Gaps in Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter SoulBeaver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charles_Darwin said:
Well this is kinda my point, what are the grounds for deciding they are rotten? They are just as important teachings as any other part of the bible.
Click to expand...
No – heliocentrism and a hexaemeral creation are not of equal importance with doctrines such as the Incarnation, the Resurrection, etc.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Well this is kinda my point, what are the grounds for deciding they are rotten? They are just as important teachings as any other part of the bible.
Click to expand...
These are not important teachings as they have nothing to do with faith and morals (or the Bible).
 
Charles_Darwin said:
I would agree with this, not that that has any bearings on the value of her beliefs.
Click to expand...
“Modernism” is a waffle word. In the thirteenth century Saint Thomas Aquinas was a modernist for helping express Catholic theology in the idiom of Aristotelian science. Galileo was a modernist for proposing that the earth revolves about the sun.

I’m apparently a modernist for accepting that 100,000 evolutionary biologists, geologists, and paleontologists know what they’re talking about. But truth be told, I’m a theological postmodernist, as modernism is by now pretty dated!

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
“Modernism” is a waffle word. In the thirteenth century Saint Thomas Aquinas was a modernist for helping express Catholic theology in the idiom of Aristotelian science. Galileo was a modernist for proposing that the earth revolves about the sun.

I’m apparently a modernist for accepting that 100,000 evolutionary biologists, geologists, and paleontologists know what they’re talking about. But truth be told, I’m a theological postmodernist, as modernism is by now pretty dated!

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Modernism

The essential error of Modernism

Catholic and Modernist notions of dogma compared
 
buffalo said:
You continue to show your colors. Nothing of any age is worth anything to you. That is essentially the great weakness of modernism and you have fallen for it.
Click to expand...
A typical buffalo stampede – unkind, unimaginative, overstated, unifocal, black-and-white!
 
StAnastasia said:
A typical buffalo stampede – unkind, unimaginative, overstated, unifocal, black-and-white!
Click to expand...
I don’t think he exagerates if you yourself professed a post modernist approach to your Catholic faith. And then when asked about whether you believed if Mary was a virgin, you responded with some quip about the inquisition, now was that necessary?
 
15 pages in and no ones even using the word evolution anymore:shrug:

I skimmed a little and alot of people, including the op, dont even seem to understand what evolution is, take 2 minutes: youtube.com/watch?v=FnzmxeZJeho

and just some things I have to say while rereading the op’s post:

why would a theory be unscientific if it can fit any scenario? theory of gravity covers everything with mass, theory of evolution covers everything with dna.

what does mutilating baby bugs have to do with anything? are you implying that the small bug from a squeezed egg is going to have small children, even if their eggs go unsqueezed? Im pretty sure youre wrong, thats like saying the children of a man who lost a foot in an accident will be born without that foot too.

what is this desire for absolutism? saying you know all the answers is downright arrogant. there is always the potential that we will learn something new and when we do, we might be proven wrong, thats just sensible humility. a theory gets changed if needed, or even thrown out entirely BUT only in the face of contradictory evidence. based on our current information evolution is the best answer we currently have to explain the variety of life.

heres something you probably didnt know, viruses multiply by hijacking their hosts dna, but sometimes it does work right, leaving a trail that we can follow:

youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

evolution was thought up before dna was discovered and it fit perfectly.
 
curioosbadger said:
15 pages in and no ones even using the word evolution anymore:shrug:…what is this desire for absolutism? saying you know all the answers is downright arrogant. there is always the potential that we will learn something new and when we do, we might be proven wrong, thats just sensible humility. a theory gets changed if needed, or even thrown out entirely BUT only in the face of contradictory evidence. based on our current information evolution is the best answer we currently have to explain the variety of life.
Click to expand...
curioosbadger, you ask a great question about the desire for absolutism. Curiously, just this morning I ran across a book new to me: Judy J. Johnson’s What’s So Wrong with Being Absolutely Right? The Dangerous Nature of Dogmatic Belief. Check it out at metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=4999&cn=139
 
Hi,

Addressing the OP:

I think that evolution is a strong theory and it is probably correct in what it states.

One of the biggest problems within the theory that I am aware is that scientists have not been able to demonstrate how the first organism really came into existence.

There have been certain advances made over time, especially in the Miller-Urey experiment that have demonstrated how organic compounds could be produced through inorganic chemicals theorized to be existent on a primordial world. There have been many theories as to how organic chemicals could somehow come together to produce RNA and a living organism, but no one has really solved how it supposedly happened that life actually came into existence from these base organic chemicals. Furthermore, no one has been able to produce even a simple living organism from inorganic chemicals in a laboratory… which of course begs the question, that if scientists are still unable to create even a single simple organism in the controlled setting of a laboratory, then how would it happen in the uncontrolled setting of a primordial ocean?

Someday they may find a solution to this, although at the moment, it remains one of the largest issues in affirming the scientific theory: how did life actually start?

God Bless,
 
D_M said:
Hi,Addressing the OP:I think that evolution is a strong theory and it is probably correct in what it states.One of the biggest problems within the theory that I am aware is that scientists have not been able to demonstrate how the first organism really came into existence.
Click to expand...
Hi DM – thanks for your post. You are confusing the theory of evolution, which is about how species diversity comes about, with the theory of abiogenesis, or life coming from non-life. They are not the same.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Hi DM – thanks for your post. You are confusing the theory of evolution, which is about how species diversity comes about, with the theory of abiogenesis, or life coming from non-life. They are not the same.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Hi StAnastasia,

You appear to be correct, although I think discussing holes in abiogenesis is still well within the spirit of the OP.

God Bless,
 
how life began, abiogenesis, is a field all its own, pretty neat stuff too, but its more chemistry than biology:

youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

now as far as why someone would want to know everything- sure why wouldnt you want to? but its just not going to happen for want of it or by declaration. dont use whether someone claims to have all the answers as some sort of qualifier on whether you should listen to them or whether what they say is true- follow up on it, see if the facts support it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top