Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[rrochon]

Did Wilder make up the Lateran Council, or aren’t we suppose to believe in infallible councils either?

And did Wilder do the research and experiments that prove sedimentary rocks do not take millions of years to form?

All Wilder did was report what science has now discovered, which means scientists will either have to just ignore these findings or change their beliefs in the evolution fairy tale.

 

[Philipp]

drpmjhess Quote:
Originally Posted by rrochon
Since evolution requires long ages (hundreds of millions of years), and this has been assumed by geological layers of rocks that contains fossils, which the above reference disproves, the theory of evolution has lost its foundation.

Wilders is a nut case don’t believe him! He knows nothing about geology that he hasn’t made up himself.

That’s not a nice thing to say about a fellow Catholic, Wilders, who seems to know a lot about the magisterium, church history and geology to make a case against evolutionary geology and the fossils. Perhaps Christ and the apotles who spoke of a major cataclysm happening in the old testament were dead wrong. Do you consider Moses some sort of a nut case and the Person who revealed this information to Moses likewise a nut case too? Did you read the article by Wilders?

philipp

 

[infestedsmith]

What a bunch of baloney guys! This constant pro-evolution nonsense makes me weep inside at the incredible job Darwin and his like have done to convince the world that an anti-Catholic and anti-God minimum evidence theory it true! Have you NEVER questioned evolution? Have you never ONCE thought in your minds that perhaps evolution is a clever ploy to pull Catholics from the Church? Because it is!

I earnestly suggest you all read this: The Death of Evolution

It will open your eyes to the absurdity of evolution, and it’s the total lack of evidence it holds. HEAR THIS! The pro-evolution scientist want with all their hearts for evolution to be true, as it makes Man an animal, and makes Our Blessed Mother, and Our Lord’s ancestors creatures!

Our world is not billions of years old, and the idea that evolution created our titanic mountains and vast plains is dead wrong.

I speak vehemently about this because evolution has already claimed so many victims in the secular world, but has even claimed victims in the people of the Church, and many of them!

Consider this:

• Evolution says the earth is billions of years old, and that man existed well after the dinosaurs, however there are fossils of a footprint of a man directly embedded in a dinosaur’s footprint, that prove man’s coexistence with dinosaurs.

• The creators of evolution, and especially the promoters have falsified evidence and jumped to ridiculous conclusions because they are NOT simply searching for the truth, they WANT the truth to be evolution, and they won’t rest until everyone believes in it.

• People like Teilhard de Chardin created and promoted the theory of evolution (without evidence) with the idea in mind that evolution was more then just physical, but an evolution of mind and body and soul to the point where everything would be beyond the physical. (Need to check that)

• Evolution is the primary tool of atheist to support atheism. And in fact, that’s what it is, an anti-Catholic theory designed to overthrow Catholic thought, reason and dignity by making us animals.

• Very little evidence exist to support evolution, Horse breeders can breed excellent horses, but eventually run into a block where the horses can’t get any better, they do not “evolve” into better and better horses, they just stop.

• EVOLUTION DENYS THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. It also offends reason, and logical sensibilities, if you cannot see through evolution, READ MORE!

• Why do we have bones of very unique dinosaurs, but NO transitional bones?

• Why do the layers of rock in the grand canyon vary hugely in age, with very often (and not just in the GC) quite young layers of rock are below old layers, and vice versa!

• Why do chimps have such similar chromosomes? Because chromosomes tell the matter what the body looks like in the end, so if they didn’t have such similar chromosomes, they wouldn’t look at all like chimps!

It’s a lie, a huge one, and something that will be fought for sure. Read the book, look this stuff up. Don’t believe the scientist who say evolution is true, while denying the obvious truth of Christ and the Church.

That is all…

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If you don’t consider men and apes to be animals. On the other hand, apes have consciousness, empathy, and express moral judgments. They not only have consciousness, they are capable of inferring consciousness in others.

Hi Barbarian,
How can we test whether another being has a conscience? Is this purely based on their behaviour? What about the possibility of a “zombie”-like being who has the behaviour we associate with consciousness but not actual awareness (basically like a robot with AI)?

 

[The_Barbarian]

So, the Barbarian, we meet again! I like your characterization of animal souls. But again, the question is whether and where there is a hard-and-fast dividing line between the souls humans have evolved, and the souls of their primate relatives.

