Question for Evolution-believing Catholics

[Pjs2ejs]

To those who really believe in evolution (the “man from monkey” type):

1. A species can not evolve into another species. If you are born a horse, you will give birth to a horse. If you do crossbreed (which is not how evolution was supposed to have happened) and give birth to something else, it can’t reproduce.
2. No animal, plant, or any life form has evolved into anything other than itself, save an adaptation already in their DNA.
3. There is evidence of every type of animal over the last 3 Trillion years, yet there is no fossil evidence linking any species to another nor any evidence of a human or its form older than 20,000 years.
4. Mathematically, using the most conservative rates, the population growth tells us that humans could not have been around more than 20,000 to 30,000 years ago.
5. It’s your theory, prove it. The textbooks pretty much state it as fact. The governments won’t allow our theory. Just give us some evidence for your statements. We’ve been waiting since Darwin’s last book.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Pjs2ejs:

To those who really believe in evolution (the “man from monkey” type):

1. A species can not evolve into another species. If you are born a horse, you will give birth to a horse. If you do crossbreed (which is not how evolution was supposed to have happened) and give birth to something else, it can’t reproduce.
2. No animal, plant, or any life form has evolved into anything other than itself, save an adaptation already in their DNA.
3. There is evidence of every type of animal over the last 3 Trillion years, yet there is no fossil evidence linking any species to another nor any evidence of a human or its form older than 20,000 years.
4. Mathematically, using the most conservative rates, the population growth tells us that humans could not have been around more than 20,000 to 30,000 years ago.
5. It’s your theory, prove it. The textbooks pretty much state it as fact. The governments won’t allow our theory. Just give us some evidence for your statements. We’ve been waiting since Darwin’s last book.

First of all, no one claims that man descended from monkeys.

Secondly, you are the one making the declarative statements here – it’s up to you to prove them. For example, give us your evidence for this statement

there is no fossil evidence linking any species to another nor any evidence of a human or its form older than 20,000 years.

 

[Lost_Found]

As Catholics we are FREE to use our reasoning ability to decide on our own, whether we accept evolution. Personally, I’m Catholic and I don’t believe it. The science is cool but the math is out to lunch. Take the human brain - 10 billion brain cells ALL WORKING IN HARMONY. All the evolutioninsts have, is the fossil record, and proof of mutation. That’s it. But to go from 0 (that’s ZERO) cells, three billion years ago, to say 100 billion cells working in harmony with all of the bodily systems – via random mutation and natural selection, in three billion years??? Just a weeee lil’ accountability gap there ya think?? Ya think they might get off their arses and crank a few numbers for us (plug in the mutation/natural selection rates and give us the 0 to 100 billion breakdown please), because their accountability gap is massive. If you’re going to make an active/non-passive claim like that, ya better stop showing us dinosaurs and give some math proof!

I find it so much easier to believe that about 67 generations ago, someone by the name of Jesus “roamed the earth”, and he was EXACTLY WHOM HE SAID HE WAS And I believe him, in the exact sense that every last one of us has had to take the word of a loved one at some time in our lives. Takes a lot less faith than the 0 to 100 billion-cells-in-harmony-in 3-billion-years leap by a bunch of scientists looking to keep their jobs.

 

[zian]

Chipper:

You said stop reading “AnswersInGensis”. Actually I think that is a bad suggestion. As long as we read them in light of Catholic Teaching, then there shouldn’t be anything wrong with it.

In all actuality I used to live next to this place. It’s just south of Ft. Worth. It is really quite an eye opening experience, to see the fossil tracks of humans, right next to the dinosaur tracks, embedded in the limestone rock. They also had fossilized fingers, and a lot more cool stuff on display there. They are/were doing scientific experiments, to attempt to verify some of the Pre-Flood theories about the earth.

This place used to be called the “Creationist Museum”. I haven’t been there in probably 10 years or so, but the last time I was there, it was definately eye opening.

