Fossil Challenge Old Evolution Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The insistence that I should accept evolution tells me it is a belief system that I must accept as if it were part of the Gospel. It is not and I will not accept it. Jesus Christ is more important than evolution, and if the basis of your faith requires a belief in evolution, ask yourself why.

…

“But you don’t understand, this is s-c-i-e-n-c-e, the font and source of all wisdom that will lead us into the beautiful tomorrow when man will be free of the delusion of superstition and irrational beliefs.”

Rational number 1) Evolution, which posits all life came from nothing. Which will lead to…
Rational number 2) No invisible man in the sky is needed for anything. Bow down to the knowledge of men.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, go to any forum on the internet, evolution is more important than anything you believe, and you must believe it or you will be attacked:
%between%
Some very good points here. I have a scientific background, and i can accept that animals may have perhaps developed one from another.

However this is very different to the Fundamentalist Belief System of** Darwinistic Evolution by Random Selection**.

It is this belief system that has become a fundamental dogma of the scientific-rationalist establishment, and anyone who strays from it is attacked more rabidly than any medieval heretic.

The key point here is RANDOM Selection. “Random” (undirected) evolution by pure chance mutation has never been proved, and has not been observed by science either. it is as much a belief system as creationism. Many facts (including the fact that very few random mutations are beneficial) stand against the THEORY. But it is constantly pushed as unarguable fact - why?

Because it is the mainstay of the atheist-materialist. It is the one thing that provides a theoretical mechanism for creation without God. That is why it is considered so important. Random evolution allows people to avoid the need for a God-created universe. The theory is at the basis of the mass atheism in the world today. That is why any challenge to it is so derided and attacked.
 
For additional evidence that evolution is at the core, go here:

darwincentral.org

All those who don’t believe in God are not just sitting around hoping mankind will somehow magically come around to their way of thinking, they are actively, aggressively promoting their beliefs. But we Christians need to have compassion (I don’t mean pity) but true compassion on them. Pray for them. But it is the human heart that has been hardened against God and enthralled by science. Remember what satan said in the garden: “ye shall be as gods.” And that is the goal.

God bless,
Ed
 
Is it a fact that the host and wine change into the body and blood of Christ at mass?

Horse breeding has nothing to do with evolution. The mixing of the genes means they are compatible creatures in the first place. Just as two humans of different ethnic types breed and the offspring has characteristics from both. The point is, the parents are human and the offspring will be human with traits from both parents.

God bless,
Ed
Yes, it is a fact, but it is a fact not scientifically verifiable.

The mechanism of evolution is natural selection and random mutation. Natural selection exists, as in the horse breeding example. Random mutations exist, as in albinism. Evolutionists simply claim that over time random mutation and natural selection produce organisms sufficiently different as to no longer be compatible. This is a reasonable hypothesis which does seem to square with available evidence, if not perfectly, than at least to a significant degree.

Some atheists claim this proves God does not exist. We do not agree. Catholics, unlike fundamentalists, do not interpret the Bible literally at every turn. Our faith therefore does not rest on whether evolution is true or untrue. It is a good thing it does not, because evolution within species certainly does happen, and there is evidence supporting evolution between species as well (less compelling, in my view, but I think we must admit that evidence does exist).

I think we run into some difficulties when we try to claim the Bible is the literal truth in all things. There are geographic and historical errors in the books of the Bible, for example—we should not redraw maps or rewrite history to try to fit these.
 
How do we limit God by saying He cannot create the earth and populate it in six 24 hour days?
God could have dome many things, why do you limit Him by insisting he took 144 hours when He could have done it instantly, as Augustine believed. Scientists look at what God created and see what the evidence He left tells them.
It is very relevant what scientists do since they can and have overstepped ethical and moral boundaries that speak to the value and dignity of all human life.
Some scientists have overstepped ethical and moral boundaries, others have not. Some Christians have overstepped ethical and moral boundaries, others have not. Some Catholics have overstepped ethical and moral boundaries, others have not. All you are telling us is that scientists are human.
Rational number 1) Evolution, which posits all life came from nothing. Which will lead to…
You are incorrect. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life from pre-biotic chemicals. Evolution deals with the development of the diversity of life after its origins. Neither abiogenesis or creationism posit life originating from nothing.
Rational number 2) No invisible man in the sky is needed for anything.
The problem I have is that there are a lot of incompatible men and women in the sky proposed, and none of them have more supporting evidence than any other.

rossum
 
Well, atheism and evolution go hand in hand. And the “rational” acceptance of the belief system of evolutionism is designed to lead to the “rational” acceptance of no God.

