In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

[RobbyS]

Okay. If you recall from a few posts ago, the point I was trying to make by saying free will semi-quantitative is that I don’t see why it must be so that God created the human soul instantly, and that it did not evolve. If (since) animals have free will, there is nothing supernatural about it; our ancestors had an intermediate amount of free will. The ability to think rationally and act accordingly increased over time and there is no reason I can see to think souls/free will could only come about by God immediately creating it.

So given your admittance that free will is relative, what is your reasoning for taking the Catholic Church’s teaching that souls/free will could not have come about naturally/gradually, that they are created instantly by God?

More than 100 years ago, Jack London, an atheist, wrote a short story called “Before Adam,” The protagonist was a “pre-human being,” Thought, reason, will came to him “in a flash.” He was immediately set apart from others like himself. Now the “soul” of this being did not gradually come into existence, rather immediately. Evolution, then, came be thought of as being like the development of a child in the womb. But the material conditions much be right for the “fire” to be lite. So London’s character looks at his reflection in the pond and “sees” HIMSELF, where his cousins see only a meaningless image.

 

[RACJ]

Could it just be science we do not yet understand? 1000 years ago so many of our every day conviniences would have been thought magic. Now however, we understand. I’m not saying you can prove or disprove god, just that there may well be scientific data on magic, spirits, divine intetvention, ect.

No. All the brilliant minds combined working on the problems incumbent within the theories of origins and evolution have failed to take the parts (that we now have the benefit of chronicling and examining them) of a living cell and recreate any facet of one. Life is truly a miracle, and will remain so. To believe otherwise is the height of arrogance and folly. Rob

 

[RobbyS]

No. All the brilliant minds combined working on the problems incumbent within the theories of origins and evolution have failed to take the parts (that we now have the benefit of chronicling and examining them) of a living cell and recreate any facet of one. Life is truly a miracle, and will remain so. To believe otherwise is the height of arrogance and folly. Rob

Ironically, science is magic to most people. How many of us know HOW a cell phone/computer work? More ironical,many scientist have a “magical view” of their own work, since they lack more than a cursory understanding of the presuppositions of their field.

 

[vz71]

Okay. If you recall from a few posts ago, the point I was trying to make by saying free will semi-quantitative is that I don’t see why it must be so that God created the human soul instantly, and that it did not evolve. If (since) animals have free will, there is nothing supernatural about it; our ancestors had an intermediate amount of free will. The ability to think rationally and act accordingly increased over time and there is no reason I can see to think souls/free will could only come about by God immediately creating it.

So given your admittance that free will is relative, what is your reasoning for taking the Catholic Church’s teaching that souls/free will could not have come about naturally/gradually, that they are created instantly by God?

A soul is not made of anything.
It is a whole being unto itself, cannot be divided and needs nothing other then God and is immortal.

As such, there are no qualities that would provide for anything within your (I remain unconvinced) theory of how things evolve.

 

[RACJ]

A soul is not made of anything.
It is a whole being unto itself, cannot be divided and needs nothing other then God and is immortal.

As such, there are no qualities that would provide for anything within your (I remain unconvinced) theory of how things evolve.

There is a wonderful chapter in Lee Strobel's book "The Case for a Creator" about consciousness in which it is clearly illustrated how our brains *facilitate* our minds, but are distinct from our minds. Fascinating reading, and I recommend it to everyone. :D Rob

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Al Moritz,

Please explain what you mean by ‘absolute’ - and just how would you characterize the type of free will that we as humans, created in the Image and Likeness of God, have? I am really having a problem making a practical application with the definition you provided below:

Aah, yes, I do not subscribe to absolute free will for humans, and as far as I know nobody else does. Free will in humans, relative free will, makes choices within given inclinations that are outside of our control. Deep inside, I can’t change the way I am, and you can’t change the way you are, but we both still can make meaningful decisions to propel our life forward in a positive way (and of course, I also hold that for exercising rationality we need free will).

There are some things I can not change about myself: my genetic make-up, where I was born, who my parents were, etc. But, I can change many other aspects - I can learn more, I can be more cooperative, I can eat less ‘fast-food’ and take more exercise, etc. ‘Absolute’ anything (except maybe ‘Absolute Zero’ at about -460F) is a bit difficult for me to understand. But, the inability to change the past is only an example of trying to do the impossible.

