Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

  • Thread starter Thread starter nmercier1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some sort of snippy answers and questions to:

1.The source of the other half of Jesus’ genome, including his Y chromosome? A miracle? A self reproducing cell?
  1. How is the “soul” connected to the body, if not by way of Descartes’ pineal gland? Why does it have to be connected? I really get completely confused when thinking about spiritual matters such as the interconnection/interrelatedness among soul, personality, insight, thinking, character, intuition etc. etc. So little known. So much to learn.
  2. Do tetragametic chimeras have two souls, and if not, why not? If not, what does that tell us about our understanding of “soul”? No matter what type of cells make up the product, the body, it is still one body, perhaps coming together at conception. Wouldn’t the predisposition of all the cells have to exist at the same time in order for development and organization to take place? Could this be the foundation of “split personality?”
  3. What conditions might have prevailed before the Big Bang? Well, the Bible says, “It was vewy, vewy dark”.
  1. If temporal lobe epilepsy is concommitant with some mystical experiences, does that explain the experiences, or explain them away? That is interesting. Does this mean that all people who claim to have a mystical experience have to have epiliepsy? If that is so and I tend to think it isn’t, perhaps God chooses messengers who only have epilipsy?
  1. How is the “eternity” we presumably experience after death related to the hundred billion years the universe is expected to continue after the earth is incinerated by our exploding sun? A hundred billion years is not eternity, or did I just “possibly” misunderstand the question? A hundred billion years is “possibly” not even a blink of God’s eye.
  2. Is cloning a human being always categorically wrong? If so, why? God said “Increase and multiply”. Were directions how given? Not that I endorse cloning, just a thought.
 
drpmjhess said:
I’ve never heard a scientist claim this. Where did you read it?
Click to expand...
OH come on now, where have you been for the last 100 years.? There’s even a chart on the wall of our famous Zoo, in the primate sections showing how man evolved from ape. Teaching our children as tho this was fact instead of guesswork. They say a picture is worth 1,000 words. and stays in the mind better.
 
I agree. We must be very careful in what we expose children to, especially very young children. What a very young child see, hears, touchs, tastes and smells forms the foundation for the child’s character and personality.
 
(someone claimed evolutionary theory says man evolved from monkeys)

Originally Posted by drpmjhess
I’ve never heard a scientist claim this. Where did you read it?
Click to expand...
Meemaw replies:
OH come on now, where have you been for the last 100 years.? There’s even a chart on the wall of our famous Zoo, in the primate sections showing how man evolved from ape.

You think apes are monkeys? No wonder you’re confused. Wouldn’t you be more effective against science if you knew what it was?
Teaching our children as tho this was fact instead of guesswork.
Click to expand...
Would you be happier if we said it was “virtually certain?” 😃
 
PhilVaz said:
If you think they don’t have the skeletons, you are wrong.
Click to expand...
I try to word my comments as carefully - and narrowly - as possible. I said nothing whatever about fossils, my statement was about the cladogram. The way it is constructed indicates that the newer species evolved not from the older species but from some unspecified common ancestor. It appears at first glance to show the major evolutionary steps in the creation of the modern whale but, if I understand it correctly (which is debatable), it actually makes no claim that any species on the diagram evolved from any other.

Don’t take my comment as a statement that whales didn’t evolve, only that this cladogram makes no claim of direct ancestry in their evolution. Did the odontocetes evolve from the mysticetes or did they both evolve from some common ancestor?
 
Ender said:
Don’t take my comment as a statement that whales didn’t evolve, only that this cladogram makes no claim of direct ancestry in their evolution. Did the odontocetes evolve from the mysticetes or did they both evolve from some common ancestor?
Click to expand...
You are correct. When we find a fossil there is no way to tell a) if it had any offspring and b) if any offspring themselves had descendants. Hence we can never be certain if one species is directly ancestral to another. All we can say is that the two are closely related. Hence the blank points on the diagram. It may be that some of the known species are actually the common ancestor, but we cannot be certain of that, so the scientists are cautious about what they claim.

