Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

[Hugh_Farey]

So it does. Myth.

 

[ratio1]

The Resurrection: Not a myth.

How do I decide: Faith, reason, an informed conscience, the bible and the teaching of the Catholic Church, as laid out in the Catechism, Encyclicals and other documents at Vatican.va.

So why do you dispute feeding with two fish? Are you denying Jesus can perform miracles?

 

[Techno2000]

So it does. Myth.

https://qmbarque.com/2013/11/19/an-...hotograph-taken-during-eucharistic-adoration/

 

[buffalo]

Manna is right behind it, then no doubt the many billions fed weekly in Eucharist for 2000 years.

 

[rossum]

In the journey from a single cell to a man, there must have been many false starts and poor choices.

Where are they?

There were many, but the majority failed to form properly in the egg/womb and died. That early in their development there was not enough to fossilise, so we don’t have the remains. Those that managed to live long enough to grow fossilisable teeth or bones may have a mutation that does not show in a fossil, a badly functioning liver for example. All you will see in the fossil record are those organisms with hard parts where the ‘false start’ involves some change to those hard parts.

How many people do you know who have something like club foot? We have found a few human fossils with a club foot, but they are rare, just as club foot is rare in the modern population. One example, apparently, is Pharaoh Tutankhamen.

The picture you paint portrays all the good choices staying and all the bad being gone in a couple of generations.

Some bad genes, yes. If a mutation causes death in the egg/womb, say a non-functional Cytochrome C, then it will disappear very quickly. In humans, something like 20% to 50% of fertilised eggs fail to develop correctly. Other non-lethal mutations may disappear over time, but remember that in any population they may reappear anew. Achondroplasia and haemophilia can appear in families with no genetic history of those conditions.

Even if if this were the case, where are all the mistakes?

Some are alive, most are dead. A few are in the fossil record.

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

No, no, no, no. no. You are falling into Glark’s error. If I travel to the US by ship, does that mean I could not have gone by air? If I choose fish for supper, does that mean I can’t cook spaghetti? If God chooses to execute his powers in an entirely rational fashion, does that mean he couldn’t use irrational means? No, it doesn’t.

All you creationists (to try to bring the conversion back on track), do you claim that God could not have used evolution to fill his world with its diversity of life? Are you denying his omnipotence?

 

[buffalo]

Catholics understand God to be almighty.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

So he could have used Evolution?

 

[ratio1]

No, no, no, no.
I’m not falling into Glark or your errors.
My default position is that the Church is correct and when th Church is silent on issues then I can use scientific facts etc as long as it doesn’t alter the Catholic faith.
So that’s why I don’t see a problem with believing in evolution IF (and that’s a big if) there is good scientific support for it.
My point currently is that it doesn’t have good science. (But I need to enquirer a bit more)
I’ve also read archaeological evidences and viewpoints about the whole exodus and crossing the Red Sea and even Joshua assault on Canaanites which could all be false historically. Even if this turns out to be historically false I don’t see that it makes a huge difference to our faith. I don’t think it can be proven but my opinion on this is it doesn’t matter. Same with evolution.

However feeding with two fish DOES matter. The exodus story was not written by eye witness accounts. They were not even written by people who knew the eye witnesses. Not so with the gospels. Also it is important in our faith because this proves that Jesus can perform miracles.
I just don’t see on what basis can you question this. What archaeological or historical or scientific evidence do you have that can disprove this? I doubt there ever will. This is a whole different category to parting Red Sea where one can mount some sort of archaeological case.
Your error is that your starting point is you question first and then seek evidence to support. My approach is to support first and then seek evidences to question.
And the creationists error is that they refuse to believe overwhelming scientific evidence eg earths age from geological evidence.

 

[buffalo]

I was simply correcting your mistake.

We are examining what He did do and what He told us He did.

 

[vz71]

A few are in the fossil record.

Only a few?
Perhaps you do not understand the immense amount of time and the sheer number of generations.
Shouldn’t there be examples of mistakes everywhere?

