Ignorance and evolution

[abu_kamoon]

Why is it that Evolutionists continue to believe in their phantasy even though it is continually disproven? They continue to come up with revisions like “punctuated equelibrium”, and other scientific sounding nonesense.

If Evolutionists want to believe these things, let them. I am offended when they try to get the rest of us to accept it, and claim to have science on their side. Science is the quest for truth, and truth does not change. Phrenology was called science over a hundred years ago, but it wasn’t. It was just a crackpot theory, and so is evolution. I don’t mean to offend those who believe in it, but they continue to try to ram it down our throats.

Evolution is very important to our current “Post Modern” culture. It is really a repudiation of revealed religion. Politically correct theologians try to syncretize their beliefs, and criticize any who reject them. Well, just like phrenology, Evolution will eventually be rejected, maybe to be replaced by some other off-the-wall explanation for life, like we were put here by space aliens. The Modernist theologians will tell us that this does not contradict the Bible. They will tell us that the Bible is not a book of science, and that God used aliens to accomplish His purpose.

Stop trying to reconfigure evolution. No matter how you envision it, belief in evolution can never be resolved with true science (which is based on observation), nor the Bible.

 

[Wolseley]

I’m not trying to be flippant, but how long has this whirlwind been winding up?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_01/galaxy11_468x468.jpg

M101, also known as NGC 5457. Very nice shot, done with a much bigger telescope than mine, I’m afraid. I have looked at it enough, however, to recognize it. Located in Ursa Major, about 27 million light-years away.

I also don’t mean to be flippant; however, we’re comparing apples and oranges here. A terrestrial whirlwind, even a big one, is infinitesimal compared to a galaxy that is 170,000 light-years across, twice the size of our own Milky Way galaxy.

However, just for the sake of argument, let’s say that it’s been spinning for 11 billion years or so. How many airplanes (or starships) has it built in that time? Seen any zipping past?

Aside from the Bible quote you provided from Hosea 8:7a, how so? I don’t think it’s fair that all people who believe God used evolution to bring about humanity should be placed in that category to be honest. I think it’s a bit of both.

As I have stated before, many times, I personally don’t believe in evolution, but it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other if God used evolution to create the universe, or direct creation, or if He followed the directions on the box, added two cups of water, and baked in a 350-degree oven for two hours. However, it is the attitude of some on these threads who regard me to be a drooling imbecelic idiot because I don’t believe in evolution that bothers me.

Whatever.

 

[ricmat]

However, it is the attitude of some on these threads who regard me to be a drooling imbecelic idiot because I don’t believe in evolution that bothers me.

So welcome to the drooling imbecilic idiot club! And I’m “in” because I only believe about 99% of what they want us to believe. But not to worry. Just a coincidence that I posted this on another thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3416870&postcount=855

 

[jmcrae]

The problem is that evolution, cosmology, geology, languages sciences, history and modern scholarship all call for a very old earth, and a older universe. And a at least 100,000 mankind.

Archaeology sets the first intentional use of fire at 10,000 years ago (8,000 BC). Interestingly, it only occurred to them to use fire for cooking after they had begun to make pottery and metal objects in it.

Those who do not accept the evidence are under a stubborn blidfolds or ignorant. Period.

Or not restricting themselves to the science of biology, but looking at other sciences, as well, to see what they have to say.

The Universe may well be billions of years old, and that’s fine. But human beings (tool makers, fire users) didn’t exist until 10,000 years ago. And they appear very suddenly in the archaeological record - first there is nothing, and then there is relatively complex technology being used in villages - we don’t see a gradual transition from no tools to complex use of tools, which is what we would expect to see if human beings were evolving.

Instead, what we see is randomness - sticks and rocks being used intentionally but without being altered, followed suddenly by the making of a wide variety of stone and wooden tools, the use of animal hides for clothing, rugs, and blankets, the use of bones for making needles, and sinew for stitching, and the making of art objects, and at the same time, the use of fire not only for cooking, but also to make pottery (both useful and ornamental), fireworks, and metal (again, both useful and ornamental), all within one or two generations. And it was only after they had learned how to make pots that don’t leak that they started cooking with fire, but this didn’t take more than a week or so for them to figure out - as soon as they had pots, they started cooking.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Archaeology sets the first intentional use of fire at 10,000 years ago (8,000 BC). Interestingly, it only occurred to them to use fire for cooking after they had begun to make pottery and metal objects in it.

More like 200,000 years ago.
tinyurl.com/3b24jg

The Universe may well be billions of years old, and that’s fine. But human beings (tool makers, fire users) didn’t exist until 10,000 years ago.

You’ve been badly misled on that. We have remains of much more ancient use of fires.

