R
rtconstant
Guest
No I did not.
- Status
D
drpmjhess
Guest
This doesn’t follow. All creatures have souls, but not all creatures are human.
R
rtconstant
Guest
If the human soul was present in the first organism then that organism was human. The human soul united to physical form makes a human. If the human soul was present in the original organism then that organism was human. If the first organism was human then all creatures are descended from Man.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
You did say that, in post # 215: “It is clear that God while seperate from His creation still sees Himself in it and desires us to do the same.”
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
No I asked if all theories of science that you accept…are they all reproducible in the lab? That was the question. You stated they were I believe…and you claimed I assume that that is what evolutionary theory can’t do? Correct?
D
drpmjhess
Guest
The first organism did not have a human soul; it had the soul proper to its nature. Subsequent life forms had souls appropriate to their developing natures.
R
rtconstant
Guest
I had to re-read that and then I had to wonder why you would even bother to post that. I’ll answer you with a question. When you look into a mirror do you think you and the room you’re in are really honest to God recreated and substantiated within the glass? Further does this mean that the mirror is now superior to you since you are captured within it? If you answer no to both question (and you should) then I’ll consider this line of argument closed.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
here’s what I don’t get in a nutshell. You say you are not a creationist. YOu do believe in some form of evolution, but I guess yuou think God was involved in a real hands on way in tweaking things regularly. I believe God created all the laws of the universe and created all that is. I do not agree he tinkered because I believe it was set to do exactly as God intended without further interference of any kind.
Now, assuming your faith is not based on which of the above two is actually true…Stop here if so…then my problem is simply this:
You are not a scientist, neither am I. I rely on scientists to explain the world from their perspective. The church explains form a different perspective, and helps me see how the two blend. If ID turns out to be something good, then great, but I’m still trusting people who know in favor of those who have an agenda that has nothing to do with truth except in the narrow way they think of it. So I’m indifferent to which turns out true. When people who are not scientists choose to argue the “science,” and support efforts not considered science by scientists, I become rather suspicious they have some other issue. They are not responding in a purely intellectual manner, but have a desire for something to be true and that colors how they view things. That is a large nutshell is where I come down.
R
rtconstant
Guest
So then you actually agree with:
Or do you believe that the soul itself is a product of the evolutionary process? Not so much something immortal and spiritual and God like but instead a biological construct?
R
ricmat
Guest
I’m not following your post above.
Certainly evolution has not evolved a complex form of life from a simple form of life in the lab. Never. But this is really a side point as my main argument concerns the time line. And as a refresher, I want to repeat that I believe that 99.99% of what evolution says happens, actually happens. What I disagree with is that it can happen in only 4 billion years without “guidance.”
Let me try a lawyer example. Pretend that you are a public defender, and your next assignment is a triple murder case. The claim is that your client murdered e.g. the president of Russia in Moscow, the president of South Africa in Capetown, and the prime minister of Australia in Sydney. The evidence is that your client was caught on live TV in all 3 cases. He was personally identified by hundreds of bystanders in all 3 cases. He left DNA evidence at all 3 scenes. He was caught at home later on. Everybody knows he’s guilty. It’s a slam dunk. You’d have to be an idiot to contest the case. But…
It turns out that all 3 murders took place within 1 minute of each other, between 09:00 and 09:01 GMT. Would you say that the time line is irrelevant?
D
drpmjhess
Guest
How is your mirror analogy relevant?
W
wildleafblower
Guest
(msg. 220)
WASHINGTON – The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Institute of Medicine (IOM) today released SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM, a book designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom. Recent advances in science and medicine, along with an abundance of observations and experiments over the past 150 years, have reinforced evolution’s role as the central organizing principle of modern biology, said the committee that wrote the book.wildleafblower;3163497 said:(msg. 79) Let’s get serious!
Date: Jan. 3, 2008
Contact: Maureen O’Leary, Director of Public Information
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail news@nas.edu
Scientific Evidence Supporting Evolution Continues To Grow; Nonscientific Approaches Do Not Belong In Science Classrooms
“SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM provides the public with coherent explanations and concrete examples of the science of evolution,” said NAS President Ralph Cicerone. “The study of evolution remains one of the most active, robust, and useful fields in science.”
[snip]
Over very long periods of time, the same processes that enable evolution to occur within species also can result in the appearance of new species. The formation of a new species generally takes place when one subgroup within a species mates for an extended period largely within that subgroup, often following geographical separation from other members of the species. If such reproductive isolation continues, members of the subgroup may no longer respond to courtship from members of the original population. Eventually, genetic changes become so substantial that members of different subgroups can no longer produce viable offspring. In this way, new species can continually “bud off” of existing species.
Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, opponents have repeatedly tried to introduce nonscientific views into public school science classes through the teaching of various forms of creationism or intelligent design. In 2005, a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, concluded that the teaching of intelligent design is unconstitutional because it is based on religious conviction, not science (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District). NAS and IOM strongly maintain that only scientifically based explanations and evidence for the diversity of life should be included in public school science courses. “Teaching creationist ideas in science class confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not,” the committee stated.
[snip]
www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11876
A summary of the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism by the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES and INSTITUE OF MEDICINE in pdf form:
books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf
http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS has made available online
**Science, Evolution, and Creationism **(2008)
books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=R1
Complementary to the above which I posted a while back, read:
**The dangers of creationism in education **
Report by Committee on Culture, Science and Education
from the Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe:
[snip]
assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?
link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm#P362_70012
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm#P362_70012
Best to read both documents in their entirety to better understand the full scope of the dangers of creationism in education and about creationists.
Thank you.