Why only examples of the right mutation but none of the wrong?

 

[buffalo]

John 5:45 Do not imagine that I am going to accuse you before the Father: you have placed your hopes on Moses, and Moses will be the one who accuses you.

46 If you really believed him you would believe me too, since it was about me that he was writing;

47 but if you will not believe what he wrote, how can you believe what I say?

 

[buffalo]

The fossil record is so very discontinuous. It shows abrupt appearance over and over.

 

[edwest211]

As I see it, what is called evolution was spitting out organisms at a relatively rapid rate - as we are told - and it seems we should have a pile of bones that represent those mistakes. Gross errors in body construction and the absence of features necessary for survival.

 

[Kei]

The synoptics are pretty clearly meant to be biographical and not mythological or fantastical texts.

John is considered by some to be a Wisdom text, but the traditional approach is that he simply recorded events earlier in His ministry, and of course wrote the latest.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

No, no, no, no.
I’m not falling into Glark or your errors.

Oh, good. It just looked very like it for a while.

My default position is that the Church is correct and when th Church is silent on issues then I can use scientific facts etc as long as it doesn’t alter the Catholic faith.

Fine.

So that’s why I don’t see a problem with believing in evolution IF (and that’s a big if) there is good scientific support for it. My point currently is that it doesn’t have good science. (But I need to enquire a bit more)

Good. As long as you can recognise good science. Try this for a rule of thumb. Can you find a creationist paper that talks about creation rather than tries to attack evolution? How many creationist papers can you find that don’t mention evolution, compared to evolutionist papers which don’t mention creationism?

I’ve also read archaeological evidences and viewpoints about the whole exodus and crossing the Red Sea and even Joshua assault on Canaanites which could all be false historically. Even if this turns out to be historically false I don’t see that it makes a huge difference to our faith. I don’t think it can be proven but my opinion on this is it doesn’t matter. Same with evolution.

Fine

However feeding with two fish DOES matter. The exodus story was not written by eye witness accounts. They were not even written by people who knew the eye witnesses. Not so with the gospels. Also it is important in our faith because this proves that Jesus can perform miracles.

I think the feeding of the multitude stories may have been based on an actual event, which may have surprised those who witnessed it, and strengthened, however temporarily, their faith in Jesus. That’s the miracle.

I just don’t see on what basis can you question this. What archaeological or historical or scientific evidence do you have that can disprove this? I doubt there ever will. This is a whole different category to parting Red Sea where one can mount some sort of archaeological case.

It’s a good question, and one I have debated on other threads. I think God invariably works rationally. I could be wrong, but that’s what I think.

Your error is that your starting point is you question first and then seek evidence to support. My approach is to support first and then seek evidences to question.

My error? Says you.

And the creationists error is that they refuse to believe overwhelming scientific evidence eg earths age from geological evidence.

Well, I agree with that, of course.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

So God could have used evolution if he’d wanted?

 

[ratio1]

I think God invariably works rationally

But resurrection is “irrational” according to your point of view.

 

[ratio1]

I think the feeding of the multitude stories may have been based on an actual event, which may have surprised those who witnessed it, and strengthened, however temporarily, their faith in Jesus. That’s the miracle.

I still don’t see how you would respond to someone who takes your same view and apply this to the resurrection. Eg Bishop Spong. How would you debate with such a person that they only believe Jesus rising from the dead is an allegory rather than historical truth.

 

[ratio1]

Can you find a creationist paper that talks about creation rather than tries to attack evolution? How many creationist papers can you find that don’t mention evolution, compared to evolutionist papers which don’t mention creationism

That’s not a good rule of thumb. No creationist claims that creationism can be proven scientifically. But evolutionist do. So if my methodology of critique is science, then I can’t use science to debunk creationism. But I can use science to debunk evolution. Unless evolutionist are willing to admit that their basis of belief is not scientific? (Which is what I suspect — is that they start with a false premise that there is no theistic intervention…something which cannot be proven scientifically not unproven scientifically)