evolution

[warpspeedpetey]

I said I had seen the claims before, and they were clearly wrong. I’m asking you to present the ones you think have some substance to them.

thats not what you said before, you kept telling me to back up a non existent claim, or assertion.

You claimed “gaping gaps in the theory”, and when challenged to support them, first evaded, and later misrepresented what I wrote in order to avoid it.

there was no claim no matter how you wish to parse the post out of context

if i had made an actual claim of something more than the existense of counter arguments why wouldnt i support it?

simple, no such claim was made.

If you plan on spending some time here, that was probably not a good idea. I gather you’ve realized the “gaping gaps” you claimed don’t exist

i still believe that counter arguments exist, i dont know whether you are correct in your assessment of them or not, i havent examined their validity, nor do i need to in order to observe their existence. i dont even care.

though i find it amusing that you hold that there are no counter arguments, and then you discount them.

which is it?

and are trying for a graceful exit. Not possible now.

i dont care about things like a graceful exit. i have no such concerns in my nature. i thrive on conflict

 

[Orogeny]

Acceptance of evolution rules out God having any role in the creation of the universe.

Wrong.

Either life arose by natural selection acting on chance mutations or by God. God acts with a purpose, not randomly. The two options are mutually exclusive.

No they are not. Who are you to say that evolution isn’t the process God used? What is random to God?

Peace

Tim

 

[garysibio]

Wrong.No they are not. Who are you to say that evolution isn’t the process God used? What is random to God?

Peace

Tim

If God was involved random mutations wouldn’t be random, they would be divinely designed. Evolution says the mutations are random. The theory has no need for God otherwise the textbooks would have to mention Him. They don’t. Theistic evolution is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.

Gary

 

[buffalo]

Wrong.No they are not. Who are you to say that evolution isn’t the process God used? What is random to God?

Peace

Tim

Did God know what Adam would look like? If He did then He created Him as He wished, not as evolution would have it. Unless you are saying that He guided evolution all along, but then what exactly is God guided evolution?

 

[Orogeny]

If God was involved random mutations wouldn’t be random, they would be divinely designed. Evolution says the mutations are random.

What is random to God?

The theory has no need for God otherwise the textbooks would have to mention Him. They don’t. Theistic evolution is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.

And physics and chemistry and geology have how many references to God? My crystallography textbook, which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, doesn’t mention God. In fact, NO science textbook uses God as an explaination. If it did, it wouldn’t be a science book.

Peace

Tim

 

[garysibio]

What is random to God?

You’re starting to sound like Bill Clinton. Random is random, no design, no purpose.

And physics and chemistry and geology have how many references to God? My crystallography textbook, which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, doesn’t mention God. In fact, NO science textbook uses God as an explanation. If it did, it wouldn’t be a science book.

My point exactly. Evolution does not require God to be involved in the process. If God was necessary for evolution to work, the textbooks would have to mention Him. God is not found in evolution texts because evolutionists don’t believe He had anything to do with the origins of life.

At any rate, science is now beginning to find out that evolution is inadequate as an explanation for the origins of life. The biochemical processes found in even the simplest organisms are so complex that no rational person could believe that all of the steps involved could have appeared simultaneously for even one of them, much less all of them.

Gary

 

[Orogeny]

You’re starting to sound like Bill Clinton. Random is random, no design, no purpose.

Really? God doesn’t know what is going to happen next?

My point exactly. Evolution does not require God to be involved in the process. If God was necessary for evolution to work, the textbooks would have to mention Him. God is not found in evolution texts because evolutionists don’t believe He had anything to do with the origins of life.

Wrong again. God is supernatural and science is limited to the natural. Can you point out to me ANY science textbook that mentions God as a cause?

Is God not necessary for crystal formation?

At any rate, science is now beginning to find out that evolution is inadequate as an explanation for the origins of life.

Actually, science has known that all along. Evolution isn’t about origins of life. That is abiogenesis.

The biochemical processes found in even the simplest organisms are so complex that no rational person could believe that all of the steps involved could have appeared simultaneously for even one of them, much less all of them.

Arguments from incredulity are not convincing. Especially if you are arguing abiogenesis in a discussion about evolution since they are not the same thing.

Peace

Tim

 

[garysibio]

Really? God doesn’t know what is going to happen next? Wrong again. God is supernatural and science is limited to the natural. Can you point out to me ANY science textbook that mentions God as a cause?

