evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter tuopaolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, since you can’t discount any of the various dating methods using scientific evidence, you don’t have a problem with them?

If you require 100% reliability for acceptance, let me ask you, do you take any type of medications? You do know, don’t you, that medications aren’t effective 100% of the time?

Peace

Tim
 
So, since you can’t discount any of the various dating methods using scientific evidence, you don’t have a problem with them?

If you require 100% reliability for acceptance, let me ask you, do you take any type of medications? You do know, don’t you, that medications aren’t effective 100% of the time?

Peace

Tim
 
I was trained as a microbiologist and am now a practicing physician. During my educational years II had accepted Darwinism as it was taught during my training. Though it is a theory, it was always taught as fact (i.e. irrefutable).

Let’s set a couple things straight:
  1. Evolution and Darwinism are not the same thing. Darwinism is simply Mr. Darwin’s attempt to explain evolution, it is ONE OF the theories of evolution but is not synonomous with evolution. One poor example of another theory of evolution would be that God caused miraculous changes in species at certain times in history. So you see not every way to explain the observed phenomenon of evolution has to be Darwinian.
  2. Darwin attempted to explain evolution with the following theory. Small imperceptible changes took place during millions of years to cause one species to slowly ‘evolve’ into another. As such, if horses evolved from the ancestors of dogs (as has been proposed) there might be hundreds or even hundreds of thousands of intermediate steps between the two.
  3. Evolution, whether explained using Darwin’s theory or another, does not do away with God. Neither is it contrary to Church teaching as long as we accept man descended from 1 set of parents and that God created their souls ex-nihilo. As stated earlier God could have used evolution as His method of creation.
As for the fossil record there is not enough evidence to support Darwin’s theory. The example of the Archeopteryx lithographica, it is insufficient to show one fossil that seems to have characteristics of two separate GENUS (not even two species) is an intermediary form. If, as Darwin theorized, the changes were very minute and took place over millions of years one should see at least a few of the MANY transitional steps that would be required to get between species - not just one! But the fact is we don’t see this. We do see things like Archeopteryx lithographica, but there are no other forms on either side of this transitional step, so all one can do is HYPOTHESIZE that this is an intermediary. But what we almost always do see in the fossil record is a species changing to adapt to environmental pressures, sometime significantly, but as soon as the environmental pressure is removed the specie regresses back to the mean (this is an example of MICRO-EVOLUTION).

And please let us not get caught up in the trap of comparing the story of creation with evolution. The Genesis account is inerrant Scripture but is not meant to give a scientific explanation of creation, it is full of symbolism and poetry and Genesis 1 is God’s view and Genesis 2 is man’s view.

God’s peace and blessings to you
 
40.png
buffalo:
Always calculated through the lens of humans. Some of these methods are being cast into doubt. A house built on sand cannot stand.
Click to expand...
Which ones?

BTW, since the Bible was done through humans and is therefore (by your logic) not trustworthy.

Creationism is built on sand. Please list ONE experiment, or falsifiable Hypothosis made by IDers. Creationism exists to destroy ‘unbiblical concepts’.
 
Geological column for one.

I don’t want to get into the same detail as in other posts as I don’t have the time right now.

Suffice to say that there is a debate going on right now among scientists. Time will tell what comes out of it. These are unsettled issues.
 
To Monarchy:

Creationism is NOT what most Orthodox Christians believe regarding the development of man. It is what comes when well meaning Christians misunderstand the intent of Genesis. The fact is the Bible says nothing factual about how we got here EXCEPT to tell us that ALL of creation is God’s plan and His work and that we are descended from TWO parents and our souls were created ex-nihilo. See my previous post. So please stop thinking of Creationism as the Christians belief as opposite to evolution!

Blessings to you
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
What do you all think about evolution?
Click to expand...
Truth is truth, and evolution just may have been the way God did things! The Church does not reject it or accept it out of hand, but considers it a serious theory that does not go against what God may have done in the creation of the universe, and the creatures to eventually exist within it.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
 
40.png
buffalo:
Geological column for one.

I don’t want to get into the same detail as in other posts as I don’t have the time right now.