Scientists do not like making false claims, so in this case all they are claiming is a close relationship not direct descent. The diagram shows the degree of closeness in the relationships. Just as we are more like chimpanzees than we are like monkeys, and we are more like monkeys than we are like wolves:
Code: 
--+-- Wolf
  |
  +--+-- Monkey
     |
     +--+-- Chimpanzee
        |
        +-- Human
rossum
 
ricmat said:
barbarian nastiness alert ]
Click to expand...
Hardly nastiness. He is giving good advice about how to improve the effectiveness of Memaw’s arguments. By confusing monkeys and apes, Memaw is showing a lack of basic knowledge in the area of human evolution. Suggesting a remedy to that lack is good advice, and will lead to better arguments.

At a basic level monkeys have tails while apes do not. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, but evolved from apes - we do not have tails. Confusing the two is an elementary error; making such a mistake does not impress those of us with some biological knowledge.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Hardly nastiness. He is giving good advice about how to improve the effectiveness of Memaw’s arguments. By confusing monkeys and apes, Memaw is showing a lack of basic knowledge in the area of human evolution. Suggesting a remedy to that lack is good advice, and will lead to better arguments.

At a basic level monkeys have tails while apes do not. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, but evolved from apes - we do not have tails. Confusing the two is an elementary error; making such a mistake does not impress those of us with some biological knowledge.

rossum
Click to expand...
As I said previously, it’s not the facts but the attitude in B’s posts (and some others) that are nasty. The same thing could have been said in a charitable way, as you yourself did above, so we all know that it’s possible 🙂

Uncharitable posts just incite more uncharitable posts in both directions. And condescension, rudeness, and the like may impress others with some biological knowledge, but it doesn’t impress the people you’re trying to convince.

And I’d like to point out that in the common jargon, “monkeys” often include “apes”, even if that isn’t biologically accurate. Rather than address Memaw’s point about museums putting posters on walls showing the “fact” of evolution (be it from apes or monkeys isn’t critical), B jumped all over the ape is not a monkey thing…the only point of which would be to humiliate Memaw. Sorry, I don’t think that’s charitable.
 
rossum said:
Hence we can never be certain if one species is directly ancestral to another. All we can say is that the two are closely related.
Click to expand...
This is interesting: does this mean that the missing links will forever be missing? What exactly do you mean by directly ancestral: directly in time as in “species A begat species B” or in direct lineal descent as in " species A begat begat begat… species B"? I assume you mean science can’t distinguish between grandchildren and first cousins twice removed.

Ender
 
Today 5:08 am
The Barbarian (someone claimed evolutionary theory says man evolved from monkeys)

Originally Posted by drpmjhess

Quote:
I’ve never heard a scientist claim this. Where did you read it?

Meemaw replies:
OH come on now, where have you been for the last 100 years.? There’s even a chart on the wall of our famous Zoo, in the primate sections showing how man evolved from ape.

You think apes are monkeys? No wonder you’re confused. Wouldn’t you be more effective against science if you knew what it was?

Quote:
Teaching our children as tho this was fact instead of guesswork.

Would you be happier if we said it was “virtually certain?”
Today 4:57 am
elt1956 I agree. We must be very careful in what we expose children to, especially very young children. What a very young child see, hears, touchs, tastes and smells forms the foundation for the child’s character and personality.
Today 3:46 am
Memaw Quote:
Originally Posted by drpmjhess
I’ve never heard a scientist claim this. Where did you read it?

OH come on now, where have you been for the last 100 years.? There’s even a chart on the wall of our famous Zoo, in the primate sections showing how man evolved from ape. Teaching our children as tho this was fact instead of guesswork. They say a picture is worth 1,000 words. and stays in the mind better.