A discovery by François Rouzaud of the French archaeological service suggests Neandertals were more sophisticated in their use of fire than previously believed. A burnt bear bone found deep in a cave at Bruniquel in southern France has been dated to at least 47,600 years ago, before modern humans reached western Europe. It proves Neandertals were able to use fire for illumination. Earlier evidence showed only that they used fire in simple hearths. The bone came from a 13- by 16-foot structure made of stalactite and stalagmite fragments. Built by Neandertals, its purpose is unknown.
archaeology.org/9609/newsbriefs/neandertals.html

There are others, much older. Would you like to see the evidence for them?

And they appear very suddenly in the archaeological record - first there is nothing,

Horsefeathers. We see a very long progression of tools from very crude choppers and cutters, to more sophisticated toolkits, over tens of thousands of years.

Instead, what we see is randomness - sticks and rocks being used intentionally but without being altered,

That’s wrong, too. Even the earliest tools show signs of being worked, albeit rather crudely. Would you like to learn more about it?

 

[The_Barbarian]

As I have stated before, many times, I personally don’t believe in evolution, but it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other…

It seems, based on the emotional way you write about it, that it matters very much to you.

BTW, Hoyle’s “tornado in a junkyard” story is wrong on a number of levels:

1. Hoyle thinks that science says a complex organism just popped into existence all at once by random processes. But the evidence so far shows just the opposite. It appears that relatively simple chemical systems preceded life, and that life was not very complex at the beginning.
2. Hoyle was demanding that nature produce a designed artifact to prove that it can produce a natural object. Nature never produces anything like that.
3. And, of course, this has nothing whatever to do with evolutionary theory, which makes no claims about the origin of life.

However, it is the attitude of some on these threads who regard me to be a drooling imbecelic idiot because I don’t believe in evolution that bothers me.

You just don’t know much about it. And you seem to have some kind of emotional resistance to it. The Church has no objection to the scientific theory of evolution, but there’s something else that bothers you about it.

 

[Camron]

M101, also known as NGC 5457. Very nice shot, done with a much bigger telescope than mine, I’m afraid. I have looked at it enough, however, to recognize it. Located in Ursa Major, about 27 million light-years away.

I too am impressed by God’s Creation.

I also don’t mean to be flippant; however, we’re comparing apples and oranges here. A terrestrial whirlwind, even a big one, is infinitesimal compared to a galaxy that is 170,000 light-years across, twice the size of our own Milky Way galaxy.

I think the analogy is a good one. These galaxies appear to be behaving much like massive particle accelerators, transmuting elements via the supernovae all throughout them, distributing elements throughout the universe. It’s actually quite a beautiful process that the death of the stars would bring such a rich potential for life to the universe. The death of the stars leading toward new life for the universe reminds me of the Christ’s death and resurrection bringing new life to us.

Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe as you hold out the word of life—in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing.

Philippians 2:14-16​

However, just for the sake of argument, let’s say that it’s been spinning for 11 billion years or so. How many airplanes (or starships) has it built in that time? Seen any zipping past?

But I’m not suggesting that evolution can happen without God. That would be atheistic evolution, something which I do not hold to.

To be fair, we really don’t know if life exists out there. I’m personally highly skeptical myself but remain open to the possibility that God may have indeed allowed or caused similar conditions on other planets for life to emerge. Again, I think that life (as we know it) only exists here on Earth. But I don’t think it’s impossible for life to be found elsewhere either.

As I have stated before, many times, I personally don’t believe in evolution, but it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other if God used evolution to create the universe, or direct creation, or if He followed the directions on the box, added two cups of water, and baked in a 350-degree oven for two hours. However, it is the attitude of some on these threads who regard me to be a drooling imbecelic idiot because I don’t believe in evolution that bothers me.

Whatever.

Hmmm…you do seem to be very frustrated.

I’m not here to poke fun of your beliefs. And I’ve never regarded you as a drooling imbecelic idiot because you don’t believe in evolution either.

What is troubling you? Could you give an example?

 

[Camron]

So welcome to the drooling imbecilic idiot club! And I’m “in” because I only believe about 99% of what they want us to believe. But not to worry. Just a coincidence that I posted this on another thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3416870&postcount=855

What is the 1% that you don’t agree with?

 

[jmcrae]

It seems, based on the emotional way you write about it, that it matters very much to you.

BTW, Hoyle’s “tornado in a junkyard” story is wrong on a number of levels:

1. Hoyle thinks that science says a complex organism just popped into existence all at once by random processes. But the evidence so far shows just the opposite. It appears that relatively simple chemical systems preceded life, and that life was not very complex at the beginning.

No matter how slowly it happened, we are still left with the problem that information is being added that didn’t exist before.

Where is this added information coming from, if it’s not being created ex nihilo by God?

