Evolution

[buffalo]

Yep. Science is an evil plot to reject God . I see you conveniantly ignored what was posted at the top the page on pst number #46 with all a bunch of sources confirming evolution.

As I stated - this is philosophy. So the question is, as has been, whose philosophy contains more truth.

 

[Isambard]

As I stated - this is philosophy. So the question is, as has been, whose philosophy contains more truth.

Its typically the one that is both internally consistant and externally based on reality.

Evolution wins on all counts while Creationism fails in every respect.

 

[buffalo]

Its typically the one that is both internally consistant and externally based on reality.

Evolution wins on all counts while Creationism fails in every respect.

Cool - at least you are honest in what evolution is.

Now we can work on what we know. We have the Truth of Revelation and we have the truth of our observations.

The Truth of Revelation comes to us from God. There is more truth out there than the senses can observe.

The truth of evolution comes from putting the pieces of a huge puzzle together. Our observations we have to process into a theory to make any sense of. Science by its own definition has a limited say about truth. It cannot speak to the supernatural either.

In any case I make my arguments with regard to the origins of man.

 

[Isambard]

Cool - at least you are honest in what evolution is.

Now we can work on what we know. We have the Truth of Revelation and we have the truth of our observations.

The Truth of Revelation comes to us from God. There is more truth out there than the senses can observe.

The truth of evolution comes from putting the pieces of a huge puzzle together. Our observations we have to process into a theory to make any sense of. Science by its own definition has a limited say about truth. I cannot speak to the supernatural either.

In any case I make my arguments with regard to the origins of man.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA&feature=related

My response can be summed up above.

 

[VociMike]

Evolution has never been proven.

I’m not sure what it would mean for evolution to be “proven,” so let me ask an apples vs. apples question:

Which scenario, evolution or literal Genesis creation, has more objective scientific evidence backing it?

For that matter, which scenario, modern cosmology or literal Genesis creation, has more objective scientific evidence backing it?

I just want straight-up A vs. B comparisons here.

 

[edwest2]

The worship of “objective scientific evidence” can cause a form of idolatry. It becomes the only way of knowing. Divine revelation is another way of knowing. It includes the action of divine providence in the development of life on earth. If truth cannot contradict truth, it is safe to say, there are some truths that exist outside of science but these divinely revealed truths are no less true.

The Bible is not a science text but it does record things God actually did. Adam and Eve are not a fiction.

God bless,
Ed

 

[VociMike]

The worship of “objective scientific evidence” can cause a form of idolatry. It becomes the only way of knowing. Divine revelation is another way of knowing. It includes the action of divine providence in the development of life on earth. If truth cannot contradict truth, it is safe to say, there are some truths that exist outside of science but these divinely revealed truths are no less true.

Well, I’ll take that as as a “no comment.” It certainly didn’t answer my simple and extremely relevant question. In fact, I’d call it downright evasive.

Let’s see, the “worship” of objective scientific evidence? My, but that’s quite a stretch from asking for evidence. After all, if people are going to claim that X is not proven (not proven by what? - objective scientific evidence, presumably!), then isn’t it reasonable (reason being one of our God-given attributes) to see how that evidence supports the two contending visions?

So, in the hope of not being thought to worship evidence, I ask again, does the objective scientific evidence support evolution more, or does it support literal Genesis creation more. And does the objective scientific evidence support modern cosmology more, or does it support literal Genesis creation more.

C’mon folks, here’s your chance to put up or…well…just to put up.

 

[Orogeny]

Take time to surf their sites you will see that they are.

Sorry, but any organization that requires its members to agree to the following statement EXPLICITLY rejects science. From AIG’s Statement of Faith:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Peace

Tim

 

[The_Barbarian]

The people at Answers in Genesis have been caught altering the writings of scientists to make it appear that they said things they did not.

As John Paul II wrote, Truth cannot conradict Truth. But lies can. And AIG is an old hand at contradicting truth.

 

[reggieM]

[Genes] are in you and me; they created us, body and mind;and their preservation is the ultimate rational for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes,and we are their survival machines.
– Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene

That is from the most prominent name in evolutionary “science”. He is widely accepted in the scientific culture, so we can see how deeply the errors have penetrated.

 

[edwest2]

Genes are god.

They created themselves and then, human beings.

You are not you but your genes are, as they continue to randomly mutate and naturally select future man into infinity.