God bless

 

[Al_Moritz]

There are some things I can not change about myself: my genetic make-up, where I was born, who my parents were, etc. But, I can change many other aspects - I can learn more, I can be more cooperative, I can eat less ‘fast-food’ and take more exercise, etc.

Precisely.

‘Absolute’ anything (except maybe ‘Absolute Zero’ at about -460F) is a bit difficult for me to understand. But, the inability to change the past is only an example of trying to do the impossible.

Well, wouldn’t you think that God has absolute free wiill?

 

[grannymh]

Could it just be science we do not yet understand? 1000 years ago so many of our every day conviniences would have been thought magic. Now however, we understand. I’m not saying you can prove or disprove god, just that there may well be scientific data on magic, spirits, divine intetvention, ect.

It is the scientific method(s) itself which presents difficulties for non-scientists. Magic is neither part of natural science nor Catholic doctrine.

Regarding the OP of human origins.
Scientific conclusions follow individually presented evidence based on both materials and methods. Both materials and methods have their limitations especially when one is looking for hard data going millions of years backwards. Research papers on pre-human history will use various theories, assumptions, and estimates. At times, these can be footnoted as to the original researcher who developed them.

Normally, the particular conclusion on something specific within the human genome is reasonable given the evidence. However, the particular genetic conclusion cannot be extrapolated to an universal exclusion. In ordinary English, the possibility,( not necessarily probability), will always exist because the available evidence does not warrant Adam and Eve’s dismissal.

 

[grannymh]

Precisely.

Well, wouldn’t you think that God has absolute free wiill?

Not in the same way humans have free will. God acts freely because He is Pure Spirit without the limitations of a decomposing anatomy.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Al Moritz,

God is ABSOLUTE. There really is nothing to be added.

But, we are not talking about God - we are talking about human beings - and that is the topic we need to stay with. Humans can chose from an entire range of options - God CAN NOT DO THAT because He is Absolute Perfection and has Absolute Knowledge - qualities we do not have.

Non-human life forms may chose to eat or not eat - “You can lead a horse to water…” The issue is that while you may say the non-human life form has free will because ‘…the horse chose not to drink the water…’ We do not have any evidence of animals chosing to do evil. One animal will kill another to eat - but, are we going to call this murder? One animal may pretend to have a broken wing to deceive a snake from attacking its nest - but, are we going to call this lying? One male animal may mate with several females - but, are we gong to call this fornication or adultery?

To have a free will means that we have an intellect that goes beyond instinct. No animal has ever left evidence or demonstrated a belief in a Supreme Being. Animals simply can not abstract (plotting the probably course of a fleeing antelope is not abstracting for the lion).

We are made in the Image and Likeness of God - and God has given us a share in His Love. I think this is where the action is.

God bless

Well, wouldn’t you think that God has absolute free wiill?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Grannymh,

Did we lose Al Moritz?

God bless

Not in the same way humans have free will. God acts freely because He is Pure Spirit without the limitations of a decomposing anatomy.

 

[Hunter24]

Hi, Al Moritz,

God is ABSOLUTE. There really is nothing to be added.

But, we are not talking about God - we are talking about human beings - and that is the topic we need to stay with. Humans can chose from an entire range of options - God CAN NOT DO THAT because He is Absolute Perfection and has Absolute Knowledge - qualities we do not have.

Non-human life forms may chose to eat or not eat - “You can lead a horse to water…” The issue is that while you may say the non-human life form has free will because ‘…the horse chose not to drink the water…’ We do not have any evidence of animals chosing to do evil. One animal will kill another to eat - but, are we going to call this murder? One animal may pretend to have a broken wing to deceive a snake from attacking its nest - but, are we going to call this lying? One male animal may mate with several females - but, are we gong to call this fornication or adultery?

To have a free will means that we have an intellect that goes beyond instinct. No animal has ever left evidence or demonstrated a belief in a Supreme Being. Animals simply can not abstract (plotting the probably course of a fleeing antelope is not abstracting for the lion).

We are made in the Image and Likeness of God - and God has given us a share in His Love. I think this is where the action is.

God bless

I’m just going to throw this idea out there. Maybe it’s because we have the most developed brains. Think about it, we evolved a superior intelligence to other animals because we arnt very fast and don’t have claws. A wolf must be smarter than an Elk to kill it, but that wolf can still run at 30 mph for a half hour and has fangs and powerful jaws. A human on the other hand has no such fangs or claws and can’t run very fast for very long, in a stand up fight an elk could actualy kill a unarmed human reletively easy. So while the wolf has to be smarter, the human has to be VASTLY smarter. So much smarter he can create traps and make weapons. So naturally a our ancestors developed a superior brain with the ability to think abstractly (like to come up with the idea to make a bow and arrow, something unlike anything in nature). Isn’t it possible we have developed these concepts because we’re just that naturally smart?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hunter24,

Isn’t this theory called, “Survival of the fittest”?