I believe so, in the sense that we have an immortal soul. BTW, I don’t know when that actually happened, or exactly what species of human it was. The point is that there is no hard and fast dividing line in terms of mental capabilities.

I have never seen a coherent explanation of where such a line might be drawn, and I know we’ve been through this before on CAF. The old argument that God prepared a hominid body into which He/She plunked an immortal soul is quite incoherent for the biological reason of the genetic bottleneck, that Alec has posted elsewhere.

Well, I’m no theologian, but it’s clear that the physical characteristics of humans, including neurological functions, won’t help clear it up.

 

[The_Barbarian]

How can we test whether another being has a conscience? Is this purely based on their behaviour?

How do you determine that other humans have consciences?

What about the possibility of a “zombie”-like being who has the behaviour we associate with consciousness but not actual awareness (basically like a robot with AI)?

Here’s a story I read elsewhere:

A man was completely depressed and wanted to end his existence, but he was sensitive to the pain this would cause his family and friends. Then he was told about this drug that would completely end his existence as a conscious being, but would allow his body to continue as a consciousless automaton, continuing to behave as he always did, so that no one else would notice.

That night, he took the drug, knowing that in the morning, he would be gone and only his body would continue on.

The next morning he got up and said “This was a fraud. I feel just the way I did before.”

What happened?

 

[The_Barbarian]

What a bunch of baloney guys! This constant pro-evolution nonsense makes me weep inside at the incredible job Darwin and his like have done to convince the world that an anti-Catholic and anti-God minimum evidence theory it true!

Someone’s had a little fun with your trust in them. Notice that even the Pope openly admits that common descent is virtually certain.

Have you NEVER questioned evolution?

Constantly. It’s my job.

Have you never ONCE thought in your minds that perhaps evolution is a clever ploy to pull Catholics from the Church?

You’re thinking of creationism. Catholics accept evolution. People who hate Catholics are creationists.

The pro-evolution scientist want with all their hearts for evolution to be true, as it makes Man an animal, and makes Our Blessed Mother, and Our Lord’s ancestors creatures!

All except God are creatures.

Our world is not billions of years old, and the idea that evolution created our titanic mountains and vast plains is dead wrong.

It’s demonstrably true. The process is still going on, and we can measure it’s progress. India, for example, is still pushing up the Himalayas by a measured few centimeters a year.

Evolution says the earth is billions of years old, and that man existed well after the dinosaurs, however there are fossils of a footprint of a man directly embedded in a dinosaur’s footprint, that prove man’s coexistence with dinosaurs.

Interesting case, that. It was debunked by YE creationists themselves. I’ve actually been there, and taken a look, and it’s all hooey. Even the Institute for Creation Research has debunked that one.

Evolution is the primary tool of atheist to support atheism.

I never thought of the Pope as an atheist. BTW, the theory was brought forth by two men who were Christians, Darwin and Wallace.

Very little evidence exist to support evolution, Horse breeders can breed excellent horses, but eventually run into a block where the horses can’t get any better, they do not “evolve” into better and better horses, they just stop.

Odd then, that they keep getting faster.

EVOLUTION DENYS THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

Ooohhh. Sounds scientific. Let’s see your numbers. BTW, Boltzmann was a Darwinian. Maybe he knew something about thermodynamics that you don’t?

Why do we have bones of very unique dinosaurs, but NO transitional bones?

We have thousands of such. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Why do the layers of rock in the grand canyon vary hugely in age, with very often (and not just in the GC) quite young layers of rock are below old layers, and vice versa!

Learn about folding and overthrusts, and you won’t wonder any more. No scientist is surprised by that.

Why do chimps have such similar chromosomes? Because chromosomes tell the matter what the body looks like in the end, so if they didn’t have such similar chromosomes, they wouldn’t look at all like chimps!

Actually, they look very much like ours, except for one chromosome that looks exactly like two fused chimp chromosomes, right down to the remains of telemeres at the site of fusion.

Want to take a look? You have nothing to lose but your ignorance.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

How do you determine that other humans have consciences?

Here’s a story I read elsewhere:

A man was completely depressed and wanted to end his existence, but he was sensitive to the pain this would cause his family and friends. Then he was told about this drug that would completely end his existence as a conscious being, but would allow his body to continue as a consciousless automaton, continuing to behave as he always did, so that no one else would notice.

