Intelligent Design, Evoloution, chaos, creationists, etc., Selective data?

[Daniel_Marsh]

When I hear someone arguing for Intelligent Design, Evolution or Creationism I often wonder if I have hearing a selective use of data, and wonderning what they are leaving out.

For example, one will argue that the distance of the earth to the sun is at the perfect distance to support life. Personally, I wish God would move us a little closer or turn up the heat because I really do not care for winter. Does anyone know if the earth was ever closer or farer from the sun? And, exactly what range of distince from the sun would support life? Will the earth be either farer or closer thus sucking us into the sun in the fulture? What exactly is the evidence for the path of the earth, is the orbit increasing or decreasing?

Another example is an out and out misquote of scripture. In Isaiah there is the phrase “circle of the earth” ignoring the fact that a circle is not a sphere, some will argue that God was revealing that the earth is round. Will the problems are, that earth in Hebrew refers to land or dirt, not to a planet. And, the circle here refers to the firmament or dome above the land.

Can you think of other examples of selective use of data?

What are the proofs for intelligent design?

What are the proofs for creationism?

What are the proofs for Evolution?

Is theistic evolution possible?

Are we being sucked into the Sun?

Has any YEC ever tried to answer this book?
Fallacies of Creationism by Willard Young

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

Creation, or Evolution? Or, are they the same thing?

With all of the known micro-evolutions (limited minor-variations) among all species (kinds), folks have taken the leap-of-faith into “believing” in an alledged “macro-evolution” (a species evolving into another species - kind).
Limited minor-variations ARE proven, but “macro-evolution” is not yet proven. Will it be?
It is imagined, speculated, hypothesized, but not proven.
Folks are divided in the “belief” that it will, or will not be “proven”.
Who’s gonna be the most objective?

What will your answer be when someone asks you,
“In the Light of Science and the Bible, How did things begin? Naturally? Or, supernaturally?”

 

[inthecloud]

What are the proofs for intelligent design? To my knowledge none so far, is a God of the Gaps theory. Even the most honest of them recognize that many of their design proof can now be archieved by evolution.

What are the proofs for creationism? To my knowledge they are in contradiction with nearly all modern science, from cosmology, to geology, to biology, to linguistics, to history. Either they are right or the whole body of natual scientific knowledge is wrong. Very unlikely. The fact that most creations scientist are fundamentalist betrays an agenda. True science is religion neutral, the results are the same for an atheist, a deist or a theist. A budist or hindu will also get the same results. Not with creation science.

What are the proofs for Evolution?
Microevolution has been observed in species, embrionary and fetal development, genetics, fosil records, similitudes among species. And the fact that nothing have sense in biology outside the light of evolution. And the fact that the theory works for everyone despite their religious or non religious beliefs.

Is theistic evolution possible? Evolution is agnostic, like gravity or rain is a natural phenomena. If you belive or not believe in God the results are the same. You fall or you get wet. Religious people can intrepret evolution in the light of Scripture and Tradition to get a idea of Gods purpose for Mankind. A atheist will look at the same data at think that the universe and human life are random and senseless phenomena.

Are we being sucked into the Sun? No. But when the Sun dies it will expand to a size that will swallow the earth and the moon.

With all of the known micro-evolutions (limited minor-variations) among all species (kinds), folks have taken the leap-of-faith into “believing” in an alledged “macro-evolution” (a species evolving into another species - kind).
Limited minor-variations ARE proven, but “macro-evolution” is not yet proven. Will it be?
It is imagined, speculated, hypothesized, but not proven.

Microevolution spread out for huge lenght of time is Macroevolution.

I end with two quotes:

One by Father Teilhard the Chardin:

“Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems much henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of though must follow this is what evolution is.”

2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

Other by Pope John Paul II Magnus:

“Consideration of the method used in diverse orders of knowledge allows for the concordance of two points of view which seem irreconcilable. The science of observation describes with ever greater precision the multiple manifestations of life…”

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

Gee, is there a way to verify each Pope’s historical view on a possible evolution and/or a possible literal six-day creation?

Douay-Rheims Bible
EXODUS 20:11
“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.”

Again, from the time that this current Pope expressed his views, are all of the next successions bound to follow suite - no matter what?

(For example, say one or more of the past Popes expressed that it was in literally six days, like it says in the Scriptures.)

Oh! What inconsistency!

Who’s then, The Heretic?

 

[PaulDupre]

Gee, is there a way to verify each Pope’s historical view on a possible evolution and/or a possible literal six-day creation?

Douay-Rheims Bible
EXODUS 20:11
“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.”

Again, from the time that this current Pope expressed his views, are all of the next successions bound to follow suite - no matter what?

(For example, say one or more of the past Popes expressed that it was in literally six days, like it says in the Scriptures.)

Oh! What inconsistency!

Who’s then, The Heretic?

Pope John Paul II expressed his opinion on the link between faith and reason, and his allowance that evolution is a reasonable hypothesis. No Catholic is bound by a pope’s opinion. We are only bound when a dogma is infallably defined “from the Chair” (ex-cathedra) of Peter.

The CCC is very clear that Catholics are free to believe anything they want to concerning creation/evolution, so long as they acknowledge that God created everything (no matter how) and that God created our immortal souls at the moment of our conception.

Hope this helps,
Paul

 

[inthecloud]

True post.
Also Popes are not scientis. A Pope that was YEC in 1215 was woking with the evidence avalible in his time.
A Pope who said the same now will be misguiding his flock. And the Church neither had condened or endorsed evolution. That is not Her task. Leave that to the scientists.