Little beginner article on "existence of God"

[R_McGeddon]

Darwin is outdated.

Christianity is 2000 years old, so how outdated is that then?

We know a lot more now then they did back then about science and biology.

Yes and it backs up Darwin’s “outdated” thoughts.

I would suggest you let Darwin’s stuff collect dust as a reference material from the 19th century.

I suggest the same for the bible.

But more relevant, why is it that we have to use “secular sources?” Why can’t a person use well respected Christian scientists, zoologists, anthropologists, etc and quote their work?

Probably because secular sources don’t have a faith to get in the way of their studies and research.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

And if we are so concerned with using secular research…then there’s some inconsistency because:

1. Gregor Mendel, a Catholic monk, is still known as the “Father of Modern Genetics” You’ve probably heard of him and studied his work in public high school.
2. Nicholas Copernicus, a Catholic monk, who was an early (before Galileo) proponent of heliocentrism and astronomy saw major advances due to his work.

For brevity, I’ll stop there. Obviously, we’ve made major strides in understanding since then. And more work is yet to be done. For instance, we still have to type on a keyboard (how outdated is that?) But for a person to say that we can’t refer to works of Christians in their field, it’s humorous to say the least.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Well nobody has gave me a link to a “little beginner article on the existence of God.”

Something that I could use at a 7th grade level. It’s sort of difficult for me to take my college age stuff and the scholastics and distill it down. Looks like I’m on my own though and will have to do it myself.

Honestly, I’m not into all the science. I’m more into the philosophy. To me, proving the existence of God by science is sort of irrelevant.

It’s more a philosophical category, though science has a part to play in the natural side of things, and that’s important in it’s way.

And yes, a person’s scientific method follows any various philosophical outlook that may be held by the scientists that ask the questions “why?” and “how?”

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Christianity is 2000 years old, so how outdated is that then?
Yes and it backs up Darwin’s “outdated” thoughts.
I suggest the same for the bible.
Probably because secular sources don’t have a faith to get in the way of their studies and research.

Well I apologize if I got you upset.

I see this may be an opportunity for me to learn a little about a particular theory of evolution. Also I’ve got a couple questions and maybe you would humour them. Might as well take the opportunity to learn since it sounds like you hold to some style of evolutionary thought.

If you would, would you please take a moment and explain basically what you believe regarding evolution? I won’t slam it, though I can’t speak for others here, but I’m hoping maybe you could help answer a couple questions.

 

[ribozyme]

And if we are so concerned with using secular research…then there’s some inconsistency because:

1. Gregor Mendel, a Catholic monk, is still known as the “Father of Modern Genetics” You’ve probably heard of him and studied his work in public high school.
2. Nicholas Copernicus, a Catholic monk, who was an early (before Galileo) proponent of heliocentrism and astronomy saw major advances due to his work.

For brevity, I’ll stop there. Obviously, we’ve made major strides in understanding since then. And more work is yet to be done. For instance, we still have to type on a keyboard (how outdated is that?) But for a person to say that we can’t refer to works of Christians in their field, it’s humorous to say the least.

Most of the scientists today are atheists.

My sources are not outdated, most of the journal articles (in Nature, PNAS, or Science) I have read are less than two decades old.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Most of the scientists today are atheists.

My sources are not outdated, most of the journal articles (in Nature, PNAS, or Science) I have read are less than two decades old.

Ok good.

Well, if you believe in some type of evolution from an atheist perspective, would you care to share generally what it is, and humour some questions?

It would be an opportunity for you to tell a Catholic who is interested in what you believe.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Well I apologize if I got you upset.

No need, I wasn’t upset.

If you would, would you please take a moment and explain basically what you believe regarding evolution? I won’t slam it, though I can’t speak for others here, but I’m hoping maybe you could help answer a couple questions.

I personally accept the current theory on evolution. For me it is the best explanation for life on Earth, as we know it today.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

No need, I wasn’t upset.
I personally accept the current theory on evolution. For me it is the best explanation for life on Earth, as we know it today.

Very well, then let me see if I can find a good description of it, and I can ask a couple questions if you don’t mind. Or start a new thread if that would be better. Or not…we’ll see.

Can you recommend a good read or an internet article that describes this theory? Like an evolutionary catechism of evolution and science?

I’ve got Darwins smash hit Origin of Species but as I understand, that’s old news now and science has moved on and reworked lots of his thinking.

 

[ribozyme]

Very well, then let me see if I can find a good description of it, and I can ask a couple questions if you don’t mind. Or start a new thread if that would be better. Or not…we’ll see.

Can you recommend a good read or an internet article that describes this theory? Like an evolutionary catechism of evolution and science?

I’ve got Darwins smash hit Origin of Species but as I understand, that’s old news now and science has moved on and reworked lots of his thinking.

Yes, biology has progressed since the Origin of Species Well, evolution is still alive and well; it has not been displaced by a better hypothesis. Some branches of the biological sciences such as biochemistry utilize evolutionary predictions. It is worth noting that biochemistry is a relatively new science; to put this in perspective Watson and Crick reported the structure of DNA in 1953; the Origin of Species published in 1859. Biochemistry supports evolution as many proteins of many species exhibit homology in the primary and tertiary structures with the corresponding protein present in other species.

Want to know about evolution, you should read this:

dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(99)80318-2

 

[R_McGeddon]

Very well, then let me see if I can find a good description of it, and I can ask a couple questions if you don’t mind. Or start a new thread if that would be better. Or not…we’ll see.

Can you recommend a good read or an internet article that describes this theory? Like an evolutionary catechism of evolution and science?

I’ve got Darwins smash hit Origin of Species but as I understand, that’s old news now and science has moved on and reworked lots of his thinking.

That link of ribozyme’s, you could also Google evolution as well. You’ll get millions of results to keep you occupied.

 

[ribozyme]

That link of ribozyme’s, you could also Google evolution as well. You’ll get millions of results to keep you occupied.

Sugar Ray and Reformed Rob, you should distribute to your students that paper I have linked here. Ask them if Gerald Joyce’s view of evolution is compatable with a God that actively participates in the universe.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Yes, biology has progressed since the Origin of Species Well, evolution is still alive and well;
Want to know about evolution, you should read this:

dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(99)80318-2

Thanks Ribozyme,

and R McGeddon (neat name)

I suppose that I should say, since maybe it has given you a wrong impression. Being a Catholic, my problem (and the Church’s contention) is not with evolution.

It’s atheistic evolution that the disagreement would be over.

I can believe in evolution. No problem. This thread was not about evolution until the topic came up. It was about the existence of God and some sort of help discussing it with younger kids because that’s not my forte’ so to speak. They may not be quiet ready for an ontological argument or a transcendental argument for God’s existence. So I was asking for help.

Thanks for the link about evolution, I’ll check it out

 

[Reformed_Rob]

…if Gerald Joyce’s view of evolution is compatable with a God that actively participates in the universe.

Yeah, I’ll keep that in mind when I read it thanks