God bless,
Ed
 
Some very good points here. I have a scientific background, and i can accept that animals may have perhaps developed one from another.

However this is very different to the Fundamentalist Belief System of** Darwinistic Evolution by Random Selection**.
You are incorrect. Evolution procedes by many mechanisns, one of which is random mutation and natural selection. The natural selection part is emphatically not random.
“Random” (undirected) evolution by pure chance mutation has never been proved, and has not been observed by science either.
Again you are incorrect. Have a look at the Luria-Delbrück experiment. Please check your facts before posting. Posting errors will not help your cause.
(including the fact that very few random mutations are beneficial)
Here you are correct. The great majority of mutations are neutral, most of the rest are deleterious and very few are beneficial. The effect of natural selection over many generations is to weed out the deleterious mutations and to increase the frequency of the beneficial mutations. Think of a process like compound interest increasing the spread of each beneficial mutation in each succeeding generation.
stand against the THEORY. But it is constantly pushed as unarguable fact - why?
Because evolution is both a fact and a theory which explains the fact. Evolution-as-fact is that the genetic makeup of interbreeding populations change over time. Evolution-as-theory is the collection of mechanisms which account for the observed change.
It is the one thing that provides a theoretical mechanism for creation without God.
No, cosmology does that. Evolution starts with a planet and life, not with the origin of the universe.

rossum
 
Thats what they want you to think
Precisely. By wedding science to atheism, they pull it away from what it was intended to be—the investigation of creation. Ed, I’d highly recommend The Teaching Company’s lecture series on the history of science from antiquity to 1700 (I think that’s the cutoff date). It’s an excellent resource which amply demonstrates that the Catholic Church has been a major engine for scientific inquiry. It also reveals the current science OR religion debate to be a very recent and unfortunate development.

Plus, I don’t think the atheists would like it. 😉
 
Precisely. By wedding science to atheism, they pull it away from what it was intended to be—the investigation of creation. Ed, I’d highly recommend The Teaching Company’s lecture series on the history of science from antiquity to 1700 (I think that’s the cutoff date). It’s an excellent resource which amply demonstrates that the Catholic Church has been a major engine for scientific inquiry. It also reveals the current science OR religion debate to be a very recent and unfortunate development.

Plus, I don’t think the atheists would like it. 😉
The recent “debate” is not a debate at all but an example of the “good cop/bad cop” game. One simply pushes evolution and then resorts to nasty attacks against any who don’t believe.

In the United States, religious schools, Sunday schools and other institutions have always taught God created. Evolutionism is being promoted as the “rational” alternative. Why do you think science is always being discussed on Christian forums? To educate? No. There’s no evidence for that. It’s all about making evolutionism the most important belief there is.

I believe in gravity because I can see it in action.
I believe the earth is round because I can see it for myself.
I don’t believe in evolution because no way has any organism developed a novel, fully integrated and fully functioning body part ever.

So, the constant, unrelenting false debate will go on in perpetuity, ad nauseum.

God bless,
Ed
 
The recent “debate” is not a debate at all but an example of the “good cop/bad cop” game. One simply pushes evolution and then resorts to nasty attacks against any who don’t believe.
There is no reason for anyone to be nasty
But when people see their basic worldview challenged they can get defensive

And when it involves the education of children then things can get nasty.
add religion into it and Oh boy!
In the United States, religious schools, Sunday schools and other institutions have always taught God created.
I went to 12 years of Catholic schools and was taught that God created and that evolution occured.
So naturally like the Pope I see no inherent conflict.
Evolutionism is being promoted as the “rational” alternative. Why do you think science is always being discussed on Christian forums? To educate? No. There’s no evidence for that. It’s all about making evolutionism the most important belief there is.
While biology is important it is not the most important nor is it a belief.
I believe in gravity because I can see it in action.
A force acting at a distance; moving something with out actually touching it.
How can you “believe” in something like that?

I submit that you can see the effects of gravity but our understanding of the mechanism is far less developed than that of evolution.
I believe the earth is round because I can see it for myself.
You can?
I don’t believe in evolution because no way has any organism developed a novel, fully integrated and fully functioning body part ever.

So, the constant, unrelenting false debate will go on in perpetuity, ad nauseum.

God bless,
Ed
There are those who disagree with you. I could say that yes things have clearly developed fully functioning parts and you would say no. What evidence would satidfy you?