Is God not necessary for crystal formation?Actually, science has known that all along. Evolution isn’t about origins of life. That is abiogenesis.Arguments from incredulity are not convincing. Especially if you are arguing abiogenesis in a discussion about evolution since they are not the same thing.

Peace

Tim

Yes. God knows what is going to happen next. If His actions were truly random, He wouldn’t know. The fact that God does know what is happening next means that He is a designer, not a roller of dice. Evolution says the dice were rolled.

Science textbooks don’t mention God because the authors either don’t believe He is relevant to what they are writing about or, even more likely, doesn’t believe He exists at all.

As a Christian I believe that God is sovereign. He knows how many hairs there are on our heads and if a sparrow falls to the ground. So, yes, He does make crystals in that sense.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

One point that often gets overlooked is that, regardless of what you believe regarding the origins of life, we are talking about history, not science. It is not possible to verify any viewpoint in a scientific manner. The best you can hope to do is say that such and such a chain of events could have happened or that they could not possibly have happened, but you can’t prove that they did happen.

I will be leaving for work in a little while. If someone sees me at home and later sees me at work, they know I had to get from point A to point B somehow. However, I can take the bus, I can take the train, I could drive or I could even walk. The person who viewed me at both places cannot prove how I got from home to work. They could eliminate driving by showing that my daughter had the car so it wasn’t available to me. They could show that the train was unlikely since I’d have to walk several blocks and the bus is right at the end of my block. However, the only was we can know for certain is to have a reliable witness who saw me.

We only have one witness to the origin of life and He gave us his testimony in the book of Genesis. The Bible is not a text book and portions of it are not to be taken literally, but we, as Catholics, are taught to take the literal sense unless it is clearly unreasonable. There is nothing about Genesis that makes it unreasonable to accept it as history. Therefore I believe that God has revealed to us the basics of how the universe and the life it contains came to be.

Gary

 

[Orogeny]

Yes. God knows what is going to happen next. If His actions were truly random, He wouldn’t know. The fact that God does know what is happening next means that He is a designer, not a roller of dice. Evolution says the dice were rolled.

Right. God does know what is happening. Nothing is random to God. Randomness is a human concept.

Science textbooks don’t mention God because the authors either don’t believe He is relevant to what they are writing about or, even more likely, doesn’t believe He exists at all.

No, God isn’t mentioned because science cannot include God as a cause. How can you test God? Can you falsify Him?

As a Christian I believe that God is sovereign. He knows how many hairs there are on our heads and if a sparrow falls to the ground. So, yes, He does make crystals in that sense.

I agree with you. So, are you just as upset that God isn’t included in any crystallography textbooks?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

One point that often gets overlooked is that, regardless of what you believe regarding the origins of life, we are talking about history, not science. It is not possible to verify any viewpoint in a scientific manner. The best you can hope to do is say that such and such a chain of events could have happened or that they could not possibly have happened, but you can’t prove that they did happen.

Do you believe that we could figure out that Mt. St. Helens has erupted in the past based solely on the physical evidence left following the 1980 eruption if we didn’t have news accounts?

We only have one witness to the origin of life and He gave us his testimony in the book of Genesis. The Bible is not a text book and portions of it are not to be taken literally, but we, as Catholics, are taught to take the literal sense unless it is clearly unreasonable. There is nothing about Genesis that makes it unreasonable to accept it as history. Therefore I believe that God has revealed to us the basics of how the universe and the life it contains came to be.

We have a huge amount of very compelling evidence that says that the earth is old and life evolved. That tells me that the story of creation is true but not literal.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Do you believe that we could figure out that Mt. St. Helens has erupted in the past based solely on the physical evidence left following the 1980 eruption if we didn’t have news accounts?We have a huge amount of very compelling evidence that says that the earth is old and life evolved. That tells me that the story of creation is true but not literal.

Peace

Tim

Then we need to hear from the Magisterium that constant Catholic teaching has been wrong and somehow we have lost the protection of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Orogeny]

Then we need to hear from the Magisterium that constant Catholic teaching has been wrong and somehow we have lost the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Does the Church require a literal reading of Genesis? Does the Pope know this?

Peace

Tim

 

[garysibio]

Right. God does know what is happening. Nothing is random to God. Randomness is a human concept.No, God isn’t mentioned because science cannot include God as a cause. How can you test God? Can you falsify Him?I agree with you. So, are you just as upset that God isn’t included in any crystallography textbooks?

Peace

Tim

Yes, nothing is random to God. Evolution demands randomness. Since nothing is random to God, He could not have had anything to do with evolution. Evolution could not be the means by which God created life.

