Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a m

[Eric_Hyom]

Your comprehension skills need some work, Eric. It has already been pointed out to you that no-one has said that the eye needed specifically 1829 steps to form.

Apart from the link you provided which said - They concluded that the whole sequence, as shown, required 1829 steps. As I said before, it is not important if the number is 1500 or 2000. it does not conform to RANDOM mutation without any goals. Your link showed seven separate goals that the shape of the eye had to aim for, in order that their mathematical calculations would work.

You should take some time out and read about all the inherent defects in the human eye and how it suffers in comparison (in most aspects) with the eyes of other creatures. If God did design it, then He did a woeful job.

We all die, and death has to be the greatest imperfection. Perfection comes in life after death with God.

Be sure to tell Him I said so.

At some point we shall all have to stand before God, so you can tell him.

 

[Tarquin]

You should take some time out and read about all the inherent defects in the human eye and how it suffers in comparison (in most aspects) with the eyes of other creatures. If God did design it, then He did a woeful job.

I’ve been getting along fine with my eyes for many years. What is an example of an “inherent defect” in the human eye, and what alternative would you chose that would be less defective? I realize that eye-complaints are cliches, but they also demonstrate the need for “negotiable imperfection.” I myself am not convinced they are “negotiable imperfection,” but may be instances of finite entities being restricted in scope by other entities. Where two things exist, each is limited by the existence of the other. The only thing that cannot be restricted in its perfection would be a most “simple,” most “singular” (as in “one”) Thing. Even then, such a Thing would probably also have to be transcendent of time and space if it is to be absolute free of restrictions by other existent things.

 

[inocente]

You are speaking as if the Creationists believe in Creationism and nothing else.

sorry, that won’t fly here. You are still trying to divide and conquer Catholics by demonstrating disunity inside the Church. Sometime long ago you decided this was a brilliant strategy. Well, you Protestants ought to know, because you have divided and conquered Christianity thousands of times since Luther.

Unity?

Like when you told me recently that Pope Francis is wrong not to accept intelligent design?

Or when you told me that an article on Catholic Answers by a professor of Christian philosophy, who argues that Aquinas wouldn’t be a fan of intelligent design, is wrong?

Or when you tried to get me to agree with your personal interpretation of Genesis, for which you never once referred to the Church or to any Catholic theologian, apologist or bible scholar, but instead to out of context quotes from scientists?

Those are just examples, since it was you who want to argue . Other creationists have told me I should get my teaching from a ramshackle bunch of aging hippies called the Discovery Institute rather than the Church. Or that anyone who accepts evolution is a materialist. Presumably they forgot JPII accepted evolution.

Creationists tell me all manner of things, but when I look on vatican.va, or here on Catholic Answers, or go to Catholic university websites, they don’t tell me what creationists tell me.

You object to me pointing that out. You say that my agreement with the Church on these things is demonstrating disunity. So would you prefer me to stop agreeing with the Church? Tell me what you’d like me to do here, Señor Unity.

 

[inocente]

Sorry Charlie, but most Baptists ARE Creationists! What happened to you?

Are they indeed. I’d hope they heard at least one sermon telling them that ‘Let there be light’ in Genesis is not, as some creationists tell me, about photons and the big bang. Instead it joins up with the rest of the OT in speaking of supernatural light, as in Isaiah 60:

Arise, shine, for your light has come,
and the glory of the Lord rises upon you.
See, darkness covers the earth
and thick darkness is over the peoples,
but the Lord rises upon you
and his glory appears over you.
Nations will come to your light,
and kings to the brightness of your dawn.
youtube.com/watch?v=eLc2dEtIQTQ

BTW mi nombre no es Charlie.

 

[rossum]

it does not conform to RANDOM mutation without any goals.

Random mutation does not supply the goal. Natural selection supplies the goal: to project more copies of your genes into the future.

Natural selection is a ruthless filter. Every single one of your billions of ancestors succeeded in reproducing, obviously. Think how many acorns a single oak tree produces over its lifetime. On average only one or two of those acorns will become mature trees. That ruthless filtering ensures that any small advantage is spread.

Your link showed seven separate goals that the shape of the eye had to aim for, in order that their mathematical calculations would work.

