evolution

[love4mary]

I absolutly believe in evolution. Evolution is simply an organism adapting/adjusting/changing to fit its environment. All life though, had its start when God created the heavens and the earth and Man in His own image.

 

[hecd2]

got a question for you hecd2, if what you say is true about scientists, why do they not try to prove a god exists? i never see any research into that area.

Supernatural phenomena, including gods, fairies, dragons, spirits, miracle cures, obeah, voodoo, witchcraft, magic and other such phenomena are outside scientists’ payscale - we leave that to priests, medicine men, theologians, shamans and, well, witches.

Attempts to show that prayer works, show that it doesn’t.

A

 

[hecd2]

what is shameful about admitting ones shortcomings? it makes you a better person in my view, i was blessed by the lord in other area’s. like having the brain and wisdom to run a business with 53 employees. as far as scientists go. they have their own religion, it is called scientism, well that is what huston smith calls it. and most scientists are athiests or agnostics. that has been my dealings with them.

I’m going to make a very serious reply to this. Not understanding is in itself not at all shameful. It does not make you a worse or a better person. Your goodness as a human being relies on far more important things than whether you understand string theory or evolutionary biology - it relies on your ability to care for others, on your humanity, on your ability to help the weak and fight oppressors. It relies on courage and integrity. All of these attributes can be found in scientists and non-scientists alike.

I absolutely respect your ability, wisdom and strength that you use to run a successful business. That is a good thing and I admire you for it.

What I think is shameful, is taking a strong position in a subject that you admittedly know nothing about. It is insulting to professionals who have spent their lives studying the subject. The fact is that you initiated this thread by crowing about a newspaper report about something that you yourself admit you don’t understand. That’s what’s shameful.

As for scientism, if we scientists say unapologetically that science is the best means we have to uncover truths about the natural world then a) I think that is demonstrably correct and b) I am proud to espouse it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

some examples are creationism. life forms being brought here from other planets etc. those are not explored in science classes why?

The only credible hypothesis of extraterrestrial life origins that I am aware of is Fred Hoyle’s panspermia. In that case the idea that earth was seeded with the origins of life - simple uni-celled organisms which arrived on meterites and which subsequently developed on earth into eukaryotes and multi-celled organisms through the vast panoply of evolution that we know and understand. In fact, it seems very likely that some building blocks of life (some amino acids, some alkanes) arrived here on meteories such as the Murchison meteorite. It is likely that those building blocks were naturally formed in space. I have no reason to think that either idea should not be taught in science class.

If you mean the idea that dinosaurs were brought here by green aliens from a dinosaur nursery on alpha centauri, then that is laughable and should not be taught in science class (nor does it help the creationist position)

Alec

 

[PhilVaz]

lav << some examples are creationism…those are not explored in science classes why? >>

That’s easy to answer. There were at least 2 whole court cases about this.

From the first one, creationists themselves admit “creationism” (or creation) is not science:

“Creation. By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation…We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” (Duane Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, page 40)

“Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious).” (Gish, letter to editor of Discover magazine, July 1981)

“…it is…quite impossible to determine anything about Creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wished to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there…Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation!” (Henry Morris, Studies in the Bible and Science, page 114)

Quotes from Gish and Morris cited from:

Arkansas Creationist Trial (1981-2, Decision by Judge Overton)

Then we have:

Dover PA Intelligent Design Trial (2005, Decision by Judge John E. Jones)

“…this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.” (Judge Jones, Dover ID Trial decision, 12/20/2005)

Spend a few hours and read the transcripts. Everything is online.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

lav << if what you say is true about scientists, why do they not try to prove a god exists? i never see any research into that area. >>

Because that’s the job of philosophers not scientists.

As for scientific research into the paranormal, there are groups that specialize in this. And yes sometimes they do try to debunk Catholic things. No, I’m not happy about it. But somebody has to do it, just kidding.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

lav << in my view evolution is a theory just like any other idea, it has not been proven >>

No theory in science is ever proven, but evolution is the best natural explanation for how we got here. Once again, this article will help. It explains what science is, what the scientific method is, and what a theory means in science. BTW, the Catholic Church fully accepts these definitions.

Phil P

 

[lavazza]

alec,

I suggest to you that most scientist’s have an agenda all there own. I have nothing but respect for true science. Scientism is a nother whole matter. It thinks everything can be explained by science, Many things never will be,

To get a better view on what i am trying to say, read Huston Smith’s book “why religion matters”. it does a lot better job on this subject than, i can.

Example - Science claims we came from the small and evolved to the big. Religion states we came from the big and are the small ones etc. Totally diffrent premise.

If a scientist is looking for the truth as you seem to be, with no other axe to grind, then you have my deepest respect,

As i stated earlier, a good percentage of all scientist’s are athiest’s. That in itself should be a clue, as to where their heart and minds lie.That’s what makes me wonder, if they are really looking for the truth.

 

[wildleafblower]

what is shameful about admitting ones shortcomings? it makes you a better person in my view, i was blessed by the lord in other area’s. like having the brain and wisdom to run a business with 53 employees. as far as scientists go.

Hi lavazza I noticed you got banned. Ah, but congratulations! It’s not easy keeping a business up and running with a payroll for 53 employees:thumbsup: . I have quite a few friends with a successful business which branched off into smaller businesses. Naturally, there are the headaches attached to keeping it afloat. You might enjoy reading this great article EVOLUTION, LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWERSHIP by Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, which you might enjoy reading.
kent.ac.uk/psychology/department/people/van-vugtm/personal/publications/lessonsleaderampsychmvv01.pdf
http://www.kent.ac.uk/psychology/de...al/publications/lessonsleaderampsychmvv01.pdf

I thought the most important thing about the August 8, 2007*Nature *article Twin fossil find adds twist to human evolution was this tidbit:

*Anthropologists have tended to see the evolution of Homo species as a linear progression, beginning with H. habilis and passing through H. erectus before ending up with modern humans. But it seems the path through time was broad enough for more than one species to walk abreast, with H. erectus and H. habilis living in the same place at the same time for as much as half a million years. Spoor and his colleagues argue that this makes it less likely that H. erectus was a direct descendant of H. habilis, instead suggesting that there is a common ancestor yet to find.

The two species are thought to have lived side by side in much the same way as modern chimps and gorillas coexist in central regions of Africa — by adopting different habits and diets. “To live in the same area for half a million years they must have found their own niches — different diets, maybe different migratory routes — to minimize competition,” says Spoor. “When food is scarce, when there’s a drought or something, it becomes very important that you’re not in each other’s way.”*
nature.com/news/2007/070806/full/070806-5.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070806/full/070806-5.html

 

[abu_kamoon]

Evolution is an explanation for creation without a Creator. If you believe that life could come from non living chemicals, and then evolve into all of the variations that have ever existed, what do you need God for?

Catholics who accept evolution are in a strange position. They want to believe in two conflicting scenarios. The Bible is incompatible with Evolutionism, just as it is with reincarnation. You can’t have it both ways.

Some churchmen have accepted Evolutionism as credible. I believe that they have lost their faith. This is a result of Modernism, which has been condemned in Papal Encyclicals. Evolutionism is just one of many novelties that have come along as part of the Modernist movement.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The possibility that you robbed three banks last night and committed various unspeakable crimes against female humanity exists, but there is no evidence for it. Because something is possible does not mean that we should believe it.%between%

There being “no evidence” for it doesnt disprove the possibility and likelyhood of it happening. After all we didnt get this information until 7 years later and only when the media wanted to release it.

There is similarly no reason to believe your bizarre idea. You, like many non-scientists, think that scientists have a vested interest in defending at all costs the status quo. That’s a fallacy. There is a great incentive for scientists to *disprove *the status quo and to propose an alternative successful hypothesis - the great and the lauded scientists are not those that have supported the status quo but those who have made radical advances in our understanding Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Maxwell, Einstein, Curie, Bohr, Heisenberg, Rutherford, Hubble, Penzias, Wilson, Dawkins, Zwicky, Riess, Perlmutter, Margulis and many more. For example., any scientist who could simultaneously show that neo-Darwinian evolution was fundamentally mistaken and propose a more robust scientific hypothesis to explain the diversity of species would be the greatest biologist of the 21st century. It’s unlikely, given what we know, to happen.

