Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Donald45:
My acceptance of evolution as a scientific position is in no way based upon my personal theology, as you admit your rejection of evolution is.
Click to expand...
I clearly stated that my rejection of evolution is based on a theological AS WELL AS scientific basis.

Yes, I am saying there is no compelling scientific evidence against evolution per se. Creationism (including Intelligent Design) offers no such evidence, since it is essentially a theological position, rather than a scientific one. Therefore, my rejection of such “arguments” are not prejudicial, but are based upon a scientific analysis of the nature of creationism itself. As a religious viewpoint, it simply doesn’t fit the self-described criterion of “science.”
However, as a Catholic, you are required to believe that God played a part in evolution. Thus, your theory of evolution is essentially a theological position as well.
 
40.png
AquinaSavio:
I clearly stated that my rejection of evolution is based on a theological AS WELL AS scientific basis.
Click to expand...
Well, then I implore you to pick up a copy of the book in my signature: Finding Darwin’s God, by Kenneth Miller…who is, by the way, a practicing Roman Catholic. Please read this book, and then try explaining to me your theological/scientific reasons for rejecting evolution. 👍
 
40.png
AquinaSavio:
I’m very mistaken, I’m sure. I guess if a person considered unintelligent studies for years and becomes quite intelligent, they have evolved! :rolleyes:

This is not so. Organisms can change…that does not mean they have evolved.
Click to expand...
Not in the sense used when refering to the ‘theory of evolution’ and in the context of ‘origin of species’ the variability is passed via the genetic code which does not undergo continuous modification, except by exposure to mutagens, but generally mutates on copy.

What does this mean? it means you have to beware of hidden context changes.
 
40.png
AquinaSavio:
I clearly stated that my rejection of evolution is based on a theological AS WELL AS scientific basis… However, as a Catholic, you are required to believe that God played a part in evolution. Thus, your theory of evolution is essentially a theological position as well.
Click to expand...
As I stated, your “scientific” arguments are both uninformed and ill-informed, and demonstrate an inadequate knowledge of evolutionary theory. They distort and misrepresent your opponent’s position and are therefore disqualified as legitimate “scientific” points against that position.

Yes, as a Catholic, I believe that God played a part in evolution—but this is a theological conviction, not a scientific conclusion. My “theory of evolution” does not include the doctrinal idea that God created, since this is, again, a theological rather than a scientific concept. My view on evolution is a scientific position, and my doctrine of creation (i.e., that God created the universe) is a theological position. As with your own views, you have confused and conflated mine.

And, again, you’ve avoided answering the second part of my Post #175.

Don
 
40.png
AquinaSavio:
I clearly stated that my rejection of evolution is based on a theological AS WELL AS scientific basis.
Click to expand...
there is no scientific basis for rejecting evolution.

However, as a Catholic, you are required to believe that God played a part in evolution. Thus, your theory of evolution is essentially a theological position as well.

Oh dear, the next dreationist canard…“evolution is religion too”

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
 
40.png
AquinaSavio:
However, as a Catholic, you are required to believe that God played a part in evolution.
Click to expand...
You almost act as if this is something inherently exclusive to evolution. It’s not. God played a part in evolution, yes, just as much as He played a part in the creation of our solar system. Scientists can explain for us how it happened in materialistic terms, and that’s great. But as well as they might be able to explain it, chance is always still going to play a role; in the scientific world, some things are (by their very nature) just going to happen at random, for no apparent reason, and that’s prefectly fine. Because that’s precisely how God can work undetected through His Creation. But as Catholics, we know that nothing can fall outside the bounds of Divine Providence; not random quantum mechanical fluctuations, not the creation of our solar system, and not evolution. So I hardly have a problem with any of that.

By the way, Kenneth Miller also has a website available. I consider this stuff basically as supplemental material to the book (which is far better), but it’s still very good. :cool:
 
40.png
AquinaSavio:
Well, evolutionists claim that evolution takes place over thousands of years. How then, can bacterial resistance come about in one generation?
Click to expand...
Evolution takes place over thousands of generations. For a bacteria a generation can be as short as twenty minutes. Fast breeeding organisms like bacteria like bacteria can enolve quickly. For slow breeding organisms like ourselves evolution takes longer.
40.png
AquinaSavio:
Evolution is the transition of one kind to another.
Click to expand...
“Kind” is not a scientific word, it comes from theology. Until there is a scientifically rigorous definition of “kind” it is not possible to tell whether two organisms are of different “kinds” or not. Evolution is the change of the genetic makeup of an interbreeding population over time. Macroevolution, which I think you are talking about here, is evolution at or above the level of a species.
40.png
AquinaSavio:
Simply becoming resistant to antibiotics produces no new kinds.
Click to expand...
What is your evidence for that statement? How many “kinds” of bacteria are there? How are bacteria assigned to different kinds? What “kind” is non-resistant Streptococcus aureus and why? What “kind” is MRSA and why? There is more variety among bacteria than there is in the whole of the animal kingdom so I will not accept “bacteria kind”; for a reasonably consistent definition of “kind” there should be more “kinds” of bacteria than there are of animals. You are going to have to provide more than mere assertion. Google “baraminology” for more on this topic.