There are a lot more goals than that. The paper did not look at the separate goals for a compound eye for instance. The more goals there are, the better chance a random mutation will move closer to one of the goals. Even within the limits of the paper, all the intermediate proto-eyes were functional. We can see some of them working in various organisms today: the flat eye of the Lancelet; the cup-eye of flatworms; the pinhole eye of the Nautilus.

At some point we shall all have to stand before God, so you can tell him.

So how will you explain why you do not accept the obvious evidence of His work in the universe?

rossum

 

[rossum]

What is an example of an “inherent defect” in the human eye, and what alternative would you chose that would be less defective?

Human, and all mammalian eyes, have a blind spot where the blood supply for the retina passes through. Our retinas are supplied with blood from the front, so the blood vessels can interfere with vision.

Squid and octopus eyes are different. Their retinas are supplied with blood from behind, so they do not have blind spots and their blood vessels do not interfere with incoming light.

For the specifically human eye, we cannot see as sharply as eagles, and we cannot see as far into the ultra-violet as many birds do.

All that having been said, our eyes, though less than perfect, generally function well enough for us to survive.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Human, and all mammalian eyes, have a blind spot where the blood supply for the retina passes through. Our retinas are supplied with blood from the front, so the blood vessels can interfere with vision.

Squid and octopus eyes are different. Their retinas are supplied with blood from behind, so they do not have blind spots and their blood vessels do not interfere with incoming light.

For the specifically human eye, we cannot see as sharply as eagles, and we cannot see as far into the ultra-violet as many birds do.

All that having been said, our eyes, though less than perfect, generally function well enough for us to survive.

Please give an example of a superior form of perception produced by science.

 

[rossum]

Please give an example of a superior form of perception produced by science.

Certainly. A Geiger counter can detect forms of radiation that human senses cannot.

Was that really so difficult?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Certainly. A Geiger counter can detect forms of radiation that human senses cannot.

Was that really so difficult?

A Geiger counter presupposes the existence of human insight, knowledge and perception…

 

[rossum]

A Geiger counter presupposes the existence of human insight, knowledge and perception…

Of course it does. You asked:

“Please give an example of a superior form of perception produced by science.” (emphasis added)

Since science presupposes the existence of human insight, knowledge and perception then that presupposition was built into your question. You are the one who made the presupposition, not me.

If you want a non-human example of a superior sense, then a Bloodhound’s sense of smell is superior to a human’s sense of smell. There are many other examples.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

A Geiger counter presupposes the existence of human insight, knowledge and perception…

Possessing some degree of those attributes, I predict that conversation won’t go anywhere.

But, it got me thinking:

Does a Geiger counter have a beingness that makes it what it is? The thing about things is that they are what they are and they relate in their particular fashion to that which they are not, mainly to things that are like themselves - atoms or we as persons for example. If we consider some other physical thing, a pail for example, one may imagine that it’s pailness a sort of illusion, constructed by us, within the relationship we have with its matter. Does the complexity of a Geiger counter make it more of a being in itself separate from but relating to other being, than a pail?

We are composed of matter, in a far more complex arrangement than a Geiger counter. In fact I’ve heard it said that the complexity of the brain outrivals that of all the gravitational interactions of all known physical bodies in the entire universe. While it may explain the vastness of how we express our capacities, whatever the level of complexity, it cannot explain the actual beingness of the individual person, who alone experiences and and interacts with other being, as we participate in the cosmos.

But, let’s say a pail is a pail, and a Geiger counter is a Geiger counter, separate simple physical beings in themselves. It would take an external agency, like ourselves, a universal mind to make it so.

In terms of us here, since we neither bring ourselves into existence, nor have we always existed, we are created as persons, which is more than a simple reorganization of matter, regardless of its complexity, especially if the material thing has no particular existence in itself as a separate being.

Ultimately, it is the existence of what is other and our relationship with it underlies insight, knowledge and perception. And, while we actualize these attributes, we do not create them; they are given. I think it obvious that only someone greater could bring these into existence.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Would there be a problem if there was species to species evolution? I mean are you rejecting macro-evolution because you think the evidence is not there, or are you rejecting Macro-evolution because you think its contrary to the Catholic faith?

Are you a young earth creationist?

