If evolution theory were true

[abcdefg]

vern humphrey:

Science doesn’t “prove beyond doubt.” Science examines data and makes hypotheses, then tests those hypothesis. When more data is available, the cycle continues.

By your words, science is all about hypothesis but no prove. you’re very scientific.
even a few evidence support evolution it doesn’t mean it’s right.

consider this (the reverse of one of Fermat’s law)

2^(3-1) mod 3 = 1
2^(5-1) mod 5 = 1
2^(7-1) mod 7 = 1
thus the conclusion, if 2^(n-1) mod n = 1 then n is a prime number. try 341 = 11 * 31. 2^(341-1) mod 341 = 1. before 341 was found can you say the conclusion is right, because there’re 299 numbers support this conclusion?

 

[vern_humphrey]

abcdefg:

Words are "Science can’t prove evolution ‘theory’ is right.

Science does not try to “prove” theories. It tries to develop and verify them, then moves on, adjusting theories to new data as we learn more.

abcdefg:

Church tradition teaches Creationism is right,

Give us a cite for that. Show us that the Magisterium has rejected evolution.

abcdefg:

evolution ‘theory’ is unacceptable

Unacceptable to who? Not to the Church!

abcdefg:

thus it’s better to accept Creationism" if you like add “Current teaching gives no clear answer”

Current teaching does give clear answers. The Church teaches that we do not reject science.

You’re wrong in everything you’ve said here – and not offered a shred of proof for your positions.

The case is closed.

 

[abcdefg]

If you were born in the 19th century, do you reject phrenology? It’s widely considered to be scientific in the 19th century and used to identify would-be criminals even if he had done nothing wrong.all unproved are “hypothesis” at best. astrology and phrenology both can claim much evidence.

OK I don’t know how many times I’ve shown to others Church’s tradition. probably you just haven’t read them, I hope.

councils
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=91682
catechisms
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1198976&postcount=39
Current magisterium neither confirms nor denies evolution. it’s settled in tradition.

 

[abcdefg]

vern humphrey:

The case is closed.

Pravda declares Comrade Stalin is the wisest man in our(that) era

 

[cathologos]

abcdefg:

Both human and fish survive now. and human has aspect superior to fish. if human wish fish be extincted, I don’t doubt fish can be extincted. If fish want humans be extincted, this no where going to happen. Jews almost extincted in WW2 as they can’t fit the environment. according to ET, they’re inferior.

NO.

The belief that “Jews are inferior” follows (apparently) from Nazi political philosophy. It does NOT follow from the theory of evolution.

Your assertion is beyond wrong; it is beyond stupid. It is offensive in the extreme, and I’m beginning to think that is your intent. The suggestion, or implication, that those who accept the theory of evolution are somehow racist, or eugenicists – and your little implication that they’re closet Nazis – is outrageous.

To all here: I’m well aware that posts are supposed to be temperate and considerate – and I try. But when I see somebody obstinately ignoring reason, and comparing evolutionary biological science with Nazi genocide – well, that’s just a little beyond the limit. If I’m over-reacting, please let me know, and I’ll go elsewhere – because if abcdefg’s comment is “acceptable” here, I really do need to be somewhere else.

 

[vern_humphrey]

abcdefg:

If you were born in the 19th century, do you reject phrenology? It’s widely considered to be scientific in the 19th century and used to identify would-be criminals even if he had done nothing wrong.all unproved are “hypothesis” at best. astrology and phrenology both can claim much evidence.

OK I don’t know how many times I’ve shown to others Church’s tradition. probably you just haven’t read them, I hope.

councils
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=91682
catechisms
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1198976&postcount=39

I’ve read them. You are not a bishop, and your opinion of what they mean is simply your opinion.

Now, you’re cheating – I asked for authoritative cites, and you offer your own interpretations.

abcdefg:

Current magisterium neither confirms nor denies evolution. it’s settled in tradition.

That’s a contradiction in terms – how can tradition be at odds with the Magisterium?

You’ve lost.

 

[abcdefg]

vern humphrey:

I’ve read them. You are not a bishop, and your opinion of what they mean is simply your opinion.

Now, you’re cheating – I asked for authoritative cites, and you offer your own interpretations.

You’re lying! no such accusation please. you’re not lying and I’m not cheating!
coucils have no authority? catechisms have no authority?
and I ask you what St. Peter believed?
vern humphrey:

That’s a contradiction in terms – how can tradition be at odds with the Magisterium?

Current teaching is simply no teaching. get it? Pope only said “evolution is probably right” an equivalent saying is “Jesus probably have 6 fingers in one hand”
vern humphrey:

You’ve lost.

And Stalin is the wisest man in that era

 

[vern_humphrey]

abcdefg:

You’re lying! no such accusation please. you’re not lying and I’m not cheating!
coucils have no authority? catechisms have no authority?