If God was necessary to evolution, He would have to be mentioned in the text books whether He could be tested or not. God is not mentioned in text books because the people who write them grant God no part in the process, not because He’s untestable.

Crystal formation is not random. Crystals form in predictable ways based on the atoms that form the crystals and their energy states if I remember correctly. (It’s been almost 40 years since I studied any chemistry.) While it would be a good idea in my opinion to include God in every text, crystallographers are not trying to use their studies to disprove the existence of God like Dawkins and his group are. Worrying about crystallography texts would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Gary

 

[buffalo]

Does the Church require a literal reading of Genesis? Does the Pope know this?

Peace

Tim

Are you denying the constant teaching of the church? I have not shown what it has been document after document?

At the earliest times the Magisterium understood the way to read scripture.

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/119.htm’) "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

 

[garysibio]

Do you believe that we could figure out that Mt. St. Helens has erupted in the past based solely on the physical evidence left following the 1980 eruption if we didn’t have news accounts?We have a huge amount of very compelling evidence that says that the earth is old and life evolved. That tells me that the story of creation is true but not literal.

Peace

Tim

Let’s set up a hypothetical situation. Let’s say that Earth is an uninhabited planet and that we come in on our saucer and land on Mount St. Helens. Our experts get out and look at the rocks. They would probably conclude that it was reasonable to say that it had recently erupted. But they could not say with absolute certainty. To rule out any other possibility would require an omniscience that belongs to God alone.

The evidence for an ancient Earth is not as compelling as you would like to believe. The Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) was run on a sample of rock and gave a date of 2 billion years. Trouble is that the rock was formed during a volcanic eruption in 1800. It was not 2 billion years old but 200. Now old-Earth theorists will say that the K-Ar test returned a false result because the sample was too young to be validly used which is 100% correct but 100% irrelevant. What it points out is that we can’t tell from the K-Ar test if a sample is incredibly old or incredibly young. For all we know every rock that has ever been tested using the K-Ar test was too young for the test to give an accurate result.

In the 60s when we started landing vehicles on the moon, we knew the rate of accumulation of meteoritic dust and, assuming an ancient moon, assumed that the vehicle would be buried when it landed. It turned out that very little dust had actually accumulated indicating that maybe the moon isn’t as old as we thought.

There are other indications that the Earth may not be as old as evolution demands. More research needs to be done but, when it comes to defending their dogmas, sedevacantists have nothing on evolutionists.

Gary

 

[cynic]

To creationists, explain:

Australopithecus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus

Homo Habilis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

Homo Erectus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

Neanderthal
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Cro Magnon (modern man)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro_magnon

What are these remains? Extinct speicies of apes? Deformed humans? Tricks of the Devil?

( vague generilisations don’t count.)

 

[Orogeny]

Yes, nothing is random to God. Evolution demands randomness. Since nothing is random to God, He could not have had anything to do with evolution. Evolution could not be the means by which God created life.

Nope. Randomness doesn’t apply to God. That is why we can’t use Him as a cause. That God is the cause of everything is a matter of faith, not science.

If God was necessary to evolution, He would have to be mentioned in the text books whether He could be tested or not.

Nope. Something that cannot be tested is not science and doesn’t belong in the science textbook.

God is not mentioned in text books because the people who write them grant God no part in the process, not because He’s untestable.

You need to tell that to Kenneth Miller, a Catholic biologist who writes high school biology textbooks.

Crystal formation is not random. Crystals form in predictable ways based on the atoms that form the crystals and their energy states if I remember correctly. (It’s been almost 40 years since I studied any chemistry.) While it would be a good idea in my opinion to include God in every text, crystallographers are not trying to use their studies to disprove the existence of God like Dawkins and his group are. Worrying about crystallography texts would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Dawkins and his group not withstanding, evolution does not try to disprove the existence of God. If you think that there are no athiest chemists or crystallographers, you are very wrong. Adding God as a cause to a crystallography text or an organic chemistry text would be making the textbook a theology book rather than a text book.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Are you denying the constant teaching of the church? I have not shown what it has been document after document?

Does the Church REQUIRE me, a Catholic, to believe in a literal reading of Genesis? Yes or No. If yes, does the Pope teaching a non-literal creation make him a heretic?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Does the Church REQUIRE me, a Catholic, to believe in a literal reading of Genesis? Yes or No. If yes, does the Pope teaching a non-literal creation make him a heretic?

Peace

Tim

The Catholic Church requires you to believe its constant teachings. It requires you to believe in Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.