Suffice to say that there is a debate going on right now among scientists. Time will tell what comes out of it. These are unsettled issues.
Click to expand...
No, there is no debate regarding the geologic column among geologists. When you get some time, please post a reference to those problems you refer to. I will guarantee you, in the field of geology, there is no problem with the geological column. I’m afraid that you have been duped!

Peace

Tim
 
thank you for this thread iam doing a bible study of scott hahn. i was wondering where the prehistoric times falls in the genesis. i do believe as a catholic that god is the architect an i imagine he is the only one that someday will give me the answers. but as a college graduate you see some creatures like alligators which are old species an you wonder how do they look so similar to dinossaurs but in a smaller scale. the only thing that is concerning an worries me is when human like to experiment with it like the cloning, that is very scary an very concerning. god bless :blessyou:
 
mlchance << As for only the uneducated rejecting Darwinism, I’d suggest you return to Michael Behe for starters. >>

Hello, I’ve quoted Behe in past threads (see book Darwin’s Black Box, page 5). Behe does not reject “Darwinism” wholesale. See also Ken Miller’s comments in Finding Darwin’s God on Mike Behe and intelligent design. Behe accepts evolutionary theory. He affirms both that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that “common descent” or macroevolution is true: that plants, animals, and us homo sapiens evolved. He has questions or problems with evolution at the molecular level, but he is basically a theistic evolutionist (like myself) with a little “intelligent design” tossed in.

As for when to date Adam/Eve, that is an issue I’ve been trying to answer the past couple months. The best folks to check out who directly deal with this are: Hugh Ross (book The Genesis Question) dates Adam/Eve around 60000-70000 years ago and Glenn Morton (book Adam, Apes, and Anthropology) dates humanity around 1 million years ago. Both are conservative “evangelical” Protestant Christians who try to incorporate historical Genesis with the scientific evidence. Fr. Stanley Jaki or Cardinal Ratzinger are good sources from the Catholic side.

If one takes the Genesis geneologies seriously (without that many gaps), and takes the record as “historical” this seems to place Adam/Eve around 4000-5000 BC in the “Bronze Age” – the references to farming/agriculture and bronze tools in Genesis seems to put this AFTER the “Stone Age” (c. > 10000 BC) where only stone tools existed. The dates vary depending on location – see this chronological history of Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages

The problem with that is we know humanity (homo sapiens) goes back much further, so Adam/Eve would not be the first human beings. Further, if you accept the fossil hominids we seem to share a common ancestor (where we diverged in our evolution) with the chimp and ape species several million years ago. Our species Homo sapiens date back to around 100,000 years ago. Still trying to work all this out. I’ll let you know when I’m done. 😛

Phil P
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not how paleontology works. Before arch., there were no fossils displaying these bird-like characteristics. After arch., there were fossils that could be classified along with modern birds. Since arch. shares both reptilian and avian characteristics and appears in the timeline between the two, it is reasonable to theorize that it was the ancestor to modern birds.
You never hear scientists speak of a “transitional” fossil, because that language supposes what you say above, that the species is caught in some middle ground between two valid states. In reality, every species is “transitional”, since each generation of animal and plant is slightly genetically different from their parents.
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.
Click to expand...
Right — we must be careful in evaluating ancient fossils. Thankfully, there are extremely smart people who have devoted their professional lives to just that. Future scientists would be unlikely to derive conclusions based upon fossils all found in the same geologic layer, as in your example. Scientific “facts” are popular misconceptions. Scientists never “prove” a theory correct, but can only show evidence to support the theory. A theory may certainly be disproven, but the general theory of evolution and natural selection is still on solid deductive ground.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Geological column for one.
Click to expand...
What is the debate? If you find the time, I would be interested. I’m an astronomer, but I’m not aware of any debate about the geologic column from any geologists.
Suffice to say that there is a debate going on right now among scientists. Time will tell what comes out of it. These are unsettled issues.
Click to expand...
No, there is no debate. If you can produce any astronomer or geologist who disagrees with the modern value for the age of the Earth, I would be very surprised and appreciative. These issues have been settled for a long time, except for further narrowing the uncertainties.
 
