Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

[buffalo]

God is reality itself.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

This is a chapter worth reading: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm

Jesus was Divine and knew He was Divine. Since He was never a human and took the human form He expresses Himself in a human way. He experienced being human.

John 14:15 If you love me you will keep my commandments.

In the CCC GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

There are over two hundred pages packed full of good stuff.

 

[buffalo]

Some may think God intervenes in that way. I do not.

I believe He allows man (the conscious observer) to drive so to speak. The interventions come to correct fallen man’s negative influence on the universe.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The question is how many original kinds were there?

It is a question, but not, I venture to suggests, a very important one. Evolutionists: one, Creationists: many. A much more important question is how to explain the huge spread of time within which the ‘kinds’ appeared, and how to reconcile this with a relatively brief act of creation.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Thanks, Kei, I’m onto it…

 

[PetraG]

Who are you to say what is a “competent” way of doing something? Would you say a “competent” cuisine serves up one perfect meal so that no one else ever wants anything else?

Why create time, if there is no point in change?

 

[PetraG]

Why on earth would creation be a brief act?

“See, I do something new!”

To God, a day and a thousand years or an epoch are all the same.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Why on earth would creation be a brief act?

Are you asking me? I don’t know; I’m not a creationist. Buffalo thinks that all the different created kinds occurred within a couple of million years of each other. That’s brief.

 

[PetraG]

Are you asking me? I don’t know; I’m not a creationist. Buffalo thinks that all the different created kinds occurred within a couple of million years of each other. That’s brief.

OK, sorry, I was confused. I really do not see the difference between a couple of million years and several billion. To us, it is a long time and not a day; to God, it’s all the same.

 

[buffalo]

If you are Catholic you are a creationist.

 

[Aloysium]

I really do not see the difference between a couple of million years and several billion. To us, it is a long time and not a day; to God, it’s all the same.

Time requires a frame of reference and a way to compare events that are happening. It is sort of neurologically based and elaborated cognitively. The quickness of a mongoose’s reaction time is at a normal pace within the instinctive perception of its world, in which the speediest among us are lethargic, ponderous creatures. We compare events, currently on the oscillations of the caesium atom, 9 billion of which constitute a second. Those 9,000,000,000 actually exist and are known by Him who has all eternity to gaze upon His creation.

 

[PetraG]

If you are Catholic you are a creationist.

The Vatican says that Darwin’s proposals have never been comdemned out of hand by Rome, do not need to be dismissed out of hand by the faithful, and are not incompatible with Christianity…this was bluntly said 8 years ago.

The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity

The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[buffalo]

From your link: “Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a “higher power” must be responsible for the complexities of life.”

Huh? The Vatican is saying that a higher power is not necessary? Doubtful…

 

[PetraG]

From your link: “Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a “higher power” must be responsible for the complexities of life.”

Huh? The Vatican is saying that a higher power is not necessary? Doubtful…

The Vatican is saying that the idea of “A Miracle Occurs” as a step in a proposed mechanism isn’t tenable. It isn’t that a miracle could not have occurred. It is that if it did, that isn’t something science could address (except to say that current scientific knowledge has no explanation for some documented event).

It is not impossible to say that the evolving complexity of life is, under certain circumstances, built into the chemistry of the universe. There are physicists who say that. The thing is, however, is that you have to have the math to back it up, some physical cause-and-effect that could be disproven.

 

[buffalo]

or built in to life itself from the beginning? First the chemistry that is rules bound. Then God creates life itself with the information built in. Life can use the pre-existing chemistry.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

OK, sorry, I was confused. I really do not see the difference between a couple of million years and several billion. To us, it is a long time and not a day; to God, it’s all the same.

Be not confused.
My distinction is really between “a couple of million” and “hundreds of millions”. God could, of course, have done whatever he wanted, but the evidence he left suggests that new ‘kinds’ of organism occurred over a span of hundreds of millions, while buffalo’s ID belief is that they all occurred over a couple of million. I was asking him how he reconciled this belief with the observations.

 

[PetraG]

…or built in to life itself from the beginning? First the chemistry that is rules bound. Then God creates life itself with the information built in. Life can use the pre-existing chemistry…

The complaint is not that life could not be built into chemistry. The complaint is that the theory is still at the hand-waving stage. There needs to be something more specific. That doesn’t mean it is not true. It means it isn’t described specifically enough to be debated as a scientific theory.

Consider evolution, for instance. It says that certain features are passed down genetically. OK, if a physical feature taken to be evidence that two organisms are related can be traced backed to genes that are not related, that blows that theory. It has been shown that those two organisms, at least, are not genetically related and are only similar for reasons not related to springing out of the same genetic “tree.” The theory is specific enough to be disproven and its proposed applications can be disproven.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

If you are Catholic you are a creationist.

Splendid. Whatever you say. I’m the kind of Catholic creationist who thinks evolution is how creation occurs, and over hundreds of millions of years. My most recently adduced evidence for this is the fossil record. You’re the kind of Catholic creationist who think all the ‘kinds’ of organisms occurred over only a few million years, or less, which is very much contra-indicated by the fossil record. How do you support your belief?

 

[buffalo]

The evo reasoning from what we see in the fossil record is wrong.

What we do see and no one argues, is abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within.

 

[buffalo]

It has been shown that those two organisms, at least, are not genetically related and are only similar for reasons not related to springing out of the same genetic “tree.” The theory is specific enough to be disproven and its proposed applications can be disproven.

Convergent evolution does just that.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The evo reasoning from what we see in the fossil record is wrong.

What we do see and no one argues, is abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within.

You’re not answering my question, which has nothing to do with whether the appearance of organisms is abrupt or not. Why not?

If all the ‘kinds’ of organisms were created more or less simultaneously, why do we not see all their fossils appear more or less simultaneously? The fossil record suggests that all the ‘kinds’ of organisms appeared, abruptly or not, over hundreds of millions years. Once I understood your position on creation, and apologised for misunderstanding you previously, I have asked exactly this question three times. You do not even acknowledge the question, let alone answer it. Why not?