Don’t label people WANT. I think the earth is older than 4000 years.

I don’t think there is any evidence of species to species evolution, which is what evolution is based on. It is an unproven theory, yet it is crammed down the throats of all school children.

What the is agenda is behind teaching evolution propaganda?

It is to stifle religion, clearly stating that we are NOT made in God’s image, but just evolved apes.

 

[inocente]

I think the earth is older than 4000 years.

I think young earth creationists are those who say the earth is < 10000 years old.

But there are so many different types of creationism. Perhaps Cosmo or GQ has an article on how to choose a creationism that’s just right for me.

Jill: Dad, I brought Jack home to meet you.
Dad: Are you in the one true creationism, Gap Creationism, Jack?
Jack: No sir, Day-age Creationist born and raised sir.
Dad: Then you cannot marry my daughter, be off with you. Jill, you’re grounded.

I don’t think there is any evidence of species to species evolution, which is what evolution is based on. It is an unproven theory, yet it is crammed down the throats of all school children.

What the is agenda is behind teaching evolution propaganda?

It is to stifle religion, clearly stating that we are NOT made in God’s image, but just evolved apes.

So you say teaching evolution stifles religion. Yet the Catholic University of America’s School of Theology and Religious Studies is teaching evolution to seminarians. - trs.cua.edu/Science-for-Seminaries/biology-evolution.cfm

How come?

BTW speciation blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

 

[edwest2]

I’ve read the same things here over and over… and over and over… every time this subject is brought up.

Why is it brought up so often? The evidence is clear: to get full compliance in the evolution religious belief system. Until that is achieved, this will continue - forever. Why? Because denial of God and creating disunity are important things to do for some.

Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think you are a young earth creationist

No meat at all on that bone!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You object to me pointing that out. You say that my agreement with the Church on these things is demonstrating disunity. So would you prefer me to stop agreeing with the Church? Tell me what you’d like me to do here, Señor Unity.

To rebut all this is easy.

The Church has never repudiated Aquinas’ fifth proof from intelligent design. Can you cite anywhere that it has? Please do. The Church has affirmed the credibility of evolution. It has not affirmed the credibility of evolution without God’s plan for the universe governing evolution.

Nor have you rebutted the claim that Protestants in general have divided and conquered Christianity to the point that we now live in a post-Christian era. As Herman Melville noted so long ago, Protestantism is the halfway house to Atheism.

Both Darwin and Einstein repudiated atheism. Ergo, it would seem they both saw God’s guiding hand in the business of Creation.

Would you like to try again, Señor Baptist?

Charles Darwin: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Albert Einstein: “I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”

 

[ANV]

To rebut all this is easy.

The Church has never repudiated Aquinas’ fifth proof from intelligent design. Can you cite anywhere that it has? Please do. The Church has affirmed the credibility of evolution. It has not affirmed the credibility of evolution without God’s plan for the universe governing evolution.

Nor have you rebutted the claim that Protestants in general have divided and conquered Christianity to the point that we now live in a post-Christian era. As Herman Melville noted so long ago, Protestantism is the halfway house to Atheism.

Both Darwin and Einstein repudiated atheism. Ergo, it would seem they both saw God’s guiding hand in the business of Creation.

Would you like to try again, Señor Baptist?

Charles Darwin: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Albert Einstein: “I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”

Where did Einstein say the lastest one?

He was an agnostic atheist and much of it attributed to him.

Some physicists and poets use the word “God” as expression for universe and energy and not as a personal deity, more like in the “spiritual” non literal sense of the word, means everything, even hawking did that, not in the religious or theistic sense.

 

[inocente]

To rebut all this is easy.

The Church has never repudiated Aquinas’ fifth proof from intelligent design. Can you cite anywhere that it has? Please do. The Church has affirmed the credibility of evolution. It has not affirmed the credibility of evolution without God’s plan for the universe governing evolution.

Nor have you rebutted the claim that Protestants in general have divided and conquered Christianity to the point that we now live in a post-Christian era. As Herman Melville noted so long ago, Protestantism is the halfway house to Atheism.

Both Darwin and Einstein repudiated atheism. Ergo, it would seem they both saw God’s guiding hand in the business of Creation.

Would you like to try again, Señor Baptist?