No, you have no authority.

abcdefg:

and I ask you what St. Peter believed?

I’ll go out on a limb and say he didn’t believe in you.

abcdefg:

Current teaching is simply no teaching. get it?

Nope. You’re wrong.

abcdefg:

Pope only said “evolution is probably right” an equivalent saying is “Jesus probably have 6 fingers in one hand”

Again, wrong.

abcdefg:

And Stalin is the wisest man in that era

Phew! For a minute there I though you were going to claim you were.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[bhlincoln]

abcdefg:

Some theists who believe in evolution theory explain these to me:
1)Why Genesis chapters of the Bible whose author is God were phrased in such a way that exaggerated God’s role in the creation of life especially human and fooled all the people for 1000 years?

1. Why God, since He is omnipotent and can draw humans much closer to Him by creating human body from dust and give him life by a breath, instead allowed monkey become a man by pure chance or made human soul and planted it in the monkey.

Good points. I’ve often thought about what conversations would have been like between Adam and Eve and their son Abel:

Abel: “Mom and Dad I’m looking forward to seeing our ancestors some day in heaven!”
Adam and Eve: “Abel, I’m sorry but our ancestors were all apes, and therefore had no souls, so none of them will ever go to heaven”.

 

[hecd2]

Jason Meyers:

Y And there is a remarkable diversity in the types of eyes present in invertebrates, including my favorite, the eye of a tiny marine animal that has an eye that works like a scanner rather than a camera! (ref)
The amazing world of sensory biology is full of amazing stories!
JRM

Jason,
Apologies for calling you Jeremy up the thread. Inexcusable.

This is very interesting - there are few iif any technological solutions that are not prefigured in the biological world. A scanning eye is fascinating to someone who has worked with scanning optical systems.

I think there is room on this thread for the grown-ups to have an exchange, don’t you think? I see that you are using the fact of evolution to figure out conserved developmental features in vertebrate eyes. In particular you are doing work on retinal progenitor cells in zebrafish, animals that can regernerate their retinas That’s cool.

I am particularly interested in the work in your lab on the role of Mueller glial cells (from the lab website). I understand the role of the Notch signalling pathway in cell to cell signalling and cell differentaition, but I don’t understand the precise hypothesis you guys are working on. Is it that Notch signalling regulates the Mueller cells to develop as glial cells rather than neurons so that if the Notch pathway is activated in teleosts then retinal regeneration is blocked? - the idea then being that down-regulation of Notch could lead to retinal regeneration from Mueller cells? Sorry if this is complete garbage - have I understood anything at all?

What has this to do with apologetics? Well, it’s a partial antidote to the appalling childish behaviour we’ve seen on this thread and the fundamentalist argument that the Theory of Evolution is useless (as well as wrong). But actually, it has no apologetic foundation - I’m just interested.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[abcdefg]

vern humphrey:

No, you have no authority.

I indeed have no authority. but tradition has!
vern humphrey:

I’ll go out on a limb and say he didn’t believe in you.

old words, go and prove.
vern humphrey:

Nope. You’re wrong.

Again, wrong.

are you BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORED of repeating these words and nothing else?
vern humphrey:

Phew! For a minute there I though you were going to claim you were.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

You mustn’t be very wise to think that. I was born after Stalin’s death. I think you know that.

btw I’m not claiming I’m the wisest man in this era.

Don’t meant to be aggressive, which documents explicitly show Catholics can believe in evolution without damaging faith. all document others show me are “evolution is probably right” “Catholic can discuss about evolution”

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

You’re lying! no such accusation please. you’re not lying and I’m not cheating!
coucils have no authority? **catechisms have no authority?**and I ask you what St. Peter believed?

Below is what Pope John Paul II wrote in the CCC for its publication. You can read the full letter yourself.
By making your above staement you are calling the Pope a liar.

The Doctrinal Value of the Text

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

…

I’m still waiting for the document showing Catholics can accept evolution without damaging faith.
I don’t call Pope JPII is a liar as he didn’t teach anything decisive on evolution.

JPII has no more authority(and most probably less) than canonized popes like Pius X, Pius V, Gregory the Great, Peter etc. I don’t know if JPII will be canonized, but at least now he isn’t.

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

I’m still waiting for the document showing Catholics can accept evolution without damaging faith.
I don’t call Pope JPII is a liar as he didn’t teach anything decisive on evolution.

JPII has no more authority(and most probably less) than canonized popes like Pius X, Pius V, Gregory the Great, Peter etc. I don’t know if JPII will be canonized, but at least now he isn’t.

First you didn’t answer my question. You made a wide sweeping statement (not about evolution) that catechism has no authority. I showed you that it IS the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Secondly you can’t be serious in suggesting that only Popes who have been canonised have authority or at least have more authority than Popes who have not. That is ridiculous!!