No doubt about it, most of the animals out there can either out run and out kill any of us who are just standing out in a field without a weapon and acting like some critter’s lunch!

So, you can look at brain size - and, yes, humans do have larger brains than most other animals - but, in my opinion, if it were just size alone, whales would be running the planet… But, look at the wolf as hunting by instinct. The elk does not want ot be lunch, so it quickly goes into flight mode rather then fight because by instinct, wolves hunt in pacts and elks need to run quickly to avoid or evade them. All of this is on the instinct level. No records of wolves actually planning a elk hunt, how to surround the animal before the attack and where to bite so as to quickly bring down the elk and start on lunch.

Humans developed a written way to communicate - and this was passed down from one generation to another. We did not start of with philosophical or socio-economic tomes - but, what to hunt, what to avoid, how to form up as a band of hunters, where to air, etc. We still look for manuals on 'How To ________"! While humans do have instinct - our survival in this world has depended on thinking and reasoning skills so that tools and how to use them can be communicated to the next generation.

If you idea is that we just evolved the way we are today, you are failing to recognize that humanity is just one part of God’s creation - and all of us need to be on this planet so well designed so as to provided the environment suitalbe for life. Mercury, Mars and Venus can not do this - and they are our ‘next door neighbors in the cosmos’. It is so very involved - and it all depends just how far out you want to take this - but, random events as the sole cause of us being here, simply makes no sense!

Given there may seem to be an element of randomness at work - there is bound to be a 4-leaf clover in a field of 3-leaf clovers. But, the thing about randomness - how many variables are you looking for - and how do they ineract with one another? Once we can answer this - if not before - randomness (the force most atheistic evolutionists say caused us to come into being) come into play once again! The deck is constantly be re-shuffeld and the new hand has nothing to do with the old hand. Scientists depend on the predictability of external reality (sun rising and setting at set times, the seasons, what kind of crops grow best in a particular soil, etc.). If every minute randomness took over and change everything - we would not be alive today. There must be a certain set of variables that do not change - or else we would have been wiped out long ago.

I think that is one of the biggest arguments against simple randomness being responsible for all of creation. Once we get the planet we want, we can’t turn the randomness off. A much more logical explanation is that God brought everything into existence - and keeps everything in existence.

God bless

I’m just going to throw this idea out there. Maybe it’s because we have the most developed brains. Think about it, we evolved a superior intelligence to other animals because we arnt very fast and don’t have claws. A wolf must be smarter than an Elk to kill it, but that wolf can still run at 30 mph for a half hour and has fangs and powerful jaws. A human on the other hand has no such fangs or claws and can’t run very fast for very long, in a stand up fight an elk could actualy kill a unarmed human reletively easy. So while the wolf has to be smarter, the human has to be VASTLY smarter. So much smarter he can create traps and make weapons. So naturally a our ancestors developed a superior brain with the ability to think abstractly (like to come up with the idea to make a bow and arrow, something unlike anything in nature). Isn’t it possible we have developed these concepts because we’re just that naturally smart?

 

[Hunter24]

Hi, Hunter24,

Isn’t this theory called, “Survival of the fittest”?

No doubt about it, most of the animals out there can either out run and out kill any of us who are just standing out in a field without a weapon and acting like some critter’s lunch!

So, you can look at brain size - and, yes, humans do have larger brains than most other animals - but, in my opinion, if it were just size alone, whales would be running the planet… But, look at the wolf as hunting by instinct. The elk does not want ot be lunch, so it quickly goes into flight mode rather then fight because by instinct, wolves hunt in pacts and elks need to run quickly to avoid or evade them. All of this is on the instinct level. No records of wolves actually planning a elk hunt, how to surround the animal before the attack and where to bite so as to quickly bring down the elk and start on lunch.

Humans developed a written way to communicate - and this was passed down from one generation to another. We did not start of with philosophical or socio-economic tomes - but, what to hunt, what to avoid, how to form up as a band of hunters, where to air, etc. We still look for manuals on 'How To ________"! While humans do have instinct - our survival in this world has depended on thinking and reasoning skills so that tools and how to use them can be communicated to the next generation.