1. And, of course, this has nothing whatever to do with evolutionary theory, which makes no claims about the origin of life.

What is the subject of the evolutionary theory, then, if it is not about the origins of life?

 

[ricmat]

What is the 1% that you don’t agree with?

See this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3417133&postcount=863

But as I said, I went through this whole subject a few months back and I’m not going to do it all again.

 

[edwest2]

The “scientific” theory of evolution is problematical for the Church. First, God must be involved. This is not in the textbooks.

In Human Persons Created in the Image of God, the Church tells us that random mutation and natural selection are not enough, divine providence is required.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Wolseley]

Hmmm…you do seem to be very frustrated.

I’m not here to poke fun of your beliefs. And I’ve never regarded you as a drooling imbecelic idiot because you don’t believe in evolution either.

What is troubling you? Could you give an example?

Much of it derives from the propensity of The Mighty And August Enlightened Scientific Minds Of All Superior Wisdom to take any sources provided here (and not just by me—by others as well), and instead of reading it first hand to see what’s in it, they instead read what somebody else who thinks just like they do has said about it, and then they come back and ridicule the source, the provider of the source, and what they think the source contains.

After you’ve been shat on enough times, you just shrug and walk away. If they don’t want to listen, they won’t. It’s more edifying to break off further contact with evolutionists who claim to be Christians, but whose arrogance, condescention, selective quoting of Vatican texts, and utmost glee in running others down belies the title of the Savior they claim to serve. There are those here who do serve a god, but the god is not Christ: the god is Love of Argument. They will argue simply for the sheer joy of arguing, and to denegrate anybody else who does not agree with them.

That’s why most of them are on my “Ignore” list, and I don’t engage them any more. I may comment from time to time, but by and large, I don’t waste time with these people any more…I don’t have to roll in pig manure to recognize it when I see it. Besides which, the Apostle Paul (1 Timothy 1:3-5, Titus 3:9) enjoins us to avoid foolish and endless arguments, and that’s exactly what I intend to do.

God bless all here.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The “scientific” theory of evolution is problematical for the Church.

Odd then, that the Pope says it’s “virtually certain.”

First, God must be involved.

No. As the Pope says, anyone who tries to make science rule on the validity of God, has gone beyond the proper functions of science.

In Human Persons Created in the Image of God, the Church tells us that random mutation and natural selection are not enough, divine providence is required.

It also says that even if God’s will was carried out by contingency (such as random mutation) that would be consistent with our faith in Him.

 

[hecd2]

No matter how slowly it happened, we are still left with the problem that information is being added that didn’t exist before.

Where is this added information coming from, if it’s not being created ex nihilo by God?

Generally, but not exclusively, duplication (of genes, groups of genes, chromosomes or whole genomes), followed by mutational divergence and selection.

Examples:
Hox genes
Olfactory genes
Genes contributing to host immunity
Photoreceptor genes etc

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[ricmat]

Quote:
The “scientific” theory of evolution is problematical for the Church.

Odd then, that the Pope says it’s “virtually certain.”

Quote:
First, God must be involved.

No. As the Pope says, anyone who tries to make science rule on the validity of God, has gone beyond the proper functions of science.

Quote:
In Human Persons Created in the Image of God, the Church tells us that random mutation and natural selection are not enough, divine providence is required.

It also says that even if God’s will was carried out by contingency (such as random mutation) that would be consistent with our faith in Him.

Barbarian, who were you responding to in this post?

It’s difficult to read as is, but it looks like you are saying:

1. The pope said that the theory of evolution (and not just common descent) is virtually certain. *
2. That Catholics are allowed to believe in an evolutionary model that does not include God in any way. That was your “no”. [And then you go off onto another subject.]
3. That God’s actions can include randomness.

This is certainly the way it came across.

Please include entire posts in your responses, otherwise we won’t be able to figure out what you are trying to say (or to whom you are saying it). This would be the courteous thing to do. Thank you again for your cooperation.*

 

[The_Barbarian]

1. The pope said that the theory of evolution (and not just common descent) is virtually certain.

Common descent is the most encompassing statement of evolutionary theory. It subsumes natural selection, speciation, etc. In general, it is the last thing creationists will accept about evolution, precisely because accepting that means accepting all the rest of it.

**

It was merely an observation by the pope; since it’s a scientific observation, I would not want it in the Catechism.

2. That Catholics are allowed to believe in an evolutionary model that does not include God in any way.

“Model” is usually the way the creationists do it. But yes, Catholics are permitted to accept scientific theories that do not include God. Indeed, as the pope pointed out, scientific theories should not be about God.

That God’s actions can include randomness.

The pope, citing St. Thomas Aquinas, said so.

This is certainly the way it came across.