Regards,
Calvin

In a sense, I agree with Phil - some people probably ought not to read AnswersinGenesis, since they have no intention of analyzing their many claims against contrary information. In another sense, I agree with Calvin; people can go ahead and read AiG, etc, as long as they are willing to consider the same information from a scientific perspective (for which philosophical atheism is not required).

Is your “Creationist Museum” the Creation Evidences Museum of Carl Baugh? We had an extended thread on geology where this cropped up a few months back. Here are a couple of responses I made to claims of fossilized human artifacts, see here and here, but I’d recommend you at least browse the entire thread and check out some of the other links that were posted as well. The point is that the “evidence” is nothing of the sort, and we need to be talking about actual facts here, no matter how earnestly Carl Baugh feels about his “artifacts”.

 

[zian]

Pjs2ejs:

To those who really believe in evolution (the “man from monkey” type):

1. A species can not evolve into another species. If you are born a horse, you will give birth to a horse. If you do crossbreed (which is not how evolution was supposed to have happened) and give birth to something else, it can’t reproduce.
2. No animal, plant, or any life form has evolved into anything other than itself, save an adaptation already in their DNA.
3. There is evidence of every type of animal over the last 3 Trillion years, yet there is no fossil evidence linking any species to another nor any evidence of a human or its form older than 20,000 years.
4. Mathematically, using the most conservative rates, the population growth tells us that humans could not have been around more than 20,000 to 30,000 years ago.
5. It’s your theory, prove it. The textbooks pretty much state it as fact. The governments won’t allow our theory. Just give us some evidence for your statements. We’ve been waiting since Darwin’s last book.

In the first place, I do not believe in evolution; I accept evolution as the overarching paradigm that correlates mountains of evidence from biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, genetics, etc.

As for your claims, I direct you to the Talk Origins FAQ page. Every single one of your claims is addressed somewhere within these pages and their associated links, which frequently reference sources in the broader scientific literature. I suggest you read beyond the claims you’ve made here. If there is a particular issue you’re having trouble finding information on, let us know here. Each of these claims has been dealt with to some extent already in other threads in this forum.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Orogeny:

I believe God created everything. There is nothing about evolution that denies that. The theological questions, such as original sin or one set of parents are not as clear cut. The Church teaches that we must believe in an original set of parents. Were these two individuals specially created or were they the first two with immortal souls? I don’t know. Original sin came from those first parents and, since an animal without an immortal soul cannot sin, it would not be hard to argue that the first parents were the first ensouled animals. I am comfortable admitting that I don’t know all the answers and that, quite frankly, I don’t need all the answers.

Peace

Tim

That’s the reason why I don’t believs in evolution, one day two bipedal animals all of a sudden have souls and are subject to sin and damnation. Plus I really don’t think I came from some developing ape, which to date science still can’t connect us to.

 

[rossum]

Pjs2ejs:

To those who really believe in evolution (the “man from monkey” type):

I accept evolution because the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports it. If the evidence changes then my acceptance will change.

Your “man from monkey” comment just shows that you do not know much about evolution. Would it really have been too much trouble to have written “man from ape”? How can you criticise evolution effectively if you don’t know what evolution is?

Pjs2ejs:

1. A species can not evolve into another species.

Your source is wrong. See Observed instances of speciation.

Pjs2ejs:

1. No animal, plant, or any life form has evolved into anything other than itself, save an adaptation already in their DNA.

Your source is wrong, see the link above. Our DNA is not identical to our parents’ DNA. We each have about 100 to 150 differences, DNA that does not occur in either parent. The DNA copying process is very accurate, but it is not 100% accurate. Those 100 - 150 differences are the result. Some of those differences will be passed on to your descendants so they can be worked on by natural selection, genetic drift etc.

Pjs2ejs:

1. There is evidence of every type of animal over the last 3 Trillion years, yet there is no fossil evidence linking any species to another …

Your source is wrong. See the link I gave for #1. The universe is only about 14 billion years old. “3 trillion” puts you into Hindu creationist territory.