Evolution can happen above or below the species level. Antibiotic resistance may or may not change species. For examples of evolution above the species level see Observed Instances of Speciation.

rossum
 
Aquina << I noted that most of your links are evolutionist pages. We should be more like Fox News: Fair and Balanced. >>

Well you’ve been answered already, but I’ll answer this again.

Going to TalkOrigins to learn about evolution is like a Catholic going to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott to learn about Catholicism and Catholic dogma. Going to AnswersInGenesis or KolbeCenter or DrDino to learn about evolution is like a Catholic going to Loraine Boettner or TheBereanCall.org to learn about Catholicism. Do you understand?

I repeat: There is no scientific evidence against evolution (universal common descent) and you haven’t produced any. I saw your other threads (from yourself or your father) about “no transitional fossils” but as we’ve seen, those are mistaken.

I have acknowledged in dozens of past threads some theological difficulties (mainly dealing with how to interpret Genesis, Adam/Eve, original sin, God and chance, etc). However, these are dealt with in such Catholic sources as the International Theological Commission statement, and Cardinal Ratzinger’s Commentary on Genesis, Ken Miller’s book, and evangelical Keith Miller’s anthology (see below), among others.

To learn what evolution is I have gone to the following scholarly sources besides TalkOrigins:

Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution by Robert Carroll (1988)
On the Origin of Phyla by James W. Valentine (Univ of Chicago Press, 2004)
Gaining Ground: The Origin and Early Evolution of Tetrapods by Jennifer Clack (Indiana Univ Press, 2002)
Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds by Gregory Paul (John Hopkins Univ Press, 2002)
The Fossil Record 2 edited by Benton (1993)
What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr (Basic/Perseus Books, 2001)
Along with many books by Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and others.

On the age of the earth:

The Age of the Earth from 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell (Geological Society Special Publication No 190, 2001)
The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple (Stanford University Press, 1991)

On evolution from a Christian perspective:

Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller (1999)
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller (2003)
Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk (2004)

These are all sources I own, or have physically gone to the library and looked up. If you haven’t read any of these you can’t even claim to be moderately informed on the issue.

Aquina << Funny, but I remember hearing plenty of evidence against evolution. Why should a scientific theory replace it? >>

That’s how science works, you replace a flawed scientific theory with a BETTER scientific theory that explains all the currently known data. If evolution (universal common descent) is wrong, what scientific theory would you replace it with? There is none.

Aquina << Evolution is more philosophy than anything else. You can’t observe it, and many theories involving it are based on naturalism or circular reasoning. >>

Evolution has been directly observed in the lab, speciation has been observed. There is also an enormous amount of scientific evidence that explains the known observed data.

Aquina << By the way, no one has responded to my post about evolution’s failure to explain instinct. >>

Others have responded, and Darwin wrote a chapter on the subject. The only thing I can recommend is you read the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma of evolution (see books above). You aren’t gonna learn a darn thing about evolution from AnswersInGenesis, KolbeCenter, or DrDino.

Phil P
 
Once again, this thread is like watching a dog chase its tail. You will not convince me, and I will not convince you. Thanks for a good discussion. 🙂
 
40.png
2shelbys:
Actually, I did not ask that question. I answered it. Tim (Orogeny) asked it.
Click to expand...
My apologies.
40.png
PhilVaz:
Scientific theories are not proved, they are disproved.

Phil P
Click to expand...
Surely if something is not disproved, it is proven by default.
 
R McGeddon:
Surely if something is not disproved, it is proven by default.
Click to expand...
Not at all, any more than a prosecutor failing to demonstrate a defendant’s guilt “proves” him innocent by default. He may still be guilty in actuality.There may in fact be other explanations which remain unknown at the moment, and which will come to light at some future time. “Not disproved” does not equate to “proven.” It does, however, result in higher confidence in the theory’s scientific validity.

Don
 
40.png
AquinaSavio:
…You will not convince me, and I will not convince you.
Click to expand...
I would be happy to be convinced by any legitimate scientific argument(s) you could produce. I simply haven’t heard one yet. On a personal note, I once held a position such as yours, even teaching anti-evolution seminars in various venues, including a secular college. I wrote articles and engaged in debates on the subject. I’d have no trouble changing my position again if motivated by compelling evidence. So, you are incorrect in the second clause of your statement. I am perfectly open to being convinced.