I dont see how it is a bizzare idea if you consider what is at stake and what is going on is in deserts thousands of miles away. The fact is “scientist” can mean anything, including those investing time in scientific practices which the Church considers immoral (eg cloning, embryonic stem cell experimentation, etc). Further scientists can classify unborn infants to be “blobs” thus abortion is not murder.

The stakes are real as well as is the fallen human nature.

Why not? - the fact that two species, one clearly older in origin than the other, are also found simultaneously does not in any way provide evidence against evolutionary theory. Both allopatric-with-migration and sympatric speciation can result in coexisting species that share a common ancestor. (A more modern example is H Neanderthalensis and H sapiens in Europe - both evolved from an earlier common ancestor and both shared the same geographic range for many thousand years).

“not in any way”? Im not a scientist but that comment is an oversimplification at the least. The notion that one came from the other in a linear fashion and yet finding out they coexisted means the linear model doesnt answer the question as nicely as what has been proposed for so long. Further, the smallness of the skull is another issue which led the lead scientist to say this is one factor that goes against the theory man came from that species.

You really, really don’t understand, do you? The paper is a peer reviewed paper published in the world’s most prestigious science journal.

According to the reports some scientists are hesitant to agree with these findings, given that I say it is still too early. Then again hopefully Nature concluded there was sufficient proof to conclude the results are accurate.

You are extremely confused. I have read the scientific paper from which I quoted. I am the only person so far on this thread to have read it. Everyone else is quoting a popular journalistic report from the Associated Press which is definitely NOT a scientific journal. Let’s not divert ourselves with red herrings and confused ideas from what the authors say in the scientific paper: “As the earliest secure evidence of Homo is found outside the known region of overlap4, it is nonetheless possible that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis elsewhere, and that the Turkana basin was a region of secondary contact between the two hominin taxa”

I read similar articles on the NYT, National Geographic and Nature itself. If I could get a copy of the full article at the library in the upcoming days that would be even better.

 

[hecd2]

After all we didnt get this information until 7 years later and only when the media wanted to release it.

Incorrect - the timing is nothing to do with the media. The fact is that the paper has just been submitted to and published in Nature. It is not unusual for scientists to take many years to analyse and publish analyses of fossil discoveries.

The fact is “scientist” can mean anything, including those investing time in scientific practices which the Church considers immoral (eg cloning, embryonic stem cell experimentation, etc). Further scientists can classify unborn infants to be “blobs” thus abortion is not murder.

This is all quite irrelevant to the point in question which is whether scientists have sytematically destroyed fossil evidence, which I repeat is a bizarre idea.

“not in any way”? Im not a scientist but that comment is an oversimplification at the least.

Any oversimplification is yours. Evolutionary theory does not require a linear progression of species as I explain very clearly in the sentences after the ones you put in bold and I repeat here: Both allopatric-with-migration and sympatric speciation can result in coexisting species that share a common ancestor. (A more modern example is H neanderthalensis and H sapiens in Europe - both evolved from an earlier common ancestor and both shared the same geographic range for many thousand years).

Further, the smallness of the skull is another issue which led the lead scientist to say this is one factor that goes against the theory man came from that species.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to give us a reference for that claim because I can’t see where the authors said any such thing.
Let’s not forget this from the actual scientific paper, which you have chosen not to comment on:
“As the earliest secure evidence of Homo is found outside the known region of overlap4, it is nonetheless possible that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis elsewhere, and that the Turkana basin was a region of secondary contact between the two hominin taxa”

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[wildleafblower]

I read similar articles on the NYT, National Geographic and Nature itself. If I could get a copy of the full article at the library in the upcoming days that would be even better.

