E
edwest2
Guest
It’s just the truth. Everything got here on its own. Period. That’s what the theory says.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
- Status
I
inthecloud
Guest
Neo Darwinism is not the same as Darwin Theory of Evolution.
The NeoDarwinists are atheistic or deistic by choice like Dawkins. They say evolution is totaly ramdom because there is no God to give it a purpose.
That do not disqualifies evolution per se. Is their philosophical ideas about evolition that are atheistic not evolution.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Well nice try as they say. Its frustration Reggie at the absurdity of having to bother refuting this to a Catholic. One expects to do such things with unschooled, unchurched fundamentalists who lay out this dismal diatribe of rhetoric lacking all scientific force, but it mightily tees me off to have my Church portrayed as so bufoonish as to adher to a YEC and creationist position. It does not and I resent your attempt to try to convince anyone that it does. That in a nutshell is the only motivating force.
I suggest that the only reason you reject it, and as you admit, stand in a clear overwhelming minority worldwide is that it indeed threatens your faith. Most people I would assume would look at that statement alone and conclude that maybe they are just wrong.Is this a “threat” to having my opinions accepted here or elsewhere? Yes, I think it would be since I reject some fundamental assumptions of mainstream science!!!
If you are met with resistence that you find more than should occur, it is not because we fear you are right, but that you will continue to convince those who are unthinking and also psychologically needy to adopt this stance as well. Fundamentalism, one should not have to even say, is a very serious threat in the world, and I see this stance as fundamentalism at its worse. We are lviing in a world where fundamentalist doctrines permeate the political landscape and contribute to tens of thousands of deaths per year. Fundeamentalism can and obviously does devolve on occasion result in violence to enforce the belief. While I doubt anyone is gonna start shooting over this issue, it is but symtomatic of a much greater and more dangerous issue…the type of mind that gravitates toward this kind of extremism.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
There is no such thing as materialistic evolution. There is evolution. The only people who say the theory is complete without God are atheists. It has nothing to do with the theory. I am prepared Ed to say this ad infinitum. Speak the truth. You avoid of course virtually everything by your obstinate refusal to use the quoting device to answer questions directly. I’ve seldom met such stubborn my way and only my way faith. The Church has accepted evolution as you well know, given to us by our Creator. You have admitted it 19 times, and now can’t get your way on I guess wanting your personal God statement included in textbooks. So you have decided to refute yourself…
O
Orogeny
Guest
Then you won’t have a problem showing us that in a textbook, will you. Oh, yeah. That’s right, I forgot. You don’t believe in backing up your absurd claims with actual citations, do you Ed?
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
So which is it? Fundamentalism leads to lots of death, a little death, or only maybe, occasionally sometimes?
Your appeal to emotion and fear, is not a rational response to the fact that a significant portion of the population of the United States does not believe in evolution. Your suggestion that all of them are psychologically needy or ready to kill someone is ludicrous.
God bless,
Ed
Your appeal to emotion and fear, is not a rational response to the fact that a significant portion of the population of the United States does not believe in evolution. Your suggestion that all of them are psychologically needy or ready to kill someone is ludicrous.
God bless,
Ed
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Ahhhh, so you now endorse some form of evolution such as common ancestry, you just agree with Schonborn that ID should be tacked on?
E
edwest2
Guest
Cardinal Schoenborn is rightly skeptical of common descent, which he indicates “might be true.” All I’m seeing from you and The Barbarian is a constant promotion of just say yes to evolution.
I am not interested in the political version of ID.
God bless,
Ed
I am not interested in the political version of ID.
God bless,
Ed
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Ed, I really don’t think you can read correctly. Your new friend Cardinal Shonborn has said this:
Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with “creationism.” But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements - I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it - is called “fundamentalism.” Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools. But it is an entirely different matter when certain people would like to see the schools deal with the critical questions that have been raised with regard to Darwinism; they have a reasonable and legitimate concern.
The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that “one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.” It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of “creationism” and “fundamentalism” for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.
Sometimes the way in which the scientific method excludes any divine intervention is called “methodological atheism.” I do not see it that way; this excluding is simply authentic scientific method and has nothing to do with atheism. The scientific method should not assume a watchmaker who intervenes; it searches for the explanation of mechanisms, connections, causal relations, and events.
So your perceived poster boy for creationism sadly disagrees with your YEC claims Ed. what have you to say?
The quotes come from Phil’s link btw.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
But it is true Ed, and you agreed that it was 19 times. Shall we pull up the old posts and show everyone what you have said?
E
edwest2
Guest
My friend, Cardinal Schoenborn has said everything perfectly.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Well it surely amazes me when black and white words cannot be correctly read and they are by no means difficult either. I conclude that perhaps some person or persons genuinely cannot understand the discussion and cannot understand the plain import of the words spoken. It is the only conclusion I can reach.