PHILIPP: Meemaw is abolutely correct. Zoos and text books have always used this type of propaganda to promote the fairy tale of evolution of life to our children and students of all ages that our ancestors were some type of ape from which man evolved. The TE folks have been saying the same thing [a thesitic twist] at least since the 1960’s that we as Catholics can believe this actually happened as long as we accept that God enfused a soul into this evolving creature. I heard this from a priest/theologian from Georgetown University on radio and was so impressed that I never doubted it until many years later when I read Emmanuel Velikovski’s books on earth catastrophisms [an Jewish agnostic who was badly treated by the evol ones of his day]; and, the book by Fr. Patrick O’Connell entitled “Science of Today and, The Problems of Genesis.” Fr. O’Connell received the Nihil Ogstat from Joannes McCormac censor Deputatus 14, April 1959 and Imprimatur Joannes Kyne Episcopus Midensis 18 April 1959. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles on October 11, 1968 said: “—informs us that you do not require and additional “imprimature” regarding this foreward with your already published book” – secretary to the Cardinal, archdiocese of Los Angeles. I have the 1969 book by this beloved missionaary to China and we later corresponded. I tell you all this because this priest/physicist was in China during Teilhard Chardin’s activities with the Peking Man bones which were actually that of known apes which were used as a source of protein by the local Chinese [in other words these famous bones were used as food as we do cattle and pigs]; the bones eventuallly disappeared. It’s a long story but Dr. O’Connell also blew the whistle on Chardin’s escapades with the other fraud “The Piltdown Man” that was used for 40 years as the best evidence of man’s evolution. The jist of his book is believe Genesis 1-11 including the flood of Noah and not the propaganda of evolutionists whether ET or TE’s. His “classic” has been reproduced by Tan publishing; a must reading to the background for all those most un-impressive lineup of skulls shown on this thread by Phil Vas [just more propaganda]. I would also recommend a book by Marvin L. Lubenow entitled “Bones of Contention” a creationist assessment of human fossils – from www.icr.org. Gerry Keane, a Catholic from Australia has also produced an excellent book entitled, “Creation Rediscovered” also from Tam, that’s one reason the TE’S/ET’s on this thread do not like Tam. www.kolbecenter for Mr. Keane’s book].

I’ve mentioned in previous comments on this thread that radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones, fossil wood and amber proves that the alleged 40,000,000 years to 600,000,000 rears for the age of the sedimentary rock formations is as much a fairy tale as that for our alleged ancestors. I willl not belabor the point and just give a few web sites for your to review Of course be ready for the usual smear tactics by the residents TE’S/ET’s on this thread because many of these web sites take Genesis 1-11 literallykl not as this thread’s resident theologian, Christ and the Church fathers seriously. Also the big reason you can date the fossils with radiocarbon [up to 12 to 15 half lives or ~80,000 years is because these fossils are NOT millions and millions and millions of years old —Cremo and others who have fallen for ET’s fairy tales take notice. www.earthage.org [fossil trees etc]
www.kolbecenter.org [great book reviews etc] www.geology.ref.ac/berthault/ [sedimentology research] www.omniology.com [lots of great photos with captions] just to name a few. I just wish that the folks this thread’s resident theolgian will shrotly be propagandizing would get to see the photos and captions on www.omniology.com before he spoke. Man would that be an intereting meeting!

God bless and have a good day.
 
Ender said:
This is interesting: does this mean that the missing links will forever be missing? What exactly do you mean by directly ancestral: directly in time as in “species A begat species B” or in direct lineal descent as in " species A begat begat begat… species B"? I assume you mean science can’t distinguish between grandchildren and first cousins twice removed.

Ender
Click to expand...
I think it means that both A an B have alimentary canals.
 
Philipp,

This is very interesting, - from your post; omniology.com/A-LittleFish.html

" …Chen enjoys seeing his fossils get the attention. But to him, the big story is not that he has discovered our earliest traceable ancestor but that the Cambrian explosion of new body plans is proving to be real, not an illusion produced by an incomplete fossil record.

Because new animal groups did not continue to appear after the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, he believes that a unique kind of evolution was going on in Cambrian seas. And, because his years of examining rocks from before the Cambrian period has not turned up viable ancestors for the Cambrian animal groups, he concludes that their evolution must have happened quickly, within a mere 2 or 3 million years.

According to Chen, the two main forces of evolution espoused by neoDarwinism, natural selection (“survival of the fittest”) and random genetic mutation, cannot account for the sudden emergence of so many new genetic forms."
 
REGARDING THOSE ARTISITIC RENDERING OF WHALE EVOLUTION INTERMEDIARIES by Phil V:

All of the following features “appear” in the whale without precursors in the land mammals from which the whale is supposed to have evolved. Everyone enjoys fairy tales, but not in a biology forum.

• Counter current heat exchanger for intra-abdominal testes

• Dorsal fin

• Ball vertebra

• Tail flukes and musculature

• Blubber

• Baleen plates

• Modified eyes

• Cartilaginous supports for trachea and lungs

• Ability to drink sea water

• Nurse young underwater

• Forelimbs transformed into flippers (and polydactyly)

• Loss of hind limbs

• Reduction/modification of pelvis

On another point with regards Adam and Eve:

The 1909 PBC decrees on Adam and Eve are still binding. They have never been abrogated as some TE’s claim our resident theologian etc would never say that; he of course most certainly would know better. Cardinal Schonborn’s speculations do not have any magisterial authority. If Phil Vaz or someone has also shown him those pictures of whale evolution in a PP presentation Der Kardinal must be just to busy to ask questions or he just likes to speculate about origins like other ET’s or TE’s.
😃 But is that hard science? I don’t think so. That’s just EVOLUTIONISM.
 
reggieM said:
Wolseley,

If it’s any consolation, I could see very clearly what was going on with all of that.