The question is, *why aren’t you? *“You will not convince me,” you write. You sound fairly certain about that. Could it be that you’ve already made up your mind to the point that you can no longer objectively consider alternative ideas? Have you lost the faculty of *teachability *in this area? (This would indeed be a tragedy in someone so young.) Surely you’re not infallible in your knowledge of these issues, and must admit that you could indeed be wrong in your view of evolution. How is it, then, that you’ve decided that you “will not be convinced” to alter your position? Since this seems to be your current situation, it is indeed somewhat pointless to enter into forum discussions such as the one here, which presume a certain openness to intellectual options, and that one is in fact honestly searching for truth. One who has already made up his mind, and who “will not be convinced,” is one who has no further need to search, for he has arrived. He has no need to be open to other ideas, for they are simply to be compared with his presently held opinion and then discarded. One who already knows has no need of further information, and certainly can gain little or nothing from a forum such as this.

God bless,
Don
 
40.png
Donald45:
I would be happy to be convinced by any legitimate scientific argument(s) you could produce. I simply haven’t heard one yet. On a personal note, I once held a position such as yours, even teaching anti-evolution seminars in various venues, including a secular college. I wrote articles and engaged in debates on the subject. I’d have no trouble changing my position again if motivated by compelling evidence. So, you are incorrect in the second clause of your statement. I am perfectly open to being convinced.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that you aren’t open to being convinced, I’m just saying that I won’t be the one to convince you.
40.png
Donald45:
The question is, *why aren’t you? *“You will not convince me,” you write. You sound fairly certain about that. Could it be that you’ve already made up your mind to the point that you can no longer objectively consider alternative ideas? Have you lost the faculty of *teachability *in this area? (This would indeed be a tragedy in someone so young.) Surely you’re not infallible in your knowledge of these issues, and must admit that you could indeed be wrong in your view of evolution. How is it, then, that you’ve decided that you “will not be convinced” to alter your position? Since this seems to be your current situation, it is indeed somewhat pointless to enter into forum discussions such as the one here, which presume a certain openness to intellectual options, and that one is in fact honestly searching for truth. One who has already made up his mind, and who “will not be convinced,” is one who has no further need to search, for he has arrived. He has no need to be open to other ideas, for they are simply to be compared with his presently held opinion and then discarded. One who already knows has no need of further information, and certainly can gain little or nothing from a forum such as this.
Click to expand...
I am not infallible in my opinion on evolution. I will be the first to admit that God could have used evolution to bring about the human race. However, I don’t accept this theory because of the lack of evidence. Don’t jump on me, but I believe there are too many holes in evolution. Even so, I might be wrong about the theory.

One of the biggest problems I have with evolution is the harm I believe it has done to society as well as the scientific world. Here are some examples: (1) evolution has convinced many that there is no God, leading to much immorality in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. (2) evolution has damaged science in that scientists are more willing to accept unproved theories as fact. Here is a quote from W.R. Thompson:
To establish the continuity required by the theory [of evolution], historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion.
Click to expand...
Advances have been made since this quote was made, but evolution has not been proven yet. I am aware that these reasons don’t discredit evolution at all. However, you are able to see my reasons for rejecting the theory. Thanks for being so civil and kind in your last post.

God Bless! 👍
 
40.png
AquinaSavio:
However, I don’t accept this theory because of the lack of evidence. Don’t jump on me, but I believe there are too many holes in evolution.
Click to expand...
Just curious, why do you require good evidence for evolution but believe in god with no evidence?
40.png
AquinaSavio:
evolution has convinced many that there is no God,
Click to expand...
This point assumes that there definitely is a god and that evolution has, somehow, duped them into believing otherwise.
40.png
AquinaSavio:
leading to much immorality in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.
Click to expand...
Morallity is purely down to how someone is brought up by their parents.
40.png
AquinaSavio:
evolution has damaged science in that scientists are more willing to accept unproved theories as fact.
Click to expand...
Just like the religious believe in an unproved god as fact.
 
Aquina << You will not convince me, and I will not convince you. >>

Yeah, what is this “you will not convince me” stuff. Show me that creationism is a scientific theory, that there is scientific evidence for creationism, that it is a better explanation of the data and evidence than universal common descent, and I’ll be convinced. Here is a little picture of said data that is explained by evolution, but is not explained by creationism:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/FishToTetra.jpg

There’s so much more that is explained by evolution, and not explained by creationism. BTW, what brand of creationism do you hold to? Young earth, old earth, flat earth, geocentrism, progressive, intelligent design, or all of the above? 😃

Phil P
 
Aquina << (2) evolution has damaged science in that scientists are more willing to accept unproved theories as fact…Advances have been made since this quote was made, but evolution has not been proven yet. >>

Thanks, but maybe you don’t understand the scientific method or what a scientific theory is: Facts are well-confirmed observations, theories explain and incorporate known facts, data, laws. Theories are in this sense “higher” than facts.

Anyone who says “evolution is a theory, not a fact because it is not proven yet” doesn’t know what a “fact” is, doesn’t know what a “theory” is, and doesn’t understand how science works. Not that I know a whole lot, but I know this: No scientific theory is ever proved, they are only disproved.

As for God and evolution, best books are still Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller, and Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk. Get all three, they won’t bite! 👍

I typed in excerpts from the second one to help you to decide whether to buy it. Great book! Also Origin of the Human Species by a Catholic philosopher deals with some theological objections.

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top