

If evolution were capable of explaining everything, why would that put God “out of court” in any way at all ?​

If you’re willing to reject *de fide *Catholic teaching and assert that either human beings do not have a soul (supernatural component), or else whatever appears spiritual in man is actually the product of natural processes – then there shouldn’t be a problem at all.

If evolution were able to explain everything, then it would explain the origin of the human soul, the spiritual life of man and the miracles of Christ.

 

[reggieM]

In fact, I don’t know anyone who thinks that the theory of evolution is complete or without flaws.

I’d like to introduce you to someone:

That’s right, reggie. I know of no flaws in the theory [of evolution].

There. Now you’ll never have to say that again.

Serious scientists don’t think that the theory of evolution is complete or without flaws.

I will quote your comment back to Tim when he insists. But he’s also “looking for the evidence” that indicates that the theory of evolution actually is not “flawless”.

 

[reggieM]

That science and the Church are complimentary has never been debated on this forum. I think you made that idea up in your mind.

We’re getting near the milestone of 5 million posts on this forum. I’m pretty sure that you haven’t read them all, and therefore cannot say if it has “never been debated” or not.

 

[Namesake]

As long as people keep paying for it – then yes.

Well, you do understand that science has to be paid for just like anything else.

The cool thing is that as soon as someone publishes a new finding there are a whole bunch of people who want to refute the findings. That’s how science works, whether you accept it or not. Lots of very bright grad students are just chomping at the bit to refute any science. It’s the sure way to a quick start.

If there was a way to refute evolution theory there would be a cadre of grad students all over the world lined up for grants to do research that could refute that theory. That it hasn’t even come close to happening is an indication that there isn’t much to be found there. Grad students are very hungry critters and they like low hanging fruit. Evolution theory doesn’t qualify.

I am talking about many thousands of grad students all over the world. Do you really believe they could all be controlled by a conspiracy? Just think of it Reggie. Thousands of very bright well educated and eager students looking for a way to make their name in science. If you were correct why wouldn’t even one of those students publish research in a peer reviewed journal that would cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution?

Do you really believe it’s a conspiracy?

 

[reggieM]

Lots of very bright grad students are just chomping at the bit to refute any science.

I don’t agree. Most of them are looking for someone to pay them to do what they were trained to do.

If there was a way to refute evolution theory there would be a cadre of grad students all over the world lined up for grants to do research that could refute that theory.

You’re assuming that they accept evolution as a neutral value and not as a religious dogma. How many Catholic seminarians complete theology study with the interest in overthrowing Catholic teaching? Not that many. They become priests to serve the doctrine. Evolutionists become priests to their doctrine – because they believe in it. That is their salvation, or so they think.

I am talking about many thousands of grad students all over the world.

They don’t spend $250K absorbting evolutionary propaganda in order to refute it. They do it to mimic their professors and repeat the clichés and errors that we always hear. There are many scientific theories that were eventually refuted – but they also had very long and consistent support from the science community. So, scientists can be very wrong.

Do you really believe they could all be controlled by a conspiracy?

Do I believe that atheists are controlled by Satan? Yes. Do I think Satan is engaged in a conspiracy against God, the Church and all believers? Yes. That’s the nature of evil. That’s the way evil is done.

Thousands of very bright well educated and eager students looking for a way to make their name in science.

They all know that they’re not going to make a name for themselves in science by criticizing evolutionary theory in the slightest way. On the contrary, they’ll be mocked and ridiculed, even if they’re correct.

For example, what are the flaws in evolutionary theory and who are the scientists who exposed them?

If you were correct why wouldn’t even one of those students publish research in a peer reviewed journal that would cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution?

The film Expelled got into this. Legitimate scientists faced discrimination in their employment when they cast doubt on evolutionary theory.

 

[Namesake]

I’d like to introduce you to someone:

There. Now you’ll never have to say that again.

I will quote your comment back to Tim when he insists. But he’s also “looking for the evidence” that indicates that the theory of evolution actually is not “flawless”.

Tim didn’t say that the theory of evolution is without flaws. He said that he doesn’t know of any flaws, nor do I, and I dare say that you don’t either. There are undoubtedly flaws, as I am sure Tim would agree. We just don’t know what the flaws are at this time. There will be flaws discovered and then the theory will be corrected. That’s how science works, happens all the time.