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

First you didn’t answer my question. You made a wide sweeping statement (not about evolution) that catechism has no authority. I showed you that it IS the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Secondly you can’t be serious in suggesting that only Popes who have been canonised have authority or at least have more authority than Popes who have not. That is ridiculous!!

You read my words wrong.
All Catechism has authority unless declared heretic. that’s including CCC, Baltimore Catechism, Roman Catechism. CCC taught nothing decisive about evolution.

Popes normally don’t contradict one another in matter of faith. and they still don’t contradict one another now. however when recent Pope failed to decide a question. past popes sure have more authority (even not restricted to canonized popes).

When Pope contradicts one another, like the Honorius I, the heretic, tradition helps to clean the mess.

 

[MaggieOH]

abcdefg:

Is question of whether individual life begins at conception or birth important to you? origin of species is the same.
It’s taken as official Church position since St Peter and taught generation after generation.unlike flat earth which has no theology base, this one directly concerns God. what’s your understanding of the word “Tradition”. PP Piux X’s teaching condemns adjusting theology to suit contemporary culture. tell me what you think about it. use the translator from google to read it if you can’t understand Italian.
finally you’re not taking Catholicism seriously by specifying your religion as “catholic” instead of “Catholic”

Theistic evolution is not the same as Darwinism or “Origin of the Species”.

Genesis is not meant to be taken in so literal a way that the world was created in 6 literal 24 hour periods. I favour the explanation that the day moving into evening and then it was morning actually represents an unknown period of time during which the universe slowly continued to evolve until man was placed on the earth.

The Catholic Church does not accept Darwinism but it does allow for theistic evolution. The difference between the two concepts is that Darwin does not allow for the work of the creator, but evolution, as explained by other scientists gives us a means of understanding how the world evolved. Genesis gives us God’s truth and the order of Creation, nothing more and nothing less.

Genesis is not a history book, and it is not a science manual. Creation Scientists are not all that crash hot since they have not come up with much that supports their point of view. I speak in particular against the young earth creationists. Much of what they write is pure bunk and is not supportable at all.

I am not a follower of the theories of Charles Darwin, rather, I accept the work that has been done by a group of scientists who have shown how the universe was created by an Omnipotent God.

I can recommend a few sites on the web that will show where the young earth creation scientists have gone totally wrong in their concepts and way of thinking.

Also, whether Genesis is literal or not has nothing to do with my faith in God. I do not need proof of the existence of Noah’s Ark to believe that God’s truth is written in the Scripture, since God used human authors to do His work.

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

You read my words wrong.
All Catechism has authority unless declared heretic. that’s including CCC, Baltimore Catechism, Roman Catechism. CCC taught nothing decisive about evolution.

Popes normally don’t contradict one another in matter of faith. and they still don’t contradict one another now. however when recent Pope failed to decide a question. past popes sure have more authority (even not restricted to canonized popes).

When Pope contradicts one another, like the Honorius I, the heretic, tradition helps to clean the mess.

You seem hung up on “tradition” with a small “t”.
Church teaching is based on Divine Revelation which came to us by Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

I’ve read through all the posts in this thread and you seem to simply rant and rave at posters declaring that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Sounds like paranoia to me.

The bottom line is that the Church does NOT teach the earth is young and does NOT teach us to take the creation stories of Genesis literally.
Do you accept this is the case. Yes or no??

 

[abcdefg]

MaggieOH:

Theistic evolution is not the same as Darwinism or “Origin of the Species”.

Genesis is not meant to be taken in so literal a way that the world was created in 6 literal 24 hour periods. I favour the explanation that the day moving into evening and then it was morning actually represents an unknown period of time during which the universe slowly continued to evolve until man was placed on the earth.

no where in the bible or tradition say it’s 24h. and I’m OK with 1ms, 1h, 24h, 1000h. but it’s 6 days which is the church’s Tradition.

btw someone told me “science found a day is the past in shorter than a day now”

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

You seem hung up on “tradition” with a small “t”.
Church teaching is based on Divine Revelation which came to us by Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

I’ve read through all the posts in this thread and you seem to simply rant and rave at posters declaring that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Sounds like paranoia to me.

Change all occurence of “tradition” in my posts to “Apostolic Tradition” then. that’s my real purpose.

thistle:

The bottom line is that the Church does NOT teach the earth is young and does NOT teach us to take the creation stories of Genesis literally.
Do you accept this is the case. Yes or no??

Sentence too long to read. you can judge it yourself. my opinion is “recent popes don’t teach anything decisive on evolution, however Apostolic Tradition did teach evolution is false and Creationism is true”

 

[zian]

Hey Vern.

You’re my hero. Honest.

I don’t know where you find the patience. Do you feel like your trying to drink water using only chopsticks yet??