If you idea is that we just evolved the way we are today, you are failing to recognize that humanity is just one part of God’s creation - and all of us need to be on this planet so well designed so as to provided the environment suitalbe for life. Mercury, Mars and Venus can not do this - and they are our ‘next door neighbors in the cosmos’. It is so very involved - and it all depends just how far out you want to take this - but, random events as the sole cause of us being here, simply makes no sense!

Given there may seem to be an element of randomness at work - there is bound to be a 4-leaf clover in a field of 3-leaf clovers. But, the thing about randomness - how many variables are you looking for - and how do they ineract with one another? Once we can answer this - if not before - randomness (the force most atheistic evolutionists say caused us to come into being) come into play once again! The deck is constantly be re-shuffeld and the new hand has nothing to do with the old hand. Scientists depend on the predictability of external reality (sun rising and setting at set times, the seasons, what kind of crops grow best in a particular soil, etc.). If every minute randomness took over and change everything - we would not be alive today. There must be a certain set of variables that do not change - or else we would have been wiped out long ago.

I think that is one of the biggest arguments against simple randomness being responsible for all of creation. Once we get the planet we want, we can’t turn the randomness off. A much more logical explanation is that God brought everything into existence - and keeps everything in existence.

God bless

Well we’re on a subject here that’s very important to me, because the churches teachings about other life was my biggest disagreement before I left. I’ll keep on the wolves because I’m going to college as an ecology major and they are the animal I intend to focus on. Also, just to be nit picky, it’s not the size of the brain, but the size off brain tissue that is used, we only use 10% and were still smartest

Actualy wolves coordinate their attack through howling, dolphins also do this through high pitched noises. Infact every dolphin pod has a distinct language, and if they had thumbs and something to write with there’s no garentee they wouldn’t make a written language eventually. Now, you stated that humans pass knowledge from generation to generation. This is actualy very common in mammals, just not through words but through watching. The north american gray wolf actualy leads a very similar life style to prehistoric humans. They are semi-nomadic hunters who live in small groups. It has been observed that over the generations wolf packs maintain the same distinct patterns and habits which differentiate them from other packs. Some packs are aggressive, some are very exclusive to one prey animal or another, almost like a primitive nomadic culture.

Also there is a phenominon in the killer whale population that directly contradicts your statement that an animal is totaly reliant on instinct. Only recently killer whale pods have begun grouping up and swimming together to create waves capable of sweeping a seal of a ice flow. This behavior only was discovered recently and only in some pods, meaning it is very likely that it has just now been developed. So, if a whale is bound by its instincts and canot reason, how did the first pod of whales realize they could create a wave to knock an unreachable seal into the water? There’s no evidence of it before now, which means its very likely not instinctive.

As for the statements pertaining to randomness, you have me pegged wrong. I beleave in deistic evolution. Life was created at that first microscopic stage and went from there. I view us as part of nature not above it. We arnt some “chosen race” in my oppinion, we just happen to be much smarter than everything around us, and some people think that makes us special. And while we are on a physical level, we aren’t on a spiritual level (I hate when Christians say only we have souls, I just find that to be terribly arrogant). So, your turn

P.S. It’s widely beleaved that even if mars never had life, in the distant past conditions were atleast suitable for it to exist. There are also several moons in the outer solar system that hold the potential to hold life, most notably Titan and Europa.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hunter24,

Best wishes on your academic work as an ecology major.

Actually, I was a too brief in my comments and just not very clear as to what I meant … so, let me try again…

All animals that group together - herds for elk, packs for wolves, pods for orcas, etc. do coordinate their activities. The brain of each of these animals is more then a large holding area for instinct. Each animal must apply that instinct to unique circumstances. The wolf, for example, hunts in a variety of eco systems - and the pack’s response to prey in a forest is different from that same prey being in an open area. All animals learn - and in the wild, this is experience that is the ultimate teacher. And, while I am sure that the pack’s Alpha male does not gather the pups together to discuss the emperical method of hunting elk - the message is communicated. Good lessons probably result in a meal, not-so-good lessons mean one goes hungry and disasterous lessons results in the death of one of the wolves.

Oh, and for anyone that has had more then one pet (not sure about fish…but, cut me some slack on this one…) you have witnessed that each animal has its own personality. Some dogs are laid back and some are ‘wired for action’ - all within the same breed. There are dairy cows in the heard that can be ‘cowed’ and others that won’t put up with any nonsense from humans who think they are going to milk them! So, yes, I, too, think they have a soul - but not an immortal one.