Pjs2ejs:

… nor any evidence of a human or its form older than 20,000 years.

Your source is wrong. The earliest remains of Homo sapiens are over 150,000 years old, see here. The earliest remains in Europe are about 35-40,000 years old. Depending on how you define “human” I could give earlier dates for different members of the genus Homo.

Pjs2ejs:

1. Mathematically, using the most conservative rates, the population growth tells us that humans could not have been around more than 20,000 to 30,000 years ago.

Unfortunately the mathematics of constant growth rates has no relation to reality since historical growth rates have been anything but constant. Extrapolating a steady growth rate backwards in time gives us absurdly low populations, “In 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world”! A steady growth rate ignores things like plagues and famines which reduce populations and the invention of agriculture or of sewerage systems which increase them. Population growth rates are rarely constant. See here for details.

Pjs2ejs:

1. It’s your theory, prove it.

Scientific theories are never “proved”, mathematical theorems are proved. Scientific theories are supported by evidence and will change as the evidence changes, just as the theory of gravity has changed. Have a read through the Talk Origins Archive to see an overview of the evidence supporting evolution.

Pjs2ejs:

The textbooks pretty much state it as fact.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Species change over time, that is a fact. For example insects have changed to aquire immunity to DDT, or bacteria have changed to become resistant to antibiotics. That is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for that fact. The textbooks are right.

Pjs2ejs:

Just give us some evidence for your statements.

Done, see the links in this post and also here. Now it is your turn to read it, and hopefully there will not be as many mistakes in your next post.

rossum

 

[Chipper]

PhilVaz:

… stop reading AnswersInGenesis, …
Phil P

Hey Phil,

I made a big ooooppppss. When I did a google on “Creationist Museum”, the above website is what popped up first. I thought the Creationist Museum had changed their name.

So in all actuality, I don’t know anything about AnswersInGenesis. A Little investigation shows that they aren’t the same after all.

So I apologize for saying it was alright to read these guys. Since I don’t know anything about that website.

Regards,
Calvin

 

[Chipper]

zian:

In a sense, I agree with Phil - some people probably ought not to read AnswersinGenesis, since they have no intention of analyzing their many claims against contrary information. In another sense, I agree with Calvin; people can go ahead and read AiG, etc, as long as they are willing to consider the same information from a scientific perspective (for which philosophical atheism is not required).

Hi Zian,

I made a mistake earlier about the AnswersInGenesis website. I thought Carl had changed his website, but apparently not so. I don’t know anything about the AnswersInGenesis philosophy.

zian:

Is your “Creationist Museum” the Creation Evidences Museum of Carl Baugh? We had an extended thread on geology where this cropped up a few months back. Here are a couple of responses I made to claims of fossilized human artifacts, see here and here, but I’d recommend you at least browse the entire thread and check out some of the other links that were posted as well. The point is that the “evidence” is nothing of the sort, and we need to be talking about actual facts here, no matter how earnestly Carl Baugh feels about his “artifacts”.

Yes the Creationist Museum is Carl Baugh’s. I read through some of the links you posted, and personally I see a lot of Ad-Hominen attacks. The minute people do that, well they have lost me. Since I hold to the old lawyer’s saying that “If you don’t have a case, then slander”. So when Ad-Hominem takes place, that means they have no case.

As I said earlier, I used to live in Ft. Worth, so I have personally viewed some of the evidence, not all of it. And it seems like most of the negative responses are from people who never saw the evidence. The footprints and the finger come out of a region that is literraly covered in dinosaur tracks. The Creationist Museum is located near the entrance of “Dinosaur Valley State Park”. You can go there and view all sorts of Huge Dinosaur trakcs embedded in the limestone, in the Paluxy River. There are many privataly owned entrances to various places along the Paluxy where you can view Dinosaur tracks too. So when these links attempt to negate the Human footprints by saying that secondary deposits later in time and secondary erosion formed them, well that’s ludicrous. Why don’t they say the same thing about all the dinosaur tracks? Also these Human footprints aren’t just one or two, there are a lot of footprints in the region. So when they analyze one or two, and don’t even mention the rest, of which some are extremely well formed, well then, they have just discredited themselves, in my eyes.