Charles Darwin: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Albert Einstein: “I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”

You started off saying a rebuttal is easy but then you forgot to make one.

I asked a straightforward question that was nothing to do with atheism or brainyquote.com.

My question was about the single unified teaching from vatican.va, Catholic Answers, and Catholic university websites, which I agree with, but being told something totally different by creationists such as your good self.

I said you object to me pointing that out. You say that my agreement with the Church on these things is demonstrating disunity. So would you prefer me to stop agreeing with the Church?

Again then, would you prefer me to stop agreeing with the Church? You see, I can’t agree both with the Church on its teaching about evolution and science, and at the same time also agree with creationists such as your good self, because you’re telling me something different.

So would you prefer me to stop agreeing with the Church?

(And nice try, but as I asked my question first, when you’ve answered it I’ll answer yours.).

 

[Tarquin]

Please give an example of a superior form of perception produced by science.

Certainly. A Geiger counter can detect forms of radiation that human senses cannot.
Was that really so difficult?

It is true that there are many things to be perceived which humans cannot perceive directly. However an animal or person or machine that detects radiation does *not *have “a superior form of perception.” It is, admittedly, a capacity to detect something that humans do not normally perceive. But on the whole, sensing radiation is inferior to the combination of human senses, even the single sense of vision by the human eye. Finally, geiger counters detect radiation and that is the end of the story. Geiger counters do not “perceive” (“become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand”) in the sense that humans perceive light, color, odors, heat, etc. They merely “detect.”

They do not even detect for themselves, but they detect for us. Radiation detection is one of *our *senses, an indirect sense, not a machine’s “sense.” Afterwards, guess what, through the use of that same geiger counter, humans *do *“perceive,” albeit indirectly which is no great loss, radiation! We can determine where the radiation is, whether it is a dangerous level. We can tell when we are getting too much light. Automatically, our pupils contract. More light and we close our eyes, then turn our heads. But no matter how high the radiation, even if it were enough to melt metal, the geiger counter would on its own remain unmoved. Humans move (have motivation, and act on motivation). Macines don’t. The machine doesn’t “perceive” the danger it is in. It only detects radiation.

No machine has ever been, nor will ever be, superior to a human. Some machines can do certain things that humans can’t do(directly - detect certain radiation, record in the infrared, differentiate colors in the dark, fly into space - but humans can do all things by virtue of their own inherent nature (create art and music, communicate personal thoughts, etc.) and by virtue of those machines - which are flown into space, programmed to differentiate colors in the dark, and set up as warnings of dangerous radiation.

People who have absolute devotion to atheistic and materialist doctrines don’t care. They sincerely believe there is no god, and humans are not the exceptional special creatures they are. So humans must by definition, not by fact and science, be “inferior” and “flawed” from their very inception. Once that is embraced as one’s unalterable, infallible creed, as one’s absolute truth in the face of all relative truths, there is no argument, fact, or evidence that will sway them otherwise. Some have confessed to me they would not even believe in God if God appeared to them. “It might be a trick.” That means the only way some atheists can believe in God is if they themselves *are *God. That makes reasoning futile, except as a demonstration to others.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I said you object to me pointing that out. You say that my agreement with the Church on these things is demonstrating disunity. So would you prefer me to stop agreeing with the Church?

Again then, would you prefer me to stop agreeing with the Church? You see, I can’t agree both with the Church on its teaching about evolution and science, and at the same time also agree with creationists such as your good self, because you’re telling me something different.

So would you prefer me to stop agreeing with the Church?

I would prefer you start agreeing with traditional theology, both Catholic and Protestant, which says that God designed the universe and everything in it. He didn’t just throw the dice with the big Bang and hope for the best like any other gambler.

It is the atheistic evolutionists who would have us believe that God designed nothing because God does not exist.

Read some Dawkins and ask yourself why he and other atheist scioentists are so dead set against intelligent design. Then ask yourself why the Church has never condemned Aquinas’s fifth proof for the existence of God from intelligent design.

As to the Baptist point of view, there is no unity there because there is no unity anywhere among Protestants. You guys invented disunity and you revel in it. No wonder you exult in pointing to disunity among Catholics.

Señor Baptist, put that in your Baptist pipe and smoke it!