Hi Catholic Dude If you return to my message no. 29 then click on the link for **August 8, 2007Nature article Twin fossil find adds twist to human evolution ** it will take you to the News (article) which you can then scroll down the page to References 1. Spoor, F. et al. Nature 448, 688-691 (2007). | Article |. Click on the Article. This will direct you to the **Letter *Nature 448, 688-691 (9 August 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05986; Received 12 March 2007; Accepted 5 June 2007 * Implications of new early Homo fossils from Ileret, east of Lake Turkana, Kenya which provides you with the same information that Alec (hecd2) has provided in msg. #2. Now, Catholic Dude, if you don’t wish to do the above and would like me to do it for you then you will be taken here:
nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7154/abs/nature05986.html#a4
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7154/abs/nature05986.html#a4

Step 2.) You can see from the above website of NATURE Journal of Science (one of my very favorite peer-reviewed scientific journals) that Alec (hecd2) has mentioned in msg. 18 " Let’s not divert ourselves with red herrings and confused ideas from what the authors say in the scientific paper:* “As the earliest secure evidence of Homo is found outside the known region of overlap4, it is nonetheless possible that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis elsewhere, and that the Turkana basin was a region of secondary contact between the two hominin taxa”* . overlap 4 as we can see on the above mentioned website I’ve provided you’ll note L. N. Leakey2,4 (2. Koobi Fora Research Project, PO Box 24926, Nairobi 00502, Kenya, and 4. Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA) To the far right of the page you will see a small box SEARCH PUBMED FOR which has L.N. Leakey. If you click on his name it will direct you to his current research. Now, Catholic Dude, if you don’t wish to do the above and would like me to do it for you then you will be taken here:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&term=Leakey%20M
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&term=Leakey M then go here if you wish to see his current (name removed by moderator)ut about the lastest discovery! —
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17687323&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Read. (I think I did this right.) Oh well, I gave it my best!

 

[paarsurrey]

i believe in evolution to a point. but man did not evolve in my view, it was a creation made by god. alone and seprate from all others.

that is why i think they will never find a diect link to any evolution process and man.

Hi

I think, there is no controversy, humans evolved from humans, horses from horses, and monkeys from monkeys. In the beginning from minerals, to botanical , to animal, to humans they were distinctively different and evolved successively. I am not a sceintist an ordinary humble person.

Thanks

Adam was not the first human being, he was the first person with whom GodAllahYHWH had a direct conversation, and there were human beings men/woman before Adam and Eve having body and soul like Adam.

 

[Wolseley]

First of all, AIHSB, it doesn’t much matter to me whether God created the universe by instantaneous creation, by billions of years of evolution, or whether He followed the directions on the box, added two cups of water, and baked in a 350-degree oven for two hours. It doesn’t interest me and I couldn’t care less.

What I do find interesting are some of the explanations for the origin of life that are not really explanations. You get into a “chain of mirrors”-type thing where you keep going backwards with “this material came from this, which came from this, which came from this”, but nobody can explain where the original “it” came from, or how it got there, or what it was made of.

The only credible hypothesis of extraterrestrial life origins that I am aware of is Fred Hoyle’s panspermia. In that case the idea that earth was seeded with the origins of life - simple uni-celled organisms which arrived on meterites and which subsequently developed on earth into eukaryotes and multi-celled organisms through the vast panoply of evolution that we know and understand. In fact, it seems very likely that some building blocks of life (some amino acids, some alkanes) arrived here on meteories such as the Murchison meteorite. It is likely that those building blocks were naturally formed in space.

But where did the meteorites come from?

From the farther reaches of the Solar System.

How did they get there?

They were formed from debris left over from the formation of the Solar System.

How did the Solar System get formed?

Globules of gas and dust coalesced and formed the planets.

Where did the gas and dust come from?

It was a remnant of the Big Bang.

What caused the Big Bang?

We don’t know.

How did the material the Big Bang originally dispersed get there to be dispersed?

We don’t know.

What was here before the Big Bang?

We don’t know.

What was the exact composition of the random soup of chemicals that provided the first spark of life?

There are various theories.

Do you have a sample of the original soup to test the theory?

No.

Can you reproduce this “spark” in the lab?

No.

Has this theory ever been positively verified by any means at all?

Well…

I see. So, in other words, this original, primal “spark of life” theory is not able to be tested, reproduced, or verified by using the scientific method, and so what we’re left with is more or less philosophic speculation.

It isn’t! It’s a scientific theory!

If you say so. Personally, I think it’s it’s a religion.

What?!?!?