The ability of animals to learn unique skills in the wild (e.g., knocking a seal off of an ice patch) are really well established observations. And, this means that they have real intelligence. But, notice, spiders can be indentified by the type of web they spin, birds with the type of next they build, animals under attack respond in predictable ways (so if the dog is growling at you, do not extend your hand in expressing friendship… there is a good chance you will be bitten ) I recall experiments involving chimps put in a room with stackable boxes and a bunch of bananas hung from the ceiling. Chimps were able to arrange the boxes so that they could climb up and get the food reward (abstration ability?). In the wild, chimps would place a long stick into an ant nest, draw it out and then eat the ants off of the stick. Reinsert the stick and continue eating the ants (use of tools?) But this is not a comparative biology blog.

I am delighted that you have a deist view of creation. This is soooooooooo much better then the atheistic view! And, just to make sure I understand you correctly - God created all things out of nothing and keeps all of creation in existence by His Will. God made physical laws that enable us to see patterns in creation. But, deists do not believe in a God Who loved us so much that He sent His Son to die that we may have life. Correct?

Man has free will - and this is something that has not been demonstrated in any animal that I know of. Animals do act in predictable ways - but, they are not robots. Man has the ability of chosing good from evil. Animals can not engage in evil - the orca flipping a seal in the air like a ball is just playing with his food - no evidence of sadistic orcas out in the ocean. And, it is the observation of free will that separates men from the rest of creation. Human societies throughout the world and from the most ancient of records has recognized a diety (or dieties) that have more power then man has. No evidence of this in animal behavior. While I could go on, I certainly meant no slight to the remarkable abilities of animals.

God bless

Well we’re on a subject here that’s very important to me, because the churches teachings about other life was my biggest disagreement before I left. I’ll keep on the wolves because I’m going to college as an ecology major and they are the animal I intend to focus on. Also, just to be nit picky, it’s not the size of the brain, but the size off brain tissue that is used, we only use 10% and were still smartest

Actualy wolves coordinate their attack through howling, dolphins also do this through high pitched noises. Infact every dolphin pod has a distinct language, and if they had thumbs and something to write with there’s no garentee they wouldn’t make a written language eventually. Now, you stated that humans pass knowledge from generation to generation. This is actualy very common in mammals, just not through words but through watching. The north american gray wolf actualy leads a very similar life style to prehistoric humans. They are semi-nomadic hunters who live in small groups. It has been observed that over the generations wolf packs maintain the same distinct patterns and habits which differentiate them from other packs. Some packs are aggressive, some are very exclusive to one prey animal or another, almost like a primitive nomadic culture.

Also there is a phenominon in the killer whale population that directly contradicts your statement that an animal is totaly reliant on instinct. Only recently killer whale pods have begun grouping up and swimming together to create waves capable of sweeping a seal of a ice flow. This behavior only was discovered recently and only in some pods, meaning it is very likely that it has just now been developed. So, if a whale is bound by its instincts and canot reason, how did the first pod of whales realize they could create a wave to knock an unreachable seal into the water? There’s no evidence of it before now, which means its very likely not instinctive.

As for the statements pertaining to randomness, you have me pegged wrong. I beleave in deistic evolution. Life was created at that first microscopic stage and went from there. I view us as part of nature not above it. We arnt some “chosen race” in my oppinion, we just happen to be much smarter than everything around us, and some people think that makes us special. And while we are on a physical level, we aren’t on a spiritual level (I hate when Christians say only we have souls, I just find that to be terribly arrogant). So, your turn

P.S. It’s widely beleaved that even if mars never had life, in the distant past conditions were atleast suitable for it to exist. There are also several moons in the outer solar system that hold the potential to hold life, most notably Titan and Europa.

 

[Hunter24]

Hi, Hunter24,

Best wishes on your academic work as an ecology major.

Actually, I was a too brief in my comments and just not very clear as to what I meant … so, let me try again…

All animals that group together - herds for elk, packs for wolves, pods for orcas, etc. do coordinate their activities. The brain of each of these animals is more then a large holding area for instinct. Each animal must apply that instinct to unique circumstances. The wolf, for example, hunts in a variety of eco systems - and the pack’s response to prey in a forest is different from that same prey being in an open area. All animals learn - and in the wild, this is experience that is the ultimate teacher. And, while I am sure that the pack’s Alpha male does not gather the pups together to discuss the emperical method of hunting elk - the message is communicated. Good lessons probably result in a meal, not-so-good lessons mean one goes hungry and disasterous lessons results in the death of one of the wolves.