Ed explain why Shonborn is your new friend when he explicitely says forgive me…you are pretty much crazy if you think that a YEC approach is correct.? How do you avoid that problem? Just turn a blind eye? Your reading of his remarks about evolution have been shown to be incorrect time and again, you never refute it, just restate your same tired statements backed up with nothing but your one badly understood article and your word that its all true as you say.
Reggie, You continue to refuse to do the same thing. Its there in black and white and you give it a completely new interpretation.
Why oh why do you both need evolution not to be true? If either of you had a degree in evolutionary biology, perhaps we might listen, but goodness, you cut and paste arguments you don’t even understand and refuse to accept explanations given you by those who do, and continue to claim you are more aware of this information that any real scientist. This can only suggest you need evolution to be false for a reason. Ed has made it clear why for him…he believes against all evidence that YEC is the correct idea. But you have yet to explain yourself.
Ed explain why Shonborn is your new friend when he explicitely says forgive me…you are pretty much crazy if you think that a YEC approach is correct.? How do you avoid that problem? Just turn a blind eye? Your reading of his remarks about evolution have been shown to be incorrect time and again, you never refute it, just restate your same tired statements backed up with nothing but your one badly understood article and your word that its all true as you say.
Reggie, You continue to refuse to do the same thing. Its there in black and white and you give it a completely new interpretation.
Why oh why do you both need evolution not to be true? If either of you had a degree in evolutionary biology, perhaps we might listen, but goodness, you cut and paste arguments you don’t even understand and refuse to accept explanations given you by those who do, and continue to claim you are more aware of this information that any real scientist. This can only suggest you need evolution to be false for a reason. Ed has made it clear why for him…he believes against all evidence that YEC is the correct idea. But you have yet to explain yourself.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Actually he’s done a pretty good job. The question is why won’t you accept it?
It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers.
What part of the above are you unable to grasp? Have I not been telling you this for 3 months or more? And you poopooed it as mere sensationalistic argument. How can you parse the dear Cardiinal so Ed?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
True. NeoDarwinism is usually called “The Modern Synthesis:”
**The modern evolutionary synthesis refers to a set of ideas from several biological specialities that were brought together to form a unified theory of evolution accepted by the great majority of working biologists. This synthesis was produced over a period of about a decade (1936–1947) and was closely connected with the development from 1918 to 1932 of the discipline of population genetics, which integrated the theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics.
Julian Huxley invented the term, when he summarised the ideas in his book, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis in 1942. Though the ‘Modern Synthesis’ is the basis of current evolutionary thinking, it refers to a historical event that took place in the 1930s and 1940s. Major figures in the development of the modern synthesis include R. A. Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, Sergei Chetverikov, George Gaylord Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins.**
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
Note that among others, Dobzhans was a devout Christian. Wright was a Unitarian theist.
I think decency, at least, would require to you apologize for your false witness against Dobzhansky amd Wright.
I think now is the time to show us where in the theory it says that. Do you see how absurd it is, to claim that theists would say that?
As you see, you were wrong. Will you have enough backbone to retract your false accusations?
E
edwest2
Guest
Do you have a degree in evolutionary biology?
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
O
Orogeny
Guest
To whom are you asking that question, Ed? It really helps if you indicate the target of your responses.
Peace
Tim
ps - What degree do you have, Ed?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
One of my degrees is in biological science. I have enough credits for majors in zoology and bacteriology, and enough for minors in entomology and botany. I also have a minor in chemistry.
I’ve taken a few courses in evolution, but mostly I learned about it in graduate school, from reading the literature. I’m not impressed with credentials, however. If you’re a mechanic, and know the material, (and I know someone like that) you have my respect. If you have a PhD, and don’t know what you’re talking about, I’m not impressed.
A
Aramis
Guest
Sorry, Ed, but it’s merely abject paranoia on your part.
Heck, schools don’t ask what you believe, only if you will teach what is in the curriculum.
Church teaching (but not doctrine nor dogma, yet) is that Evolution is Gods chosen method for the creation of Man, and that the Soul was added later.
Now, church Doctrine DOES include that the soul is not a product of Evolution. Doesn’t say the body isn’t.
Science says God is not provable in the lab by known methods at this time.
Some scientists claim there is no god; I’ve never met one of these. Others claim there must be some form of primal creator, but that the Christian God may or may not be it (I’ve met a few of these). Many others are Christians of a variety of denominations. In my studies, the only atheists I’ve known have been social sciences types and non-college graduates. Faith in something (even if it is only in a divine principle) is rather common.
But one other thing to think about, Ed: You’re bordering on calling the Pope a heretic. Me, I find that repugnant and offensive.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Seriously, syllogistically, you don’t really think you have proven anything ? You cannot be this naive. You said you were some sort of writer didnt you? Come on, fess up. What is the real point here Ed?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Exactly how many times need it be explained to you. Evolution does not tell you anything about everything getting here on its own.You know better. It tells you how life evolved over time. Nothing more. Why do you willfully again and again and again and again mistate the truth?
WHY CANT YOU HWVE EVOLUTION IN YOUR WORLD ED? WHAT IS GONNA HAPPEN IF ITS TRUE?
- Status