 

[reggieM]

There are undoubtedly flaws, as I am sure Tim would agree. We just don’t know what the flaws are at this time. There will be flaws discovered and then the theory will be corrected. That’s how science works, happens all the time.

Ok, I realized that you were not going to admit that there are any flaws in evolutionary theory when I questioned you about what the flaws actually are.

You’re another one who believes that there are no known flaws in the theory of evolution. At present, it is a flawless theory, according to you.

 

[Namesake]

I don’t agree. Most of them are looking for someone to pay them to do what they were trained to do.

You are not correct in that. Scientists, especially grad students, are very motivated to show evidence that refutes accepted theories. That’s the fast track to prominence in science. Find something new, especially something that refutes current theory.

You’re assuming that they accept evolution as a neutral value and not as a religious dogma.

You and your ilk view evolution theory as religious dogma but scientists do not. It just is.

How many Catholic seminarians complete theology study with the interest in overthrowing Catholic teaching? Not that many. They become priests to serve the doctrine. Evolutionists become priests to their doctrine – because they believe in it. That is their salvation, or so they think.

I have never known a scientist or grad student who regarded evolution theory in the way you describe. They don’t regard themselves to be priests and it certainly isn’t on the level of salvation. You invent that.

They don’t spend $250K absorbting evolutionary propaganda in order to refute it. They do it to mimic their professors and repeat the clichés and errors that we always hear.

If you have spent much time in a graduate department involved in scientific research you couldn’t make that kind of statement. Grad school encourages, actually demands original thought. That’s what grad school is all about. It’s a requirement of a doctoral dissertation to present original research. The key word is original. To find out something that wasn’t known before, and defend those findings before a skeptical panel of professors.

There are many scientific theories that were eventually refuted – but they also had very long and consistent support from the science community. So, scientists can be very wrong.

That’s the really cool thing about science. Scientists welcome information that proves their theories wrong. Scientists are often wrong and they look for the way that they are wrong and they welcome research that can show theories to be wrong.

When they are wrong they adjust the theories and move on. That’s how science works.

They all know that they’re not going to make a name for themselves in science by criticizing evolutionary theory in the slightest way. On the contrary, they’ll be mocked and ridiculed, even if they’re correct.

On the contrary. If anyone could show significant research that would refute evolution theory they would be a huge hero in scientific circles. Finding new conflicting evidence in science is the highest achievement possible. Especially if it can be replicated.

For example, what are the flaws in evolutionary theory and who are the scientists who exposed them?

We don’t know. There are lots of smart people doing research and someone will find something that will modify the theory of evolution. It happens all the time. The theory changes as new information comes to light.

We don’t know what we will discover, but we will discover new things and the theory will change accordingly. That how science works.

The film Expelled got into this. Legitimate scientists faced discrimination in their employment when they cast doubt on evolutionary theory.

Legitimate scientists got into trouble when they decided to include religion into their science. That is how it should be. There is no place within science for the supernatural.

 

[Namesake]

Ok, I realized that you were not going to admit that there are any flaws in evolutionary theory when I questioned you about what the flaws actually are.

You’re another one who believes that there are no known flaws in the theory of evolution. At present, it is a flawless theory, according to you.

That isn’t true. There are undoubtedly flaws. We can’t know at this moment what they are but there are flaws. The flaws will be exposed as new research is done.

The theory of evolution isn’t a complete or flawless theory.

 

[reggieM]

The theory of evolution isn’t a … flawless theory.

I’ve asked you several times for evidence supporting this conclusion.

 

[ricmat]

You are not correct in that. Scientists, especially grad students, are very motivated to show evidence that refutes accepted theories. That’s the fast track to prominence in science. Find something new, especially something that refutes current theory.

So there should be millions of scientists and grad students out there trying to refute the theory of evolution. To get on the fast track. To become prominent.

Where are they?

 

[reggieM]

A novel concept in the world of evolutionary theorizing … Apparently, there were some unspecified and undefined “evolutionary potential” which explains the sudden increase in size and complexity of organisms through history.

(There are “no flaws” in the theory of evolution, and so we’re told --even when new concepts have to be invented to explain what natural selection could not have produced).

