Schonborn attacks evolutionary biology again

[MichaelTDoyle]

herry:

A

Evolution is for the world, and athiests, and so on. We are Christians, seperate, the heritage of God. We cannot capitulate with evolution.

Be ye seperate, saith the Lord. Touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you" 2 Cor. 6:17

God is also the Way, the Truth and the Life; we should therefore always pursue the truth through legitimate means if we are to be lamps on a hill.

 

[Orogeny]

seabird3579:

The theory of Evolution is an example of the blind leading the blind, put simply.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any scientific training?

IF you are in the “dark” spiritually, you will not see what others see who are in the Light. Your blindness prevents you from seeing “all of the facts.”

I don’t consider myself as being in the “dark” spiritually. Why would you assume that? What “facts” am I not seeing?

Because atheists, and I would assume diehard Evolutionists are atheists, they lack the Light of God (The Supreme Intelligence) therefore they lack standard intelligence, in my view.

You know what happens when you assume!

Ignorant people don’t always know they are ignorant. Many think they see. If you combine Pride with Ignorance, then you have a stubborn person, still ignorant nonetheless.

Would I be wrong if I guessed that you would agree that that statement is true regardless of one’s belief?

Is is possible that someone could be so ignorant that they could not recognize intelligence when they see it ( or more accurately – don’t see it? )

Let me see if I understand your point. If I don’t see intelligence (presumably you are refering to ID), I am ignorant?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

herry:

Evolution was created in the Enlightenment to find a way the earth could have come into existence WITHOUT GOD!

That’s just plain false.

Where was Darwin when God stretched forth the heavens and laid the foundations earth? God did it alone. He created all things, and they brought forth “after thier own kind” Genesis 1:12, 21, 24, 25.

Same place you were.

And God made us in His own image. Therefore to say that there is even any slight chance of evolution being possible, is to call God a monkey.

Why, are you a monkey?

Plus, in the evolutionary process, death would come before sin. Once again, making God a liar.

Physical death existed for about a billion years prior to Adam’s fall. Spiritual death began when Adam decided to disobey God.

And how long did it take Him to create all things?

As long as God decided it would take

God gave us the Sabbath to remember how long it took. From sunset to sunset is 1 day, and these are the six time periods which God used to create everything. And gave us a rest, on the 7th day to remember what He created.

And we honor him on the sabbath.

Evolution is for the world, and athiests, and so on.

What is so on?

We are Christians, seperate, the heritage of God. We cannot capitulate with evolution.

How does one capitulate to evolution? Do you capitulate to nuclear theory?

Peace

Tim

 

[seabird3579]

steveandersen:

To me the subtle beauty of evolution is the triumph of Creation

I’ve *never * thought of Evolutionism as having any “subtle beauty” about it. What is so subtle and so beautiful about random particles bumping into each other and “supposedly” evolving the human race (give me a break…)? How difficult was that?

And, if you just can’t help yourself and you must espouse Evolution, *WHO * do you think made the “original” material to begin with?

steveandersen:

Mixing you metaphors won’t help
Life isn’t a Mercedes

There was no mix of metaphors, I was implying that a complicated “machine” like a Mercedes car, had an engineer. The nuts and bolts did not evolve randomly until the completed Mercedes appeared.

Do most Evolutionists have this problem of simple logic?

 

[SydLake]

seabird3579:

The theory of Evolution is an example of the blind leading the blind, put simply.

IF you are in the “dark” spiritually, you will not see what others see who are in the Light. Your blindness prevents you from seeing “all of the facts.”

Because atheists, and I would assume diehard Evolutionists are atheists, they lack the Light of God (The Supreme Intelligence) therefore they lack standard intelligence, in my view.

Ignorant people don’t always know they are ignorant. Many think they see. If you combine Pride with Ignorance, then you have a stubborn person, still ignorant nonetheless.

Is is possible that someone could be so ignorant that they could not recognize intelligence when they see it ( *or more accurately – don’t see it? *)

Actually evolution theory doesn’t contradict the existence of God at all, yet some ID adherents propose that notion.

Why is that ?

And if ID proponents allow for the theory of evolution to be debated, do they also want the theory of creationism to be debated?

Peace

 

[seabird3579]

Understand, it is not a sin to believe in Evolution, I just think it is ignorance.

Even JP II said, it was okay if in the end Science finds out that Evolution was how the human race came into being.(my paraphrasing)

I just think the theory is ridiculous. We are too specialized. Every organ in our body is specialized. Every cell in our body serves a specific purpose, and the most recent discoveries are showing that every cell has many, many specialized functions. The list goes on and on.

Do you really think that *if * Darwin himself were faced with today’s scientific discoveries, he would still hold stubbornly to his original presumptions?

I would hope not.

I have come to see strict Evolutionists as *more religious * and dogmatic about Darwins 18th century presumptions than Fundamentalists are about creation as it is told in Genesis.

Many Evolutionists refuse to accept new scientific discoveries about the Cell and hold dogmatically to Darwin’s false presumptions.

True scientists will let the debate take place and put the burden on each side to proove its case.

 

[SydLake]

seabird3579:

Understand, it is not a sin to believe in Evolution, I just think it is ignorance.

Even JP II said, it was okay if in the end Science finds out that Evolution was how the human race came into being.

I just think the theory is ridiculous. We are too specialized. Every organ in our body is specialized. Every cell in our body serves a specific purpose, and the most recent discoveries are showing that every cell has many, many specialized functions. The list goes on and on.

Do you really think that *if *Darwin himself were faced with today’s scientific discoveries, he would still hold stubbornly to his original presumptions?

I would hope not.

I have come to see strict Evolutionists as *more religious *and dogmatic about Darwins 18th century presumptions than Fundamentalