evolution

[Monarchy]

MrS:

There are a few opinions as to how old the world is. But most are arrived at by thinking of how much time it would take to “evolve” from point a to point b. If it took one million years to “create” the Grand Canyon from level land for example.

But this rationale is troublesome. It’s like saying it had to take a million years cuz God wouldn’t/couldn’t create things in an instant which would then appear to already be a million years old.

MrS

The age of the earth is derived from multiple independant scientific aging methods.

 

[Monarchy]

The Barrister:

And if we *did * evolve from the apes - presumably because we were more fit to survive - why are there still apes that have not evolved?

And any theory of evolution that doesn’t explain the existence of Michael Moore is unscientific to begin with.

Because apes and humans evolved from an older ancestor.

 

[Monarchy]

Psalm45:9:

Can somebody help me here. I have gotten into debates with atheists on campus about evolution. I said from the catholic sources I have read, there are no fossils that prove that macro-evolution is true. They said there are. Can somebody please provide me with info?

How about this:

Archeopteryx lithographica (Late Jurassic, 150 Ma) – The several known specimes of this deservedly famous fossil show a mosaic of reptilian and avian features, with the reptilian features predominating. The skull and skeleton are basically reptilian (skull, teeth, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, digits, claws, generally unfused bones). Bird traits are limited to an avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles; recall that at least some dinosaurs had this too), modified forelimbs, and – the real kicker – unmistakable lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn’t take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone for large flight muscles, and had a weak shoulder compared to modern birds. May not have been the direct ancestor of modern birds. (Wellnhofer, 1993)

There are many transisional fossils

 

[Monarchy]

As far as the ‘Only a Theory’ here is a quote from Talkorigins.org:

Calling the theory of evolution “only a theory” is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what “theory” means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can’t be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

 

[SojournerOf78]

Monarchy:

As far as the ‘Only a Theory’ here is a quote from Talkorigins.org:

Why are you posting quotes from Talk Origins??? They have an agenda, that makes their slant very unscientific…

Plus this poll is hard to answer because you have to define Evolution…there are different theories and many confusions involved with certain theories.

Without trying to sound like a fundie…

The scriptures speak of Adam being formed of the dust of the ground and he wasnt even alive until God breathed into him the breath of life. Not that God started the ball rolling and all life forms began from the primordial ocean…

There is a ton of serious scientists out there that do not agree with Evolutionary theory in many of its forms. This of course is not speaking about Adaptation.

 

[tuopaolo]

Sorry if the poll was unclear for some of you. By “evolution” I mean to include “macroevolution.”

I voted for the last option because there are people on both sides of the issue and so I can’t decide who’s right!

 

[mlchance]

Apologia100:

Our bodies are just temporary vehicles for our souls, which is the distinguishing characteristic of us as humans.

A human being is a unity of soul and body. The body is not merely a vehicle for the soul. Prior to the resurrection of the dead, those who have died live as incomplete, disembodied souls, awaiting for completion again as a unity of body and soul.

And, macroevolution is smoke and mirrors. There is nothing of substance to it.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[asquared]

I am the product of Catholic schools, I have a college degree, I took liberal arts science survery courses, I just assumed evolution was a given, and that there is nothing in the theory to contradict or to uphold Catholic biblical teaching. After hearing in a sermon by a respected priest that there exists, in fact, no scientific or fossil evidence for derivation of any new, distinct species from another earlier species, I asked questions. My daughter and son-in-law are both practising scientists (and practicing Catholics) with advanced degrees, and they confirmed the priest’s statement, and showed me many sources to back it up. As of now, evolution remains a theory, not a proven scientific fact.

 

[PilgrimJWT]

As of now, evolution remains a theory, not a proven scientific fact.
Indeed. Revelation is fixed, irreformable and not subject to human inquiry. Scientific knowledge is always subject to reformation by anyone who can make a case for changing it and present either proof or a preponderance of evidence. There are relatively few scientific “facts”, but there is a multiplicity of scientific theories, all subject to inquiry and the possiblity of change.
I accept evolution as the most likely method chosen by God to bring about this amazing creation of His, though of course there is some uncertainty as to the details. When some scientist can present convincing evidence for another theory, I may accept that. But that hasn’t happened yet. And simply asserting “intelligent design” is an inadequate answer. Show me with even a fraction of the indications that support the idea of evolution!

 

[Jermosh]

The poll questions are not wide enough. I believe in Evolution, but not to the extreme of our minds being envolved from something else.

 

[otm]

I think part of the problem with the poll is that it did not distinguish between a guided evolution theory and an unguided theory. It seems to me that most of the hoohaw flows around an inability to articulate clearly that there is more than one “theory” (would hypothesis be a better term, given the question of proof of macroevolution?) of evolution, and much of it seems to be driven by religious beliefs, or lack thereof, rather than scientific truths. That is, I suspect that those trying to prove an unguided evolution have atheism as their starting point, as opposed to curiosity about the various skulls and bones ruminated over.