Sorry, my original posting of msg. 220 had a url that wasn’t working. I’ve corrected it now. Can we please stay on topic about the National Academies book, regarding science issues. I’d appreciate it.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Souls are emergent properties that come with increasing neural complexity. They are not “inserted into” bodies.
R
ricmat
Guest
My faith does not depend on the outcome of these discussions, or which form of evolution might be true.
Spritmeadow,
- I’m not arguing ID here. I’m asking the “unguided” theory of evolution to explain itself (with the help of its converts).
- I’m an engineer. I’m well trained in science.
- I’ve asked for evidence that the time line makes sense. That’s a very “intellectual” (your word) thing to ask for, and very reasonable. It’s something that an engineer (especially a manager) would be more likely to ask for than a scientist, but it is nonetheless a killer if it can’t be substantiated.
- Other people may have other issues. I’m not defending them, although when creationists come up against (e.g.) atheists, we’re on the same side then, and I’ll post things which support the idea of “God involved somehow.” I do tend to argue with folks that say evolution is perfect. We know it all. You must accept it as fact. You’re an idiot if you don’t accept it. etc.
- You don’t come across at all as indifferent to which form of evolution is true. You come across as a radical jihadist (well, sort of) as do many of those who believe in unguided evolution.
- You have bought into (or been brainwashed into) believing that science is a monolithic entity, and that all scientists think alike. That is incorrect. Not all the experts in every field think alike.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
You’ve made your first fundamental error (pun intended). ID is a religion; evolutionary theory is a science. Do you know how you can tell the difference?
It’s always nice to see a creationist who understands science. Just so we know, how about telling us the basic points of Darwin’s theory, and how it was modified to form the modern theory?
Sorting of transitional fossils in the rocks. Each turns up no sooner than would happen if common descent was true. Haldane once observed that evolutionary theory could be easily refuted by the fossil of a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian rocks. Yet nothing like that ever happens.
DNA and molecular analyses, showing that the same data tha shows relationships among people, also shows the relationships among all living things.
Radioisotope analyses of rocks (first performed by physicists who had no idea how old the rocks were) that shows billions of years of Earth history.
That sort of thing.
Moot point, um?
You guys seem to be a rather paranoid bunch. Has anyone ever actually said any of that on this forum?
Calling names seems to be a problem, yes. But I’m not sure calling people “radical jihadists” is good, if you want to be seen as something other than a fanatic.
Some here actually said that? Or did you just make the accusation to seem more trustworthy?
The last world-class biologist who doubted Darwinian theory died about 1900. (Agassiz)
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
It is scientifically impossible to make any sort of judgement about that. Theologically, it is something of a mystery as to how it happens.
Pope John Paul II did assert that the soul is not a “mere epiphenomenon” of the mind or body. But of course, an epiphenomenon could be one of the attributes of a soul. It stands to reason, though, that an immortal soul cannot be only a consequence of a perishable biological entity.
R
ricmat
Guest
Barbarian, thank you for substantiating most of my points.
I’m looking for the ground-up time estimate. Given you know how evolution works, you should be able to come up with it from knowing how it works.
Then I said to Spiritmeadow:
You have bought into (or been brainwashed into) believing that science is a monolithic entity, and that all scientists think alike.
to which Barbarian responded:
Some here actually said that? Or did you just make the accusation to seem more trustworthy?
and then Barbarian continued on…
The last world-class biologist who doubted Darwinian theory died about 1900. (Agassiz)
Thank you, thank you.
- I said that I wasn’t arguing ID. You brought it up anyway. And continue on with an insult.
- You’ve declared that I’m a creationist. Right after I said that I believe in 99.99% of what evolution says is true.
- I’ve already explained that the time line I’m looking for is not the kind I illustrated in post 203 to Orogeny. You have answered it in the same wah. From post 203:
I’m looking for the ground-up time estimate. Given you know how evolution works, you should be able to come up with it from knowing how it works.
Then I said to Spiritmeadow:
You have bought into (or been brainwashed into) believing that science is a monolithic entity, and that all scientists think alike.
to which Barbarian responded:
Some here actually said that? Or did you just make the accusation to seem more trustworthy?
and then Barbarian continued on…
The last world-class biologist who doubted Darwinian theory died about 1900. (Agassiz)
Thank you, thank you.
R
rtconstant
Guest
Because in order draw what you did from what I said you must believe the above analogy. If you do not then I can only assume that either you don’t comprehend what I wrote or you are deliberately being obtuse.
If it is the former I’m not sure how to be any clearer. If it is the later then I’m not sure what you think you’re gaining from it but I won’t help you get there.
R
rtconstant
Guest
Interesting. From what authority do you draw that conclusion? I’m not sure where one would gather that concept in either Sacred Scripture and Tradition or in Science?
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Hi ricmat
I hope Barbarian won’t mind me jumping in by giving my :twocents: worth pertaining to this specific comment of yours. Perhaps this will be of service to you. Please review the following document:
**The dangers of creationism in education **
Report by Committee on Culture, Science and Education
from the Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe
8 June 2007:
[If you scroll down the document to **Evolution you’ll find a portion of what it says:]
*28. One of the discoveries that has been made in the study of our planet and has been confirmed many times, is the dating of the major events that have marked its development:
- the solar system, which includes the Earth, was formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago;
- life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago (in the form of unicellular bacteria);
- about 200 million years ago Pangea began to split up to form the continents we know today;
- homo sapiens, ie human beings, emerged between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm#P362_70012
You will have to insert into your address bar the url that I’ve provided to view the document. I’m still having problems as you can note from my previous post trying to automatically activate it from Catholic.com’s site. Sorry.
- Status