As for the Embedded coal artifacts, I don’t much about those. But to discredit Carl, for displaying these things is also ludicrous. This is a museum. He didn’t invent these things. He just displays them as anomalies. Of course he’s going to display them, the place is a museum of anomalous artifacts.

At any rate that’s enough for now. Since I don’t necessarily hold to either the Evolutionists, or the creationist(strict interpretation of)viewpoint right now. That is I believe God created everything, He even created evolutionary processes, but rather humans are part of that I don’t know right now. But these fossilized artifacts are intriguing to say the least.

Regards,
Calvin

 

[Orogeny]

Chipper:

As I said earlier, I used to live in Ft. Worth, so I have personally viewed some of the evidence, not all of it. And it seems like most of the negative responses are from people who never saw the evidence. The footprints and the finger come out of a region that is literraly covered in dinosaur tracks. The Creationist Museum is located near the entrance of “Dinosaur Valley State Park”. You can go there and view all sorts of Huge Dinosaur trakcs embedded in the limestone, in the Paluxy River. There are many privataly owned entrances to various places along the Paluxy where you can view Dinosaur tracks too. So when these links attempt to negate the Human footprints by saying that secondary deposits later in time and secondary erosion formed them, well that’s ludicrous. Why don’t they say the same thing about all the dinosaur tracks? Also these Human footprints aren’t just one or two, there are a lot of footprints in the region. So when they analyze one or two, and don’t even mention the rest, of which some are extremely well formed, well then, they have just discredited themselves, in my eyes.

There are no human footprints there. Those “human” tracks are other dinosaur tracks. This line of argument has been discredited by creationists themselves. icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=255
That link comes from the Institute of Creation Research. Guess which side of the topic they are on. That link was actually found on the Answers in Genesis web page under a section of arguments creationists shouldn’t use.

By the way, I have seen those “footprints” with my own eyes.

Peace

Tim

 

[Chipper]

Orogeny:

There are no human footprints there. Those “human” tracks are other dinosaur tracks. This line of argument has been discredited by creationists themselves. icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=255
That link comes from the Institute of Creation Research. Guess which side of the topic they are on. That link was actually found on the Answers in Genesis web page under a section of arguments creationists shouldn’t use.

By the way, I have seen those “footprints” with my own eyes.

Peace

Tim

I think you are rushing to a conclusion.

Once again they have resorted to veiled Ad_hominen attacks. They refuse to accept the evidence of the older cut out tracks. And they have had to invent an “Unknown dinosaur” to come up with the theory that these might be “Unknown dinosaur” footprints. So it seems to me that we have an Unknown dinosaur that runs around leaving impressions that look like human footprints. Can you picture an Unknown Dinosaur with feet like a human?

Also this quote from that link you gave. " …there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order." In other words their research is inconclusive.

In other words these fossils are still “anomolies”, of the Geologic strata.

Regards,
Calvin

 

[Orogeny]

Chipper:

Once again they have resorted to veiled Ad_hominen attacks. They refuse to accept the evidence of the older cut out tracks. And they have had to invent an “Unknown dinosaur” to come up with the theory that these might be “Unknown dinosaur” footprints. So it seems to me that we have an Unknown dinosaur that runs around leaving impressions that look like human footprints. Can you picture an Unknown Dinosaur with feet like a human?

Also this quote from that link you gave. " …there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order." In other words their research is inconclusive.

Calvin, that link was to an organization that believes that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. They are not attacking anyone. They are admitting that they were wrong after doing some basic research.