That night, he took the drug, knowing that in the morning, he would be gone and only his body would continue on.

The next morning he got up and said “This was a fraud. I feel just the way I did before.”

What happened?

I think the only answer is that we on the outside can’t tell what happened. Only the subject can know if he is truly conscious. The rest of us are left guessing.

Now, we can use some common sense to say that other human beings are probably experiencing what we are… but I don’t think it can be proven one way or the other.

 

[Ender]

How do you understand “Darwinism”? Is gravity “Newtonianism”? Do you not distinguish between Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution?

I admit to being baffled by the apparent reluctance of evolutionists to refer to the current theory of evolution as Darwinism. What I mean by it is the non-constancy of species, natural selection … you know, what Darwin first proposed. As modified by modern scientific advances, of course. And while we don’t refer to gravity as Newtonianism we do still refer to the Ptolmaic and Copernican explanations of the solar system. Why the sensitivity to calling what is essentially Darwin’s theory of evolution - Darwinism?

 

[Ender]

Science can only evaluate the physical universe. Consciousness, being associated in every case with a sufficiently evolved nervous system, is indeed a part of the physical universe, and is a proper study of science.

I was unaware that consciousness had a physical component. What are its properties?

Ender

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian,

Creationists hate Catholics? Nonsense. Trying to stir the pot here, aren’t you?

You like to create boundaries between people. How sad.

Evolution is nonsensical unless God was involved. As I’ve written elsewhere, the Church has not ruled infallibly as to the age of the earth. Do you believe the Church can do that? Rule infallibly?

And what is your (not science) position on miracles? The Church, today, requires two miracles to be attributed to a person being considered for sainthood.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Wilders, who seems to know a lot about the magisterium, church history and geology to make a case against evolutionary geology and the fossils. Perhaps Christ and the apotles who spoke of a major cataclysm happening in the old testament were dead wrong. Do you consider Moses some sort of a nut case and the Person who revealed this information to Moses likewise a nut case too?

Moses had no knowledge of geology that we enjoy after two hundred years of the development of that discipline, so no – he was not a nut case. He was simply writing out of the primitive experience the Hebrew people had of their world.

Someone who in 2007 champions the geology of 200 years ago is a nut case, just as someone who demanded admittance to medical school on the argument that Vesalius and Harvey were wrong about the circulation of the blood would be considered a nut case, or like a chemist who argued for the existence of phlogiston would be.

 

[drpmjhess]

I believe so, in the sense that we have an immortal soul. BTW, I don’t know when that actually happened, or exactly what species of human it was. The point is that there is no hard and fast dividing line in terms of mental capabilities.

The Barbarian, the crux of the matter is whether the possession of an immortal soul is based on having Human DNA or not. If we want to say that all-and-only-humans-have-immortal souls, we have to base that on some distinguishing characteristic, particularly given the long evolutionary history of the human species. That’s why I’m not convinced there is a hard-and-fast dividing line between human-soul-bearing and non-human-soul-bearing entities,

A related problem – which I’ve raised in other fora – is whether a person with two fused genomes has two souls or not. Most would say “no” – there is only one soul per body, and on the face of it this is a reasonable conclusion to make. But in the case of two fused blastocysts, if we accept soul-from-the-moment-of-conception theology, the two genomes that fused into one body each carry a soul, so that the one person has two souls (the same as in the case of parasitic twins, from extreme to mild cases). If we deny that the person has two souls, then we have to deny soul-from-the-moment-of-conception theology.

 

[Wolseley]

I earnestly suggest you all read this: The Death of Evolution

Another good one is amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Unabridged-Michael-Cremo/dp/0892132949/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203490820&sr=1-1, which examines the vast body of evidence against evolution that the Darwinists threw away because it contradicted their pet theory. (Convenient, that----if the evidence doesn’t line up with your idea, ignore it! Problem solved.) And nobody can accuse the authors of being Christian creationists, since they both happen to be Hindus.

It’s a lie, a huge one, and something that will be fought for sure. Read the book, look this stuff up. Don’t believe the scientist who say evolution is true, while denying the obvious truth of Christ and the Church.

I agree, but don’t expect to convince our resident evolutionists here. They have their minds made up, so they won’t listen to you anyway, no matter what you present to them.

My advice? Don’t argue with them. Matthew 15:14.