 

[PhilVaz]

If by the poll you mean macroevolution or “common descent” – I vote definitely true. As true as any other fact of science: the earth rotates every 24 hours, goes around the sun every 365 days, is spherical and 4.5 billion years old. Fish came millions of years before amphibians, which came millions of years before reptiles, millions of years before birds and mammals, and finally millions of years before us homo sapiens. The dinosaurs passed away 65 million years ago.

There is no other competing scientific theory of origins and no other theory that explains the evidence from natural history, the hundreds of undoubted transitional forms in the fossil record, makes as many predictions, and passes the many tests and observations.

The Evidence is presented here from Doug Theobald

My summary of that here

Nope, hasn’t been overturned yet.

Plus, in the 12/1997 Firing Line debate with some of the best current anti-evolutionists (Phillip Johnson, Mike Behe, David Berlinski, etc) they admitted they have no competing scientific theory to offer. So until you come up with one, evolution is all we got folks. It doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist either, only that God must have used evolution since the scientific evidence for it is quite good. Truth doesn’t contradict truth.

Transcript and Real Audio of the Firing Line Creation-Evolution debate

See the books and links I recommend at the end

Also see this fantastic Quicktime presentation by Denis Lamoureux (evolutionary creationist) and his book debate Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999). Excellent stuff. I also recommend the work of Christian geologist Keith Miller and Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller (not related). Get edu-ma-cated you deniers of evolution you. Start with TalkOrigins and move on from there.

Phil P

 

[mlchance]

PhilVaz:

There is no other competing scientific theory of origins and no other theory that explains the evidence from natural history

For the sake of argument, grant that there are no other competing theories. This doesn’t make evolution true. Before the Copernican revolution, there really weren’t any other competing cosmological models, but that didn’t make geocentrism true, even though geocentrism did work.

Macroevolution is smoke and mirrors. There is nothing of substance to it. Spurious logic such as quoted above doesn’t alter the fact that Darwinian evolution is full of holes.

As for only the uneducated rejecting Darwinism, I’d suggest you return to Michael Behe for starters.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Apologia100]

Okay. What species morphed into Archeopteryx, and what did archeopteryx evolve into? A transitional species is that, the middle stage of mutation from one species to another, and would be genetically compatible with the predecessor and the postcessor. However, Archeopteryx is a species in its own right, and since we can never understand the context of the fossil record, we don’t know if archeopteryx is a transitional species, or an aberrant creature that was incapable of surviving. Since we know the species is no longer extant, we have to assume the latter.

If you’ve read my summation of the horse, mule donkey arguement, you understand what I mean. If, 65 million years from now, people were to discover the fossils of horses, mules, and donkeys, they might well postulate that mules are a transitional species between donkeys and horses. The share similar stuctural compositions with both animals, and horses and donkey morphology is dissimilar enough to classify them as different species. So if you were just looking at the fossil record, you would hypothesize that donkeys came first, then evolved into mules, which evolved into horses. However, we know that mules are really the sterile offspring of the interspecial breeding of a horse and an donkey. It isn’t a “transition” species. But we know that because we understand the context in which the creatures are living. With dinosaurs and other long extinct species, we don’t, and never will, know the context in which the fossil record was created. It is all guesswork, but it is passed off as “scientific fact”. There is no empiricism about it whatsoever.

Monarchy:

How about this:

Archeopteryx lithographica (Late Jurassic, 150 Ma) – The several known specimes of this deservedly famous fossil show a mosaic of reptilian and avian features, with the reptilian features predominating. The skull and skeleton are basically reptilian (skull, teeth, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, digits, claws, generally unfused bones). Bird traits are limited to an avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles; recall that at least some dinosaurs had this too), modified forelimbs, and – the real kicker – unmistakable lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn’t take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone for large flight muscles, and had a weak shoulder compared to modern birds. May not have been the direct ancestor of modern birds. (Wellnhofer, 1993)

There are many transisional fossils

 

[buffalo]

Monarchy:

The age of the earth is derived from multiple independant scientific aging methods.

Always calculated through the lens of humans. Some of these methods are being cast into doubt. A house built on sand cannot stand.

 

[buffalo]

Why are there only two options in this debate.

Since God is all powerful why couldn’t He have “inserted” man in the timeline wherever He wanted?

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Always calculated through the lens of humans. Some of these methods are being cast into doubt. A house built on sand cannot stand.

Only by those who don’t understand the methods and/or have a bias towards a young earth.

Peace

Tim

 

[Apologia100]

The opposite can be said about those who hold a bias towards an old earth. We all view the world through rose colored glasses.

Orogeny:

Only by those who don’t understand the methods and/or have a bias towards a young earth.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Apologia100:

The opposite can be said about those who hold a bias towards an old earth. We all view the world through rose colored glasses.

So, which method can you disprove using scientific evidence?

Peace

Tim

 

[Apologia100]

Orogeny:

So, which method can you disprove using scientific evidence?

Peace

Tim

Both, none if the “scientific” methods has proven to be 100% accurate or reliable.