Oh, and for anyone that has had more then one pet (not sure about fish…but, cut me some slack on this one…) you have witnessed that each animal has its own personality. Some dogs are laid back and some are ‘wired for action’ - all within the same breed. There are dairy cows in the heard that can be ‘cowed’ and others that won’t put up with any nonsense from humans who think they are going to milk them! So, yes, I, too, think they have a soul - but not an immortal one.

The ability of animals to learn unique skills in the wild (e.g., knocking a seal off of an ice patch) are really well established observations. And, this means that they have real intelligence. But, notice, spiders can be indentified by the type of web they spin, birds with the type of next they build, animals under attack respond in predictable ways (so if the dog is growling at you, do not extend your hand in expressing friendship… there is a good chance you will be bitten ) I recall experiments involving chimps put in a room with stackable boxes and a bunch of bananas hung from the ceiling. Chimps were able to arrange the boxes so that they could climb up and get the food reward (abstration ability?). In the wild, chimps would place a long stick into an ant nest, draw it out and then eat the ants off of the stick. Reinsert the stick and continue eating the ants (use of tools?) But this is not a comparative biology blog.

I am delighted that you have a deist view of creation. This is soooooooooo much better then the atheistic view! And, just to make sure I understand you correctly - God created all things out of nothing and keeps all of creation in existence by His Will. God made physical laws that enable us to see patterns in creation. But, deists do not believe in a God Who loved us so much that He sent His Son to die that we may have life. Correct?

Man has free will - and this is something that has not been demonstrated in any animal that I know of. Animals do act in predictable ways - but, they are not robots. Man has the ability of chosing good from evil. Animals can not engage in evil - the orca flipping a seal in the air like a ball is just playing with his food - no evidence of sadistic orcas out in the ocean. And, it is the observation of free will that separates men from the rest of creation. Human societies throughout the world and from the most ancient of records has recognized a diety (or dieties) that have more power then man has. No evidence of this in animal behavior. While I could go on, I certainly meant no slight to the remarkable abilities of animals.

God bless

Very good examples. My religion has an ultimate diety which is impersonal, and composed of all spirits and energy, and is decided into two semi personal halfs. These two halfs are further devised into gods, spirits, and things like us (spirits attached to a body). It’s very similar in its structure to the Hindu god Brahman. Although I don’t deny the possibility of life being made with out divine intervention I don’t think it’s likely, and dosn’t explain how souls became attached to a physical body. However because my god is impersonal I don’t think it neccisarily guided evolution or protects life here on earth (my minor is actualy going to be Astrobiology, so it’s remarkable how lucky we are when it comes to planet location.) there’s been plenty of mass extinctions in earths history, we are just lucky we havn’t had one recently.

Your examples though are very good, although some cats do play with mice.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hunter24,

OK… so, in terms of your religion, are you partially in the camp of Creationists.

Now, good examples just abound when it comes to animals doing unique things that amaze us human observers…

And, when it comes to ‘luck’ - well, we humans just could not have made it on any other planet in our solar system. Actually, in looking around (outside the ‘local neighborhood’) it does look finding a habitable planet (like another Earth) is better then 1:1,000,000,000+ And while there are those who sincerely believe that the strict laws of probability based on an infinite random set of events could produce everything we see (and, of course those realities we can not see…) there is no probablility that everything will be kept in such an order by this same generation of random events.

Actually, to believe in such a ‘god’ of randomness requires far more faith then I have in our God Who created all out of nothing, and sustains all by His Will.

God bless

Very good examples. My religion has an ultimate diety which is impersonal, and composed of all spirits and energy, and is decided into two semi personal halfs. These two halfs are further devised into gods, spirits, and things like us (spirits attached to a body). It’s very similar in its structure to the Hindu god Brahman. Although I don’t deny the possibility of life being made with out divine intervention I don’t think it’s likely, and dosn’t explain how souls became attached to a physical body. However because my god is impersonal I don’t think it neccisarily guided evolution or protects life here on earth (my minor is actualy going to be Astrobiology, so it’s remarkable how lucky we are when it comes to planet location.) there’s been plenty of mass extinctions in earths history, we are just lucky we havn’t had one recently.