They didn’t invent an unknown dinosaur. What they are talking about is unidentifiable dinosaur tracks. But, bottom line, this isn’t a mainstream scientific organization. This is an organization that exists for only one thing - refute any science that doesn’t conclude that the Bible is a literal history of creation. They actually did some research (which in itself is a very rare occurrence) and realized that their original claims were wrong and were very easily shown to be wrong. Those types of arguments tend to really hurt rather than help a cause.

In other words these fossils are still “anomolies”, of the Geologic strata.

Not to geologists, they aren’t.

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

Chipper << Hey Phil, I made a big ooooppppss. When I did a google on “Creationist Museum”, the above website is what popped up first. I thought the Creationist Museum had changed their name. >>

That is OK, I noticed the mistake immediately. Answers In Genesis (AiG) is Ken Ham’s group in Kentucky (formerly of Australia), Creationist Evidence Museum is Carl Baugh’s group in Texas.

Ken Ham’s group is the more “sophisticated” type of creationist. They are the “successors” of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) type creationism of the 60s, 70s, 80s. His stuff is addressed by TalkOrigins. Know thy creationists, believe me I do.

Carl Baugh is a little more “out there” shall we say. Carl Baugh and other people’s claims of dinosaur with human footprints are addressed in exhaustive detail by Glen Kuban (who BTW is a Christian). He has studied these tracks for 25 years. They are bogus and most creationists reject them. AiG includes these among their "do not use" arguments.

If you have a choice between Ken Ham and Carl Baugh PLEASE read Ken Ham. But if your choice is Dawkins, Dennett, Ham, Baugh, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, PLEASE read the latter two.

Chipper << So in all actuality, I don’t know anything about AnswersInGenesis. A Little investigation shows that they aren’t the same after all. >>

They are in Kentucky and building a huge creationist museum of their own. For the kids, they will show cartoons of the Flintstones as documentaries.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Chipper << Also these Human footprints aren’t just one or two, there are a lot of footprints in the region. So when they analyze one or two, and don’t even mention the rest, of which some are extremely well formed, well then, they have just discredited themselves, in my eyes. >>

Glen Kuban has examined and discredited every single one of the supposed human tracks, and he continues to do so. They’ve been rejected by the vast majority of creationist groups for 20 years. Sorry but dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago, homo sapiens evolved in Africa about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago. Many lines of independent evidence demonstrates this. Another documentary and book I would recommend is The Journey of Man by Spencer Wells.

Phil P

 

[magdelaine]

I didn’t read through the whole thread (no time!!) but for those of you out there who like to read real, thoughful theology that considers evolution I recommend The Phenomenon of Man by Peirre Teilhard de Chardin. It will definitely take you above and beyond the “goes against the Bible” arguments and gives some insight into God’s overarching plan for us. It’s also thoroughly Catholic!

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Let me clarify to those who critiqued my post. Species changes are not the evolution that causes ape to turn into man. Hybridization and crossbreeding just make a different kind of whatever you have. Like two different types of dogs producing a mutt. It’s still a dog. Two roses hybridizing to make a different, yes, rose. I guess I meant to say Genus changes.

By the way, the whole evolution theory is based on self evolving, not through breeding or hybridization, but by natural selection.

So, show me where an animal or plant has evolved to another genus. And please, it would be nice to use an example (if there are any) of an animal we can all see, not some protazoa or obscure fungus.

My 3 Trillion comment was sarcasm. Sorry. I had my pinky up to my chin on that one.

Mathematically, you are wrong. Human growth rates have changed but could have never gone below a certain rate. Or man would have died away. Do the math.

You want me to prove that there is no fossil evidence when there is no fossil evidence? Huh?!?

You have all been swept up in the evolution whirlwind. You have convinced yourselves that it is true. Now, your faith may not be affected, but I can tell you that many people’s faith has been questioned because of the evolution “theory”. They have doubts about the bible. Why? because of the evolution “theory”. Now you may not care about them but I do. So I have researched the subject. And here I am.

 

[Nullasalus]

Pjs2ejs:

By the way, the whole evolution theory is based on self evolving, not through breeding or hybridization, but by natural selection.