It’s a religion. It takes just as much blind faith to believe that life just “somehow sorta happened” from a random soup of chemicals (that you can’t even explain how they got there in the first place, I might add) as it does to believe that a Superior Being simply spoke life into existance out of nothing. So: you have your faith that you can’t prove, and we have ours.

 

[wildleafblower]

Evolution is an explanation for creation without a Creator. If you believe that life could come from non living chemicals, and then evolve into all of the variations that have ever existed, what do you need God for?

.

Hello abu kamoon I really support this wonderful article written by Margaret Wertheim in Wired Magazine Issue 10.12-December 2002, “The Pope’s Astrophysicist” not only appealed to my senses but speaks logically and rationally to my mind. What Astrophysicist George Coyne says pretty much sums it up for me. A few excerts from the article:

*‘“Anthropic arguments are based on the notion that the universe has been specially tailored for the emergence of life. On both the cosmological and subatomic scales, from the force of gravity to electromagnetic bonds, the universe is shaped by powers that seem finely tuned for life to evolve. Evidence of an intelligent consciousness that built the very laws of nature?

"Coyne dismisses this idea as well. “To imagine a Creator twiddling with the constants of nature is a bit like thinking of God as making a pot of soup,” he declares with a rare flash of sarcasm. A bit more onion, a bit less salt, and presto, the perfect gazpacho. “It’s a return to the old vision of a watchmaker God, only it’s even more fundamentalist. Because what happens if it turns out there is a perfectly logical explanation for these values of the gravitational constant and so on? Then there’d be even less room for God.” In other words, if God is grounded in data, then He is immediately subject to revision every time we get new data – and data tends to improve over time. Coyne sums up his objection to this God of the gaps with an elegant economy: “God is not information,” he says. “God is love.”’*
wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/pope_astro_pr.html

The Pope's Astrophysicist

MEET THE VATICAN PRIEST WHO SCANS THE HEAVENS FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE. (HEY, GALILEO — WANT A JOB?) We have come to meet the Pope. It’s tourist season, and the Sistine Chapel is punishingly full. Visitors from around the world crowd together, ogling Michelangelo’s ceiling. At the back of...

www.wired.com

I really love His Holiness John Paul II when he wrote, “Love that sustains, uplifts, and invites us to trust. The victory of good in the world is united organically with this truth. A person who prays professes such a truth and in a certain sense makes God, who is merciful Love, present in the world.” (Crossing the Threshold of Hope by John Paul II, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1994, p.26)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Now, Catholic Dude, if you don’t wish to do the above and would like me to do it for you then you will be taken here:
nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7154/abs/nature05986.html#a4
Implications of new early Homo fossils from Ileret, east of Lake Turkana, Kenya | Nature

Step 2.) You can see from the above website of NATURE Journal of Science (one of my very favorite peer-reviewed scientific journals) that Alec (hecd2) has mentioned in msg. 18 " Let’s not divert ourselves with red herrings and confused ideas from what the authors say in the scientific paper:* “As the earliest secure evidence of Homo is found outside the known region of overlap4*, it is nonetheless possible that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis elsewhere, and that the Turkana basin was a region of secondary contact between the two hominin taxa” . overlap 4 as we can see on the above mentioned website I’ve provided you’ll note … Now, Catholic Dude, if you don’t wish to do the above and would like me to do it for you then you will be taken here:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&term=Leakey%20M
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&term=Leakey M then go here if you wish to see his current (name removed by moderator)ut about the lastest discovery! —
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17687323&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Read. (I think I did this right.) Oh well, I gave it my best

Thanks for taking the time to post all this, but Im not sure what the point is, your links lead to the same paragraph summary of the article/report.

 

[wildleafblower]

Thanks for taking the time to post all this, but Im not sure what the point is, your links lead to the same paragraph summary of the article/report.