Latent Evolutionary Potential

Each size step required a major innovation in organismal
complexity—first the eukaryotic cell and later eukaryotic multicellularity.

These size steps coincide with, or slightly postdate, increases
in the concentration of atmospheric oxygen, **suggesting
latent evolutionary potential **was realized soon after environmental limitations were removed.

The size increases appear to have occurred when ambient oxygen concentrations reached sufficient
concentrations for clades to realize** preexisting evolutionary
potential**, highlighting the long-term dependence of
macroevolutionary pattern on both biological potential and
environmental opportunity.

from a commentary on this article …

What exactly this “evolutionary potential” was is not speculated upon. The presence of latent genetic programs is certainly the most obvious explanation. Darwinists of course are unable to offer this obvious possibility. They would then have to explain where those programs might have come from. They would then be branded ID Creationists and lose their jobs.

While the article does not directly address the implications for Darwinism of the existence of “latent” or “preexisting” evolutionary potential, the impossibility of fitting this concept into the standard neo-Darwinian paradigm is obvious. The standard explanation of life’s development, of course, requires incremental trial-and-error mutations, with nothing “preexistent” about them, selected gradually over generations to build up evolutionary change.

What these researchers have nicely documented in the fossil record, like so many other discoveries, flatly contradicts what would be expected in a Darwinian world. The findings fit quite nicely, however, with the concept of a preexistent design, with front-loaded genetic programs.

 

[peacefulwarrior]

Okay, you want a flaw i’ll give you one of the mysteries that the evolutionary theory has not answered. The transtion from the creation of RNA to DNA. As most biologists might be able to tell you, RNA is able to be created from simple matter, but it turning to DNA is a mysterie. RNA by the whole theory should be the dominant feature of all living beings because it can store information and is able to catatilyze it’s own reactions, unlike DNA who can only store information. I’ll say that reverse transcriptase most likely did not exist back then, so it wouldn’t be able to make RNA to DNA like it does now. I’ll answere another question, there is a reason for the complexity of organisms. First probably prokaryotic organisms formed that lived via anerobic resperation. These beings lived from the water and abundant carbon dioxide. They let out oxygen, and the organisms multiplied and helped make the ozone layer. Now the complexitie comes into play. Now that there is so much oxygen in the atmosphere a organism probably mutated that it can survive of oxygen. With oxygen a better process to make energy comes into play aerobic resperation. Imagine getting 5 dollars to live of every day. Then imagine getting 95 dollars to live of everyday. As you can see you can do alot more with the 95 than the 5. With so much extra energy organisms can afford to grow in size and number. Why would they want to get larger, well it could have been easier to survive if they were larger.

How do i know this flaw? My Teacher said it to his students, and he is a evolutionary major and researcher and well duh teacher.

There is no such thing as a perfect theory, something that is perfect has to encode every single factor, sadly if we did that we will never be done adding them all in.

 

[Orogeny]

I will quote your comment back to Tim when he insists. But he’s also “looking for the evidence” that indicates that the theory of evolution actually is not “flawless”.

And I stand by my statement. I know of no flaws in the theory. Nor do you.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Okay, you want a flaw i’ll give you one of the mysteries that the evolutionary theory has not answered. The transtion from the creation of RNA to DNA.

You and reggie seem to think that a lack of knowledge of how a particular thing happens is a flaw. It is not. A flaw would be something that is known and is not explainable by the theory. Two completely different things.

How do i know this flaw? My Teacher said it to his students, and he is a evolutionary major and researcher and well duh teacher.

Did he tell you that evolution was false? Did he tell you what hypothesis he has developed to explain not only the development of DNA from RNA but also the entire data set that is explained by the current theory? When will he be publishing his research supporting his hypothesis?

There is no such thing as a perfect theory, something that is perfect has to encode every single factor, sadly if we did that we will never be done adding them all in.

Of course there is no such thing as a perfect theory because we will never have all the data.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

What these researchers have nicely documented in the fossil record, like so many other discoveries, flatly contradicts what would be expected in a Darwinian world. The findings fit quite nicely, however, with the concept of a preexistent design, with front-loaded genetic programs.

Good. I will be watching for their new theory and see if it explains all the existing data.

Peace

Tim