That’s the best you can do? You discard centuries of study based on one loony-tunes book? Sad.

Peace

Tim
 
buffalo offers “The Forbidden Archaeology” by Cremo and Thompson. It is published by Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing Inc. and as the introduction on the web page cited says: “the authors of this book are not Christian”. The book is an attempt to show that the Hindu creation myths are correct, i.e. that man is as old as the universe, and that man originated many millions of years before the standard dates given by science. This is a book with an agenda.

The introduction on the web page says: “To interpret the information in these charts, you need to know that “neoliths” and “paleoliths” are tools and artifacts assumed to have been made by humans at various stages of human history.” [Emphasis added] Are you really trying to overthrow a big piece of modern science because of an assumption? I think that you will have to do better than this.

There is much mention of “eoliths” as well as the assumed “neoliths” and “paleoliths”. What is an eolith?
“[E]oliths can be extracted from any gravel from any period, whether with or without other artefacts, and with any range of patina - eoliths in fact only ocur, as far as I am aware, in gravel or similar deposits.” That is to say, in any deposit with lots of small stones in it, you are going to find some stones that by chance resemble crude artefacts! …“The question is not ‘could such fractures arise from hominid action’ but could such fractures (or other marks) arise naturally - and if so, they cannot be taken as evidence for hominid presence.”
Click to expand...
From talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html
Click to expand...
We are not talking Clovis Points here, these are cracked pebbles with a sharp edge where the stone cracked.

It is also worth noting the dates for the finds in the tables. Many are not modern finds, and will not have been subjected to modern dating methods which only came into use from 1950 on. In principle we could date all those bones, and examine their DNA to see if they really are human or something else.

As well as the various …liths there are other things mentioned in the table. I do not have the time or the inclination to chase down all the references. Here are the ones I was able to trace:

Kanapoi Humerus (p 820): The date is within the timespan of Australopithecus. In simple terms Australopithecus was an ape with a small brain that could walk upright. The skeleton (except the skull) was in general similar to a human, though smaller. I strongly suspect that this is an Australopithecus humerus. Details - talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html#kp271

Laetoli Footprints (p 820): The date is within the timespan of Australopithecus so finding a footprint from an bipedal ape walking upright is not unusual.

Castenodolo Skeletons (p 821): These are a recent burial in old sediments. See talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC112.html
The Castendolo bones … are a recent burial in Pliocene sediments, evidenced by the fact that other fossils, but not the human bones, were impregnated with salt.
Click to expand...
Overall the evidence presented does not persuade me that I need to change my view on the evolution of man.

rossum
 
Your basic anti-evolution argument on the geologic column is that it doesn’t exist, it’s only theoretical. This is an old creationist canard going back to the book The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb/Morris.

It’s been pounded far into the ground (pun intended) by Glenn Morton, former young-earther, now theistic evolutionist. The entire geologic column exists in numerous places, and oil companies have drilled through all the geological periods.

The Entire Geological Column in North Dakota

Phil P
 
<< If you can produce any astronomer or geologist who disagrees with the modern value for the age of the Earth, I would be very surprised and appreciative. >>

They are out there. They are called “creationist geologists” or “creationist astronomers.” Two that work with the ICR are Steve Austin, Ph.D. in Geology (from Penn State Univ) and D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. in Physics (from Lousiana State Univ). I’ve linked to two brief critiques of their “science.” Just shows that one’s interpretation of Genesis can be stronger than their Ph.D. work and acceptance of mainstream science. :eek:

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Your basic anti-evolution argument on the geologic column is that it doesn’t exist, it’s only theoretical.
Click to expand...
I’ve read several cogent explanations as to why most evolutionary theory is a scientific parlor trick, and none had to do with the geologic column. Most hinge on noticing that there is really very little evidence that what most evolutionary theory claims happened actually did happen. Then there are observations that the theory of evolution is apparently unfalsifiable and, therefore, is not genuinely scientific. There are also some rather interesting critiques of the lack of logic and use of doublespeak rampant in evolutionary theory. See, for example, the ramblings of Richard Dawkins.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top