In many ways, I agree. But I think it’s also good to offer this painful experience to Our Lord – He sees the difficulty and He can change things. You were right to offer prayers. It’s only by grace that light will reach some minds.

All of this is true. But I think we can also benefit by observing the nature of the closed mind. Not in arguing with it – because that is futile, as you said. But by questioning it and probing the closed mind to try to find out why it has attached itself to things that are false, and with such passion that it cannot move. Why the cover-ups of significant flaws in evolutionary theory? Why the fear of admitting the problems? Why the intense knee-jerk defenses and the attacks, ridicule and unChristian attitudes?

I think part of it comes from people who have an irrational hatred of Protestant fundamentalism. Perhaps there are converts to Catholicism who wanted to be free from rigid fundamentalist views on science. So anything that even hints at their old faith is considered hateful and the subject of ridicule.

Perhaps others want to be considered sophisticated Catholics. They want to be praised by atheistic scientists, who they secretly admire because they’re “so intelligent” and “witty”, etc.

But there are other reasons why minds are closed against any doubts about evolutionary theory. Personally, I think it’s good to explore those reasons. Why do people adhere to this theory with such an intense passion – while at the same time claiming that it is as benign as ideas on plumbing?

I think some people also think that science will come to a halt if “creationists” win a battle and silence evolution (if that were even remotely possible). Perhaps they think that scientists have used evolutionary theory to invent cures for sickness – and all of this is threatened by doubts about evolutionary theory. Of course, there are many arguments that refute these fears, but the point is – minds will be closed, and usually fear is a good means of keeping them closed.

Exactly. I’ve seen it many times. The more erroneous they are in their belief, the more ridicule and animosity they spew out.

I’ve tried that also and found it to be even more impossible than fundamentalists.

My interest here was in the hope that there would be much more common ground. I can argue with atheists about evolution any day of the week – endlessly. But there’s no common agreement on our Creator at all so it’s all skepticism and ridicule of even the most basic concepts that we understand through faith.

So, I assumed that discussions with fellow Catholics would at least not end in the sophistry and ridicule that one would find among non-believers.

But such is not the case.

Again, agreed – but I hope you’ll be back.
Click to expand...
Maybe their brains have not evolved enough to be open minded. Yes, please stick around, we need you.
 
The_Barbarian said:
(someone claimed evolutionary theory says man evolved from monkeys)

Originally Posted by drpmjhess

Memaw replies:
OH come on now, where have you been for the last 100 years.? There’s even a chart on the wall of our famous Zoo, in the primate sections showing how man evolved from ape.

You think apes are monkeys? No wonder you’re confused. Wouldn’t you be more effective against science if you knew what it was?

Would you be happier if we said it was “virtually certain?” 😃
Click to expand...
Their all primates, we’re all just one big happy family, right. Personally I’d rather be a monkey, they can swing in the trees.
Why do they call the movie “The Monkey Trial”???
Oh by the way, you CAN"T call it virtually certain" because you are NOT.
 
Ender said:
I assume you mean science can’t distinguish between grandchildren and first cousins twice removed.
Click to expand...
In effect yes. We can establish degrees of relatedness in two ways, by looking at morphology - gorillas are obviously more closely related to monkeys than they are to sunflowers - and by looking at DNA. One of the confirmations of evolution is the excellent match between the two trees drawn up by these two different methods. Neither of these give us enough resolution when looking at fossils. We can tell that we are closer to Chimps than to Gorillas, but for all the species in between (Australopithecines and extinct Homo) we only have bones and generally no DNA. We do have some fragmentary Neanderthal DNA but nowhere near a complete genome.

In a very few cases (e.g. Gould’s study of the snail Cerion) we do have enough data to say that one species did evolve directly into a second species, but unfortunately marine snails are about the best we can do. Anything with hard parts in a shallow marine environment is quite likely to fossilise and quite likely to be found. Those two conditions do not always obtain.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top