Your examples though are very good, although some cats do play with mice.

 

[Hunter24]

Hi, Hunter24,

OK… so, in terms of your religion, are you partially in the camp of Creationists.

Now, good examples just abound when it comes to animals doing unique things that amaze us human observers…

And, when it comes to ‘luck’ - well, we humans just could not have made it on any other planet in our solar system. Actually, in looking around (outside the ‘local neighborhood’) it does look finding a habitable planet (like another Earth) is better then 1:1,000,000,000+ And while there are those who sincerely believe that the strict laws of probability based on an infinite random set of events could produce everything we see (and, of course those realities we can not see…) there is no probablility that everything will be kept in such an order by this same generation of random events.

Actually, to believe in such a ‘god’ of randomness requires far more faith then I have in our God Who created all out of nothing, and sustains all by His Will.

God bless

I would certainly not call myself a creationist, I beleave fully in the big bang, evolution, ect. I simply beleave it’s more likely than not that life was created. I don’t think it happened out of thin air, simply that something guided the creation of the first microscopic life. I don’t however, rule out the possibility or a random occurrence. We don’t have a creation myth to try and prove so honestly, we’re here, this is how things are. I personally LOVE history, geneology, and pretty much everything related to the past, but this is an issue we will probably never know with absolute certainty, so why not just leave a little mystery on it and move on to the here and now.

And actualy the likelihood is much higher than that. Astronomers have discovers that planets are actualy fairly common and while only a small percentage are of the proper size and solar orbit to support life AS WE KNOW IT the universe is so incredibly vast there must be millions of earth like planets, possibly that many just in the milky way.

 

[gcharles]

Get ready for the shocking information.

Here is a statement from Hugh Owen at the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. This is an organization of Catholics. This how Hugh Owen describes his mission. "In the final analysis, the primary purpose of our apostolate (an association of individuals for the dissemination of a doctrine) is the salvation and sanctification of souls, and the protection of souls from evolutionary errors that weaken and often extinguish the Faith. On my recent trip to Estonia on the western border of Russia, one of my hosts told me of a young Catholic boy at a local school who had just announced to his mother that he was not going to go to church any longer—he had studied enough evolutionary “science” to know that the Christian account of creation and the Fall was a “fairy tale”! How sad it is that all over the world, millions of young people renounce the “sacred history” of Genesis, for what the great philosopher and critic of evolution Larry Azar rightly called “a fairy tale for adults.”

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ (French pronunciation: [pjɛʁ tejaʁ də ʃaʁdɛ̃]; May 1, 1881 – April 10, 1955) was a French philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as a paleontologist and geologist and took part in the discovery of Peking Man and Piltdown Man[1]. Teilhard conceived the idea of the Omega Point and developed Vladimir Vernadsky’s concept of Noosphere. Some of his ideas came into conflict with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and several of his books were censured.

Pope Benedict XVI Caritas in Veritate "When nature, including the human being, is viewed as the result of mere chance or evolutionary determinism, our sense of responsibility wanes.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
–Charles Darwin quotes (English Naturalist and Author of the theory of evolution by natural selection. 1809-1882)

 

[gcharles]

Shocking information continued

To quote famous species evolution advocate Richard Dawkins again in his book The Blind Watchmaker, “Cumulative selection is the key but it had to get started, and we had to get started, and we can’t get away with the need to postulate a single step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection And that vital first step was a difficult one because, at its heart, there lies what seems to be a paradox. But we have to assist this cumulative selection to get started. It wouldn’t go unless we provide a catalyst—and that catalyst, it seems is, unlikely to come into existence spontaneously. Here one of their experts is arrogant enough to admit speciation evolution is based on a postulate and there is no scientific empirical evidence. It’s a lie and it’s a big lie.
The following is a statement made by Dr. George Wald. “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. Wald, George, “Innovation and Biology,” Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100) Dr. Wald admits the logical explanation of life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. But he chooses to believe in spontaneous evolution even though he knows it’s something he knows is scientifically impossible. You can refer back to paragraph 6 where Biondi and Gold admit they couldn’t accept creation based on their own philosophical belief. Now we also have Dr. George Wald admits he believes the same thing as Biondi and Gold. The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. Dr. George Wald was best known for sharing a Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine in 1967. Scientists don’t always look for the truth. They rather look for a lie for which they are philosophically comfortable.