 

[drpmjhess]

I agree, but don’t expect to convince our resident evolutionists here. They have their minds made up, so they won’t listen to you anyway, no matter what you present to them.

What is the vast body of evidence against the theory of evolutiot? Where can I find it? And if it’s as bad as you say, why is it non-scientists such as yourself who oppose it, rather than the 100,000 or so working biologists who use the theory every day to enrich our lives with discoveries that benefit biology, parasitology, pharmaceutical enterprises, and medicine?

 

[PhilVaz]

infested << Have you NEVER questioned evolution? Have you never ONCE thought in your minds that perhaps evolution is a clever ploy to pull Catholics from the Church? Because it is! I earnestly suggest you all read this: The Death of Evolution >>

Is that the only book you’ve read on the subject? Something by TAN books? TAN books is not a scientific publisher last I checked. Good orthodox books but they don’t specialize in science. Might I suggest a few more to round out your views?

First, some technical science books:

Evolution of the Vertebrates by Colbert and Morales (1991)
The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods by Benton (1988)
Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution by Robert L. Carroll (1988)
Invertebrate Paleontology and Evolution by E.N.K. Clarkson (1979, 1998 4th edition)
The Fossil Record 2 edited by M.J. Benton (1993)
Bones, Stones, and Molecules: “Out of Africa” and Human Origins by David W. Cameron and Colin P. Groves (Elsevier, 2004)
The Human Fossil Record (volume 1, forthcoming in 4 volumes) by Schwartz / Tattersall (John Wiley and Sons, 2002)
Extinct Humans by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz (Westview Press / Perseus Books, 2000)
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution edited by Steve Jones, Robert Martin, David Pilbeam (Cambridge Univ Press, 1992)
The Search for Eve by Michael H. Brown (Harper and Row, 1990)
Guide to Fossil Man by Michael H. Day (Univ of Chicago Press, 1986, 4th edition)
Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey (Simon and Schuster, 1981)
The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells (2002)
The Evolution of Perissodactyls by Donald R. Prothero and Robert M. Schoch, ed. (Oxford Univ Press, 1989)
Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae by Bruce J. MacFadden (Cambridge Univ Press, 1994)
Gaining Ground: The Origin and Early Evolution of Tetrapods by Jennifer Clack (Indiana Univ Press, 2002)
Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds by Gregory Paul (John Hopkins Univ Press, 2002)
The Age of the Earth from 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell (Geological Society Special Publication No 190, 2001)
The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple (Stanford University Press, 1991)

And some popular books:

Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth R. Miller (1999)
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith B. Miller (Eerdmans, 2003)
Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology by Darrel Falk (2004)
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins (2006)

and finally, a Catholic book:

Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith (Ignatius Press, 2007)

Don’t stop there. You’ll find many more at a university library. Do visit one. Probably down the street from where you live.



Phil P

 

[j1s2a3]

This forum deals with life (immortal soul) and this earth deals with death.This whole theory assumes death creates life it never did and never will.Simple observation confirms this.

 

[elt1956]

I had a hard time understanding the electrical impulse stuff. But it seems to me this would prove we have evolved. We are thinking beings electrical impulses aside. I think we have all the other mammals beat, also the birds, the reptiles, etc.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Creationists hate Catholics?

Yep. Read the stuff from ICR or Answers in Genesis.

You like to create boundaries between people.

It is what it is. They don’t like us.

Evolution is nonsensical unless God was involved.

Chemistry, too. And plate tectonics. Amazing, huh?

And what is your (not science) position on miracles?

You can find out about them, here:
newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm

 

[The_Barbarian]

I admit to being baffled by the apparent reluctance of evolutionists to refer to the current theory of evolution as Darwinism.

Most likely, it’s because modern evolutionary theory is not classical Darwinism. It has been modified by the findings of genetics, for example. Scientists are accustomed to precision.

What I mean by it is the non-constancy of species, natural selection … you know, what Darwin first proposed.

Those are still observed to be true. But more properly, the theory is called the modern synthesis.

As modified by modern scientific advances, of course. And while we don’t refer to gravity as Newtonianism we do still refer to the Ptolmaic and Copernican explanations of the solar system.

And Gould, for example, called himself a Darwinian, and we still speak of Darwinian selection, for example.

Why the sensitivity to calling what is essentially Darwin’s theory of evolution - Darwinism?

Mostly, because it’s not quite accurate. Precision, you know.