Who am I to argue with St. Tom?

Sorry about the posts. I’ve been on the net since talk.origins was just a usenet address. So I’ve gotten the habit of using a leaner parsing than most people are used to.

Hard habit to break.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
BTW, Hoyle’s “tornado in a junkyard” story is wrong on a number of levels:

1. Hoyle thinks that science says a complex organism just popped into existence all at once by random processes. But the evidence so far shows just the opposite. It appears that relatively simple chemical systems preceded life, and that life was not very complex at the beginning.

No matter how slowly it happened, we are still left with the problem that information is being added that didn’t exist before.

That happens constantly in nature. Every mutation, for example, adds information to the population. Would you like to see the numbers?

Where is this added information coming from, if it’s not being created ex nihilo by God?

It’s a property of nature to produce new information. If you would like, you could think of nature as being the way God does it.

What is the subject of the evolutionary theory, then, if it is not about the origins of life?

Chance in allele frequencies in populations over time. Evolutionary theory assumes living things exist, and describes the way populations of them change. Pretty safe assumption.

Seriously, there is nothing at all in evolutionary theory that makes any claims at all about the origin of life. If you want the Great Chupacabra to magically poof the first living things, that’s OK with evolutionary theory. So is the ex nihilo creation of the universe, and from that, the earth, which then brought forth living things. The latter is true, of course, but evolutionary theory is indifferent to the way life began.

 

[jmcrae]

That happens constantly in nature. Every mutation, for example, adds information to the population. Would you like to see the numbers?

Mutations don’t actually add information - they damage already-existing information. Mutants also do not typically reproduce, either because they are physically incapable of doing so, or because they have nobody that is willing to mate with them.

Chance in allele frequencies in populations over time.

This sentence contains no verb; what does it mean?

Evolutionary theory assumes living things exist, and describes the way populations of them change. Pretty safe assumption.

What is safe to assume is adaptation of species, which is an entirely different concept than evolution. Nothing has ever given birth to something not of its own species, that then went on to reproduce itself in high numbers, which is what is required by evolution.

Adaptation is not evolution.

 

[Camron]

A discovery by François Rouzaud of the French archaeological service suggests Neandertals were more sophisticated in their use of fire than previously believed. A burnt bear bone found deep in a cave at Bruniquel in southern France has been dated to at least 47,600 years ago, before modern humans reached western Europe. It proves Neandertals were able to use fire for illumination. Earlier evidence showed only that they used fire in simple hearths. The bone came from a 13- by 16-foot structure made of stalactite and stalagmite fragments. Built by Neandertals, its purpose is unknown.

archaeology.org/9609/newsbriefs/neandertals.html

Now that’s fascinating.

So it does appear that Neanderthal, much like humanity, was certainly capable of rather human traits: they appear to be capable of burying their dead (perhaps even in expectation of an after life), they most likely had the ability to comfort others who suffered, and they appear to have had rudimentary tool development (including the usage of fire).

Did Neanderthal man have an eternal soul capable making it to the afterlife?

 

[ricmat]

Common descent is the most encompassing statement of evolutionary theory. It subsumes natural selection, speciation, etc. In general, it is the last thing creationists will accept about evolution, precisely because accepting that means accepting all the rest of it.

This has nothing to do with “creationist” accepting something or not.

You said that the pope said that evolution was virtually certain, trying to get us to believe that this is a church teaching. In fact, the pope mentioned common descent, which is not the same as “evolution”, but only a part of it, and not the whole thing.

It was merely an observation by the pope; since it’s a scientific observation, I would not want it in the Catechism.

Yes, it was merely an observation by the pope, sort of like “It is virtually certain that the New England Patriots will win the Super Bowl.” Or “It is virtually certain that it will rain during my vacation next week.” Not in the Catechism. Not magesterial teaching.

“Model” is usually the way the creationists do it. But yes, Catholics are permitted to accept scientific theories that do not include God. Indeed, as the pope pointed out, scientific theories should not be about God.

Again, creationists have nothing to do with this, it is merely something you hurl about as a distraction.

Let’s refer back to this post, especially item 2 below:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3411123&postcount=806

In which I quoted from page 60 of the US Catholic Catechism for Adults, and said:

So I want to be clear about this. Your posts are sometimes difficult to navigate, and it’s not clear sometimes what you are referring to when you say you agree with something. I just want to have it all on the same page so there is absolute clarity in the matter.

I interpret your above statement as saying that you accept all of the following:

“Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.”

Which quite clearly states:

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

and this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3412744&postcount=815

Where you said in response to my quote above:

I will again state that I found nothing in your quote from the Catechism to which I could not completely agree.

There seems to be a big discrepancy between what you agreed to before, and what you’re saying now. Particularly item 2.