If you are expecting a change in one generation then you are asking for something that evolution doesn’t call for (and would exclude).
 
The recent “debate” is not a debate at all but an example of the “good cop/bad cop” game. One simply pushes evolution and then resorts to nasty attacks against any who don’t believe.

In the United States, religious schools, Sunday schools and other institutions have always taught God created. Evolutionism is being promoted as the “rational” alternative. Why do you think science is always being discussed on Christian forums? To educate? No. There’s no evidence for that. It’s all about making evolutionism the most important belief there is.

I believe in gravity because I can see it in action.
I believe the earth is round because I can see it for myself.
I don’t believe in evolution because no way has any organism developed a novel, fully integrated and fully functioning body part ever.

So, the constant, unrelenting false debate will go on in perpetuity, ad nauseum.

God bless,
Ed
I don’t disagree that it’s been portrayed as science=good and religion=bad, but that’s simply not a true formulation, nor a good excuse for flipping the logic to science=bad, religion=good.
 
The evidence is all over the internet.

Religion = bad, very bad.

Evolution = good, forget about invisible man in sky.

Nope. I don’t believe in the evidence since it is being used to push an atheistic worldview. To put it another way: “Hi, here’s the evidence for evolution. Good day.” Not, “You don’t believe it? You moron, cretard, anti-science, IDiot, etc.” That’s where the problem comes in.

Most people in the United States believe man showed up not too long ago and looked the way he does today. I wonder where they got that idea? The Pope? I don’t think so.

So all the education here is clearly the same old mantra: believe in evolution, (repeat endlessly).

I’ve been studying this subject for a while, and the worldview derived from evolutionism is more important than the science. That’s what I’m seeing.

God bless,
Ed
 
The evidence is all over the internet.

Religion = bad, very bad.

Evolution = good, forget about invisible man in sky.
Why would you care what is all over the Internet?

Any fool with a keyboard & some spare time can post there.
(Present company excepted of course. I have always found this site to be an ossais of politeness and charity in an electronic desert.)
Nope. I don’t believe in the evidence since it is being used to push an atheistic worldview.
Just because an atheist says something that doesn’t make it wrong.
To put it another way: “Hi, here’s the evidence for evolution. Good day.” Not, “You don’t believe it? You moron, cretard, anti-science, IDiot, etc.” That’s where the problem comes in.
I have no problem with someone have theological issues with evolution.
But just as Dawkins steps over the line when he jumps from biology to theological conclusions, literal creationist jump over the line when they make the reverse move.

Unfortunately the science for evolution is quite strong. So if you’re trying to debate in on purely scientific merits it can be rough.
Most people in the United States believe man showed up not too long ago and looked the way he does today. I wonder where they got that idea? The Pope? I don’t think so.
Well science isn’t a democracy so what most people think really isn’t germane.
We can cry over the sorry state of science education in the USA some other time.😦

Although a scientist would also agree that humans showed up not too long ago (about 150K years) and of course if they were humans they looked the way we do today.

I know that isn’t what you had in mind but I like to look for commonalities.😉
So all the education here is clearly the same old mantra: believe in evolution, (repeat endlessly).

I’ve been studying this subject for a while, and the worldview derived from evolutionism is more important than the science. That’s what I’m seeing.

God bless,
Ed
What would you have people do? Ignore what their senses tell them because you find their worldview objectionable?

That doesn’t seem to me to be the way to evangelize.
 
The evidence…is being used to push an atheistic worldview. Ed
Thats like an atheists rejecting Catholicism on the basis of certain abuses that came about as a result of the Inquisition.

Atheists are promoting an Atheist image of evolution, knowing that the public are largely ignorant of church history and its relationship with science and how the church has handle bible interpretations historically. They are taking advantage of the bible fundamentalists who rely purely on solo scripture, and they have taken advantage of peoples assumption that genesis is authoritive as a historical text ( Naturalists themselves push a literal interpretation of scripture in order to make you think that your faith is false).