We now need to shift to a scientist named Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel was a professor at Jena University in Germany. Haeckel had invented pictures of embryos or reproduced illustrations by others in a substantially changed form. Haeckel was charged by five fellow professors and convicted by a university court. The pictures showed that the embryos of species all looked the same at an early stage of development.
To our amazement Western educators continued using these altered drawings to prove their case of evolution. Finally Dr Richardson at St. George Medical School in London assembled a scientific team that investigated Michael Haeckel’s assertions. Dr Richardson in an interview with the Times of London in 1997 said, “This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry what Haeckel did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They didn’t. These are fakes.” Even though this was proven wrong it is still in science books in high school today.
Another proof for the evolutionists was the Peppered moth theory. It shows that there was percentage difference in the number of light, intermediate and dark forms of the moth. Professor Harrison Matthews wrote in his forward to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” “Evolution requires that one form change to another.” Yet, the student is still today being presented this in high school biology text books as proof of evolution.”
The name of the textbook is “Molecular Biology of the Cell “(third edition) The specific author for that section of the book is Dr. Bruce Alberts biochemist and is president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Albert is the one using this false information. Again, I would mention that scientists search for the truth unless they are philosophically opposed to their findings. They can’t accept a creator God.

In 1915 a book written by J Assmuth and Ernest R Hull “Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries” quoted 19 leading authorities of the day. Here is an example how the evolutionists are willing to outright lie. The evolutionists announced to the world they had found a fossil proving that an was in transformation into a human-a higher species. They called it the Piltdown man. It was Sir Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum who claimed this discovery. He verified that the skull had human features and the jaw was ape-shaped. This was announced in 1912.
Almost 40 years later in1953 this was an investigation done by Dr. Kenneth Oakley. “He discovered the teeth were filed down to make them look human. In addition the bones and teeth were chemically treated (and sometimes even painted) to give them the appearance of being ancient.”

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ (French pronunciation: [pjɛʁ tejaʁ də ʃaʁdɛ̃]; May 1, 1881 – April 10, 1955) was a French philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as a paleontologist and geologist and took part in the discovery of Peking Man and Piltdown Man[1]. Teilhard conceived the idea of the Omega Point and developed Vladimir Vernadsky’s concept of Noosphere. Some of his ideas came into conflict with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and several of his books were censured.
The bones had been treated with an iron solution, and the teeth filed to fit or to show wear. A “canine” tooth included in the lot had been filled with sand and was patched with gum.
The perpetrator of the hoax has never been found, though there are theories aplenty. Charles Dawson would seem to be the prime suspect, but there is little evidence he did it, and he died in 1916 without leaving a convenient deathbed confession. Other suspects over the years have included various acquaintances of Dawson, museum curators, Pieree Teilhard de Chardin, the guy they hired to do the digging, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who was Dawson’s neighbor. (Conan Doyle’s The Lost World supposedly describes the hoax.)
Teilhard’s primary book, The Phenomenon of Man, set forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos. He abandoned traditional interpretations of creation in the Book of Genesis in favor of a less strict interpretation. This displeased certain officials in the Roman Curia and in his own order who thought that it undermined the doctrine of original sin developed by Saint Augustine. Teilhard’s position was opposed by his Church superiors, and some of his work was denied publication during his lifetime by the Roman Holy Office. The 1950 encyclical Humani generis condemned several of Teilhard’s opinions, while leaving other questions open. However, some of Teilhard’s views became influential in the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. More recently, Pope John Paul II indicated a positive attitude towards some of Teilhard’s ideas. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI praised Teilhard’s idea of the universe as a “living host”.[2]

In 1915 a book written by J Assmuth and Ernest R Hull “Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries” quoted 19 leading authorities of the day. Here is an example how the evolutionists are willing to outright lie. The evolutionists announced to the world they had found a fossil proving that an was in transformation into a human-a higher species. They called it the Piltdown man. It was Sir Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum who claimed this discovery. He verified that the skull had human features and the jaw was ape-shaped. This was announced in 1912.
Almost 40 years later in1953 this was an investigation done by Dr. Kenneth Oakley. “He discovered the teeth were filed down to make them look human. In addition the bones and teeth were chemically treated (and sometimes even painted) to give them the appearance of being ancient.” The one who treated the teeth was none other than JESUIT priest Teilhard.

You are responsible for what you know. If you continue you the lie of evolution then as Hugh Owen says many children will think it’s a fairy tale. They will not believe in Christ and this lie is heavily responsible. If you take part of this you will answer to God. You are to lead people to Christ and not away from him.