Speaking as a professional writer, this would not make for a good science fiction story.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Speaking as a professional writer, this would not make for a good science fiction story.

Quite true.

Then consider what percentage of the science culture fully accepts what Dawkins said. I would guess at least 70% (all of the atheists would) – and probably more like 85%.

That’s how poisoned this particular academic field really is – sadly.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Genes are god.

They created themselves and then, human beings.

You are not you but your genes are, as they continue to randomly mutate and naturally select future man into infinity.

Speaking as a professional writer, this would not make for a good science fiction story.

Not a very convincing story, but it’s the best the IDer/Creationists can do at misrepresenting what science says about it. IT is, of course, not even what Dawkins says about it, much less scientists who don’t hate religion.

It is a rather shabby and amateurish misrepresentation. If you’re a professional writer, Reggie, I would think you could do better than that.

 

[edwest2]

I am the writer. This is exactly what evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology state: “Genes and the environment, what else is there?”

Science is inadequate and comes second in importance to divine revelation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

I am the writer.

Thanks for helping Barbarian learn how to read posts on this forum. He really struggles with it. This is at least the third time he has misrepresented me for someone else’s posts.
I hope this is not an indication of how he conducts his scientific work. He may end up putting dangerous chemicals in the wrong test-tubes.
Even worse, he may completely mistake what a writer said and become convinced that Darwinism is true due to that mistake.
For a guy who claims he is a scientist, I see quite a large number of mistakes and inaccuracies.

 

[The_Catholic]

Thanks for helping Barbarian learn how to read posts on this forum. He really struggles with it. This is at least the third time he has misrepresented me for someone else’s posts.
I hope this is not an indication of how he conducts his scientific work. He may end up putting dangerous chemicals in the wrong test-tubes.
Even worse, he may completely mistake what a writer said and become convinced that Darwinism is true due to that mistake.
For a guy who claims he is a scientist, I see quite a large number of mistakes and inaccuracies.

I am a writer too I’m almost done with a (probably) 500 page fantasy story I’ve been working on for 7 years.

But also, God created us by evolution, get over it!

 

[The_Barbarian]

Unfortunately the best creationists seem to be capable of, is writing imaginative misrepresentations of what science says.

It’s all they have left to do.

 

[edwest2]

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

God is not a useless appendage.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Chancellor]

Actually creationism IS considered a pseudo science…by the Catholic Church. Well, and most of the protestant church as well, and of course all of the Jews.

It has come to the point on a thread that we see how some people who post simply have not read or understood the Catholic faith that has been articulated.

Since I am still very new to CAF, can someone please tell me whether these threads are simply infected with fundies who just want to try to disrupt the Catholic dialogue, or are there actually Catholics who out of stubbornness or entrenched naivete just simply don’t take the time to learn the truth?

Please help.

Chancellor

 

[Cathy]

Since I am still very new to CAF, can someone please tell me whether these threads are simply infected with fundies who just want to try to disrupt the Catholic dialogue, or are there actually Catholics who out of stubbornness or entrenched naivete just simply don’t take the time to learn the truth?

Please help.

Chancellor

Speaking only for myself,
I happen to believe that God uses evolution in His act of creation. I do believe what the Church teaches: that we have a pair of first parents whose creation was miraculous in some way. But I don’t suppose they were created literally immediately from the dust of the earth (from which we all ultimately come in our material bodies). I also believe Mary’s conception and Jesus’ conception and birth were miraculous. And I believe the original sin of Adam and Eve lost some kind of supernatural grace for them, after which they were not able to pass it on to us. I believe our supernatural life is literally regenerated through our baptism into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I struggled with these beliefs before coming to the Catholic Faith as an adult, but I have seen enough miracles in my life that I now know God performs them, probably for the benefit of people like me who have very little faith.

I studied geology for 6 years (Los Angeles, CA and UMass, Amherst) and then practiced geology as a coal explorationist for 5years before having a family. Nothing in my geological studies tells me that my religious beliefs are impossible. And my religious beliefs never interfered with my ability to find coal. Probably half of the geologists I worked with were practicing Christians. I see no conflict between the Christian Faith and geology, and neither did they.

Have you taken the time to study the Catechism of the Catholic Church and spend time each day getting to know your Creator personally? Ask Him to make Himself known to you in some way that is undeniable to you. If you ask Him sincerely, He will do it.

And happy fossil hunting! Oh yeah, check out Topangasquilla gravesi, named after my favorite Christian lover of science!
Cathy