T
Techno2000
Guest
Mutations…MMutations…MuMuttations…Muuatioons…Mttuationnns…
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
You’re welcome.
Ed
Ed
E
edwest211
Guest
Pope Benedict:
"He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said scientific and philosophical reason must work together in a way that does not exclude faith.
“I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science,” the pope was quoted as saying in the book, which records a meeting with fellow theologians the pope has known for years.
"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."
The key phrase is “Impossible to conduct experiments…”
"He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said scientific and philosophical reason must work together in a way that does not exclude faith.
“I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science,” the pope was quoted as saying in the book, which records a meeting with fellow theologians the pope has known for years.
"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."
The key phrase is “Impossible to conduct experiments…”
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
This is true.
Evolution has no practical scientific value.
Outside science, it can be used to promote atheism, which is desirable by some.
Evolution has no practical scientific value.
Outside science, it can be used to promote atheism, which is desirable by some.
E
edwest211
Guest
Reading scientific journals, certain things are clear whether we are talking about things that currently live underwater, and on land. They must survive the water pressure at the depth at which they live. On land, living things must be able to breathe the air, work in a one gravity environment, and should be mobile or muscles will atrophy. Things that aren’t mobile need to survive wind and rain. Astronauts that work in space for prolonged periods in zero or near zero gravity experience measurable biological changes that are not good. Even a few science-fiction movies have shown spacecraft where a portion is rotating to create a one gravity situation.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
After reading all these quotes, one thing is still missing - your conclusion. What do you conclude from them?
In general, there are two possible ways in which one may try to reject evolution. One is on the basis of Catholic doctrine, and the other is on the basis of science. Since you are quoting authoritative religious figures, you must be barking up the first tree, not the second.
In the conclusion you failed to draw, were you going to reject evolution on the grounds of Catholic Doctrine? If so, the quotes you give do not exactly make your point. If you think otherwise, then please elaborate on this argument.
What do these observations have to do with the truth of evolution?
By the way, it is no big deal “surviving the pressures of the deep” as long as you don’t try to carry any gases with you. An all-solid or liquid life form with no air sacs does not “feel” any pressure at all.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
When you have published a credible alternative debunking the overwhelming evidence I would be pleased to give it due consideration.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Right and how did evolution know what mutations to use, when millions of other plants and animals were in the process of mutating into something completely new. This would have to affect future environments.
B
buffalo
Guest
It seems a whole bunch of posters have not fully considered the links I have provided and how the modern synthesis is falling. They are putting their heads in the sand.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Have you fully considered the book I recommended to you a while ago by PM?
R
rossum
Guest
Evolution is a process, it does not “know”. You appear to be anthropomorphising evolution, that is an error.
Evolution tries billions of mutations, trillions in the case of bacteria. Natural selection spreads more copies of those mutations that work best in each environment. That is all.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
I have looked deeper into it and as my links show we are well past that.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You mean you already read the book, or you do not intend to read it? I am still in the process of reading Signature in the Cell and am not “well past that.”
B
buffalo
Guest
As I stated I argued the book many times over in the past. I have decided that current science has moved past any of its major points. I am not going to spend any more time on it.
E
edwest211
Guest
For a few, I think it’s a bit more than that. Just keep ignoring posts like yours.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I see. I agreed to read the book you proposed, but you found a way to dismiss the one I suggested out of hand. Now we see who has a closed mind here.
G
Glark
Guest
The Church teaches that the faithful can accept a literal “six days” interpretation of Genesis - and you find this teaching “sad”? (For some reason or other, I am reminded of your words from an earlier post: “That doesn’t seem to be a particularly wholesome Catholic point of view.”)
I fear that your outlook is completely back-to-front and not reflective of reality: It’s sad when Catholics have been influenced by atheist thought; eg, theistic evolution. It’s really just another unfortunate manifestation of Modernism
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
The book of Job describes a fearsome sea-monster that breathed fire and smoke (the original “dragon”?). Many people consider this creature to be something mythical that couldn’t possibly have existed. But perhaps is was something like a reptilian, back-to-front version of a Bombardier beetle. Sounds feasible to me.
B
buffalo
Guest
As I posted I had argued it to death for the last several years. Posters here and other places argued the main points over and over.
SIgnature in the Cell offers a completely new paradigm.
SIgnature in the Cell offers a completely new paradigm.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The thing that goout finds “sad” is not the teaching you cited here.goout:
The Church teaches that the faithful can accept a literal “six days” interpretation of Genesis - and you find this teaching “sad”?
Last edited:
- Status