It is true that there is alot of intelectual pressure to believe in evolution or be called a fool; and advise no one to believe on that account. Writings from early Church Fathers and Saints, proves that we do not have to take genesis as a literal historical event, but the Church also allows for a belief in a historical interpretation of genesis; this is because they know that a lot of people have based there whole faith on a literal interpretation of the bible. The Church has to worry about peoples souls (of course evolution could be false, but that seems very unlikly to me as i learn more about the mechanisms involved). There are a lot of “all or nothing” ideas out there. It seems to me, that people have more faith in there own authority to interpret the bible, then the words of our Pope, and that’s judging from peoples reaction to John Paul’s remark on the evolution theory; the way people were despairing, anyone would have thought that poor John was saying that God does not exist!!! Can you see the deception now? The church is slowly trying to “ween” people of past mistakes. Catholicism is not an ad-hoc faith (like atheism); rather, a mixture of Naturalism and modern fundamentalism, blindly plays its part to falsely make it appear so.

In my mind, the scientific revolution came about by the hand of God as a punishment. Christians should have been open about the findings of science and evolution, but because of our arrogance, are enemies are now using it against us, and in my opinion, fundamentalists are taking away the glory of God.

It’s all propaganda, which was started by those who “politically” wanted freedom from Church rule. This seems, to me, to be the root of the problem; corruption in the Church. Science was used as a political front against the Church, and they used it in such a way as to make the masses feel like they were being liberated into a free world where there was no evil Church to control them and no God to make demands on them; evolution was the real truth. The campaign was powerful, partly because science was actually (coincidently) revealing natural mechanisms that didn’t need a “direct” interference of God to explain nature; partly because people are sinners, and evolution seemed like a good excuse to not believe in God and face up to the strict moral responsibilities of spiritual life, and partly because the Church (in my opinion) was ruling through fear and blind-faith- submission.

It seems to me (in my opinion) that because the Church was afraid of losing control, when they should have been adapting and being open to the masses, (I’m sure some had good intentions) they used genesis and the Bible along with emotional blackmail (fear of disrespecting God) in order to keep society under Catholic rule, and to suppress what science was revealing (bad move). I think the Church at that time where more ruling through fear and forceful authority rather then spiritual enlightenment and love; this would explain why there was such a severe mental backlash against the Church when naturalists used science as a weapon. The devil is wicked and deceptive; he gains power over humanity through human ignorance and pride. Its tactics such as these, that has left the playing feild open to Carl Marx and other Naturalist philosophys that have tried to replace God.

When people see that scripture is in contradiction to what we find in reality, a seed of doubt is planted in us which makes us either Christian Fundamentalists (Becoming rejecters of the truths of evolution altogether; seeing it as a threat) or militant atheists; rejecting theism all together. This is because we have become blind sheep in despair, making arrogant claims instead of humbly looking at the facts and learning. Don’t look at evolution as the threat, for if it is the truth, then you must accept it, for it is Gods truth. The truth is, the church is still learning about the world and what is really in the Bible; our ideas are evolving and Church is actually becoming stronger as we learn more about the reality we live in; more secrets are being revealed to us the more humbly we receive the word.

.
 
Some very good points here. I have a scientific background, and i can accept that animals may have perhaps developed one from another.

However this is very different to the Fundamentalist Belief System of** Darwinistic Evolution by Random Selection**.

It is this belief system that has become a fundamental dogma of the scientific-rationalist establishment, and anyone who strays from it is attacked more rabidly than any medieval heretic.

The key point here is RANDOM Selection.
*** R**andom Selection* - what is that? I’ve never heard of it. It certainly forms no part of the biological theory of evolution. Do you really have a scientific background? - because I doubt that about anyone who talks about " random selection".

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
I might mention (following the physicist Stephen Barr) that randomness in itself does nothing to the idea of creation. For example, pick the third letter on any book’s page, then the next page, the next, and so on. It doesn’t matter how many pages you observe; the next page will be random and unpredictable, and you will not know what will be the third letter on that page until you observe it.

However—none of that means the book itself is random, or without an author. To argue for the Author of nature requires a different type of argument, but apparent randomness in nature or natural processes does not rule out the existence of the Author.

Evolution itself is not random, unless you go back far enough, to the place where you say the conditions resulting from the singularity were random (because unpredictable). However, at that point I would reverse the argument.

If the argument is something like:

If conditions resulting from the singularity were unpredictable, there is no God.
Conditions resulting from the singularity were unpredictable.
Therefore, there is no God.

Then I would change it from a modus ponens to a modus tollens:

If conditions resulting from the singularity were unpredictable, there is no God.
However, other arguments demonstrate God’s existence.
Therefore, conditions resulting from the singularity were not unpredictable.

In other words, I’d shift the argument away from HOW God created, or whether or not creation is random, to the question of God’s existence. If God exists, the question of how He created, or the seeming randomness of the process, becomes somewhat secondary, doesn’t it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top