Catholic Dude, it does appear in your message #37 that you have used a quote of mine from my message #33 but have omitted from that original message of mine to you, “If you return to my message no. 29 then click on the link for August 8, 2007Nature article Twin fossil find adds twist to human evolution it will take you to the News (article)…”

This leads me to think that maybe you haven’t read my message no. 29 which contained the following link. Did you read what was on this website?

nature.com/news/2007/070806/full/070806-5.html

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070806/full/070806-5.html

Here is something interesting.
Peter H. Raven , chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, [also on the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee] agreed:

“The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can’t explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent,” said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. “This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it’s being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence.”
aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id.shtml
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id.shtml

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Catholic Dude, it does appear in your message #37 that you have used a quote of mine from my message #33 but have omitted from that original message of mine to you, “If you return to my message no. 29 then click on the link for August 8, 2007Nature article Twin fossil find adds twist to human evolution it will take you to the News (article)…”

This leads me to think that maybe you haven’t read my message no. 29 which contained the following link. Did you read what was on this website?

Considering you ended your quote with:
Now, Catholic Dude, if you don’t wish to do the above and would like me to do it for you then you will be taken here:
I figured the link you left was the same as post 29. There was no need for me to quote everything you said. I did follow and read that link which took me to a large paragraph size synopsis.

Did you read what was on this website?
nature.com/news/2007/070806/full/070806-5.html

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070806/full/070806-5.html

Yes, I read this article the same day this thread was started. None of the links you gave in your “Now, Catholic Dude, if you don’t wish to do the above and would like me to do it for you” alternatives sent me to the above article.

Here is something interesting.
Peter H. Raven , chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, [also on the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee] agreed:

“The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can’t explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent,” said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. “This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it’s being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence.”
aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id.shtml
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id.shtml

What is your point? Our friend Alex here was proposing that the first life forms were delivered by meteors…when you really think about it the atheistic side doesnt have much room to talk.
As for the “peer review published evidence” that all depends on who controls the printing presses and text books. The idea of “random mutation” leading up to all we see is simply improbable. It is all religion when you get to the heart of it all, their first premise is that God doesnt exist, our premise is that He does.

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

            *The only credible hypothesis of extraterrestrial life origins that I am aware of is Fred Hoyle's panspermia. In that case the idea that earth was seeded with the origins of life - simple uni-celled organisms which arrived on meteorites and which subsequently developed on earth into eukaryotes and multi-celled organisms through the vast panoply of evolution that we know and understand. In fact, it seems very likely that some building blocks of life (some amino acids, some alkanes) arrived here on meteories such as the Murchison meteorite. It is likely that those building blocks were naturally formed in space.*

What I do find interesting are some of the explanations for the origin of life that are not really explanations. You get into a “chain of mirrors”-type thing where you keep going backwards with “this material came from this, which came from this, which came from this”, but nobody can explain where the original “it” came from, or how it got there, or what it was made of.

But where did the meteorites come from?

From the farther reaches of the Solar System.

How did they get there?

They were formed from debris left over from the formation of the Solar System.

How did the Solar System get formed?

Globules of gas and dust coalesced and formed the planets.

Where did the gas and dust come from?

It was a remnant of the Big Bang

etc ad nauseam. The fact is that I was not promoting Fred Hoyle’s panspermia, but merely describing his hypothesis in helpful response to some other YECer who asked why it is not taught in schools.

It’s a religion. It takes just as much blind faith to believe that life just “somehow sorta happened” from a random soup of chemicals (that you can’t even explain how they got there in the first place, I might add) as it does to believe that a Superior Being simply spoke life into existance out of nothing. So: you have your faith that you can’t prove, and we have ours.

Not so. Science requires evidence and reason. I challenge you to suggest one generally accepted scientific theory, just one, that is held without strong evidence. Of course, you won’t be able to. The fact is that science is an extremely successful process for learning about how the natural world works. In this respect, it far surpasses any source of religious revelation or scripture as a source of knowledge (specifically knowledge of the natural universe). Of course, the fanatical sect seldom acknowledge that scientists across the world include many devout believers as well as atheists. If you accept the fanatical YECers on this and other lists, you’d think all scientists are atheists and no believer can be a scientist. That is definitely not in the tradition of the Church. I am sad to see the Church beset by unreason, prejudice, superstition, magical thinking, sola scriptura and fanaticism. Perhaps it has converted too many poorly taught and catechised protestants recently.

Alec
evolutionpages.com