Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allyson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stoplooklisten said:
We cannot repeat the future. It hasn’t happened yet.
Click to expand...
Science can make predictions about the future. Successful predictions tend to support the theories that gave rise to them. Science can also make retrodictions about what happened in the past. Again successful retrodictions tend to support the theories behind them.

The result of Eddington’s observations in 1919 was a successful prediction. The finding of Tiktaalik in 2004 was a successful retrodiction.
 
rossum said:
The result of Eddington’s observations in 1919 was a successful prediction. The finding of Tiktaalik in 2004 was a successful retrodiction.
Click to expand...
But overturned by the discovery in Poland. In any case, if there is a bridge between two cliffs, one can travel in both directions. The bridge itself does not give preference to a direction, unless you presuppose one.
 
buffalo said:
If we observed self organizing FSCI and/or the purposeful arrangement of parts we would not be debating.
Click to expand...
But I do observe it. And we are debating. What evidence have you that I am misinterpreting my observations?
 
No need. Watch a chick grow into a chicken, or a seed grow into a plant.
 
buffalo said:
But overturned by the discovery in Poland.
Click to expand...
No, buffalo. The retrodiction was not for the first tetrapod, but an early tetrapod in that rock formation. Tiktaalik is an early tetrapod, as successfully retrodicted.

Your YEC/ID sources are misinforming you.
 
There does seem to be a reticence to use the term ‘God’ in this discussion.
 
Some appear to want to replace the work of God with some theory about human beings which Pope Benedict said cannot be tested. Evolution - as the word is used here - reduces man to just another animal. The smartest animal but still an animal. Atheists prefer this view so they promote it. What does that mean? You live and then die - to nothing. While alive you can do anything since you are just an animal and no one has any authority over you. God exists. Denying that denies what makes man a man. Not chemicals. You are not a walking bag of chemicals with sensory and other organs. You consist of two parts: the physical and the spiritual.

The Bible is clear about what happens when you die:

[King James Version]
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

[Darby Bible Translation]
And forasmuch as it is the portion of men once to die, and after this judgment;

[World English Bible]
Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment,

Hebrews 9:27
 
Allyson said:
40.png
o_mlly:
One must distinguish between *ID Creationists" proponents and ID Science proponents.
Click to expand...
I am not concerned with the rest of that comment from which I drew the quote. I want to know who is an ID Science proponent who is not in some way also connected to ID creationsim. That is not a difficult question to answer. How can that possibly have anything to do with a fallacy. I am not seeking to make an arguement. I just want information so I can examine another perspective. That is all!
Click to expand...
I think that you mentioned ‘Of Pandas and People’ earlier and that it was instrumental in your rejection of ID as creationism wearing a false nose and some cheap sunglasses and trying to sneak in the back door unoticed.

One can’t compare the two any more than you could compare Bruce Wayne and Batman. The question makes no sense in the first instance as (spoiler alert) they are the same person. Claiming that creationists and ID proponents are not one and the same thing is like a DC fan claiming Wayne and the Caped Crusader are different people. Really?

But I will grant a subtle difference. A creationist is a fundamentalist whereas a proponent of ID is a fundamentalist who knows enough basic science to make a nuisance of herself.

There is an addendum to your question as well. As we know, scientists come in all flavours of belief. Atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Christians etc. Could you pick a persons belief system based on the scientific theories which they promote? Of course not. With one exception: Can you tell what religion a person follows if they promote ID?

I’ve said this before: There’d be a lot less atheists if there was just one religion. And I would suggest that a lot more people might investigate the claims of ID if there was a healthy cross section of people with various beliefs who promoted it.

As it is, the Wedge Document and the adulterated book tells you all you really need to know. I fail to understand that if the people pushing the ultimate aim of ID (getting it introduced into schools) have been shown to be liars and charlatans why some still wish to be associated with them.
 
gama232 said:
Some appear to want to replace the work of God with some theory about human beings which Pope Benedict said cannot be tested. Evolution - as the word is used here - reduces man to just another animal. The smartest animal but still an animal. Atheists prefer this view so they promote it. What does that mean? You live and then die - to nothing. While alive you can do anything since you are just an animal and no one has any authority over you. God exists.
Click to expand...
Evolution doesn’t deny God. I really wish I had a dollar for every time I have posted that sentence.

How on earth can you say something as risible as ‘atheists prefer this view’. A huge number of Christians accept the view. They, and I, do not prefer it in any sense of that word whatsoever. Any more than we prefer that we have a common ancestor with other animals or the speed of light is fixed or that gravity exists.

These are simply aspects of the world that we have discovered. The fact that we have a natural explanation for gravity doesn’t mean the we can say ‘God isn’t causing the attraction between two masses therefore He doesn’t exist’.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, gama. But it’s the biggest straw man that ever makes an appearance in this forum. Nobody in this forum has ever suggested what you have claimed.
 
Ah, the Wedge Document, followed by “stealth creationism” getting into the most ‘holy’ school system. False diversion. There is no secret group plotting the invasion of science classrooms. And the politics angle is bogus.

Facts are facts. If Humani Generis talks about souls then people reading this need to consider the fact that they have one. And why that matters.
 
What do Christians accept? Theistic evolution? Show me precisely where the theistic part fits in.

Gravity has nothing to do with man’s true identity. You and I have souls. That is very important.
 
gama232 said:
What do Christians accept? Theistic evolution? Show me precisely where the theistic part fits in.

Gravity has nothing to do with man’s true identity. You and I have souls. That is very important.
Click to expand...
Whether we have souls or not has zero to do with the theory of evolution. Absolutely nothing. Nada. Rien. Zip. Squat. Why are you associating the two? Again, no-one has claimed otherwise. With whom are you arguing? Name me some names, gama.

And where is the theistic part of theistic evolution? It’s God, for heaven’s sake.

If people were dumb enough to deny gravity then we’d have to come up with a stupid phrase such as ‘theistic gravity’ so we could explain that we have discovered how gravity works from a natural perspective (it’s not angels tugging and pushing objects around) but that God is responsible.

Theistic evolution is simply a sop to those who keep claiming that people say that evolution denies God. They don’t and it doesn’t. And you won’t find a single person on this forum who has suggested it. There, yet another dollar that should have gone into my Evolution Kitty…
 
gama232 said:
Ah, the Wedge Document, followed by “stealth creationism” getting into the most ‘holy’ school system. False diversion. There is no secret group plotting the invasion of science classrooms.
Click to expand...
No. It’s not secret. They’re quite open about it. And when I say ‘it’ I mean ID. But they’ll deny that it’s creationsism until they are blue in the face.

Can I ask if you are aware of the Discovery Institute and the Dover trial and the book that was mentioned?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top