So, show me where an animal or plant has evolved to another genus. And please, it would be nice to use an example (if there are any) of an animal we can all see, not some protazoa or obscure fungus.

What would satisfy your request for evidence, though? If someone is asserting (and this may not be the case - I’m just making up an example) a chicken used to be a snake, what would you consider strong evidence of its evolutionary path? A fossil that’s half-snake, half-chicken? You could claim that to be a seperate creature that died out. A whole set of fossils from a snake, a snake with 10% bird features, then 20%, 30%, all the way to the 100% chicken, located in the right areas and dated to the right periods?

You have all been swept up in the evolution whirlwind. You have convinced yourselves that it is true. Now, your faith may not be affected, but I can tell you that many people’s faith has been questioned because of the evolution “theory”. They have doubts about the bible. Why? because of the evolution “theory”. Now you may not care about them but I do. So I have researched the subject. And here I am.

I certainly care about them - and there was a point at which (for some other reasons, already posted) the questioning was taking a toll on me. I still have other questions about my faith that need addressing.

But I don’t believe that evolutionary theory is itself a threat to faith. I will admit and agree readily that the theory is favored by some people who want to assault others’ faith in God or religion - these people need to be answered. I just don’t think that the answer is to argue against the entire theory though - no more than the answer to heliocentrism (And I’m willing to bet that that concept shook others’ faith at the time just as strongly) was to deny that the earth revolved around the sun…

For what it’s worth, even though I find myself believing that the diversification of species and the physical origin of man is likely to have come from evolution, the explanations for modern man’s own origin strike me as lacking. Take humanity out of the picture and evolution as proposed (And as I’ve read it - I admit I am not a scientist in any way) makes a lot of sense. But man’s part of that picture, and punctuated equilibrium doesn’t do much to explain how we went from cave dwellers to skyscrapers in an evolutionary blink of an eye.

 

[vern_humphrey]

In fact, there are plenty of examples of evolution. I live in Stone County, Arkansas – and it’s called that for a reason. I cal walk along bluffs, creeks, or highway cuts and probe into the layers of rock.

I have a collection of fossils – remains of plants and animals that once inhabited this county. Now, try to find the living examples of these same plants and animals. You can’t (with rare exceptions) find them – not in this county or anywhere else on earth.

The take a representative sample of the plants and animals that presently live in this county. Find them in the fossil record. You can’t (again with some rare exceptions) find them anywhere on earth.

Clearly the life forms in this county “turned over.” What once lived here is gone from the earth. What now lives here has not lived here very long.

Furthermore, if you go into the fossil record at different strata you can find more plants and animals that are different from the strata above and below them – so the life forms in this county have “turned over” many times.

If we want to go deeper, we can classify the life forms (that’s called “claddistics.”) We find the same class, but different versions, at different points in the strata.

 

[zian]

Chipper:

As for the Embedded coal artifacts, I don’t much about those. But to discredit Carl, for displaying these things is also ludicrous. This is a museum. He didn’t invent these things. He just displays them as anomalies. Of course he’s going to display them, the place is a museum of anomalous artifacts.

Hi Calvin,

I just have to disagree with your interpretation here. Carl Baugh does not consider the artifacts on his museum website (click on the “artifacts and fossils” link under the “Learning Experience” heading) to be “anomalous” (i.e out of the ordinary, deviating from the normal). He considers them to be real, genuine (i.e. normal) fossil and artifact items.

As for the ad hominems, I just don’t see them. It is not an ad hominem to point out what Carl Baugh lacks in scientific training. Far and away the lions share of the comments relate directly to criticisms of Baugh’s interpretation of his evidence. These are perfectly valid criticisms, and are not avoiding the facts by “attacking the man” at all.

 

[zian]

Pjs2ejs:

Mathematically, you are wrong. Human growth rates have changed but could have never gone below a certain rate. Or man would have died away. Do the math.

Here you go, someone has already done the math.

So I have researched the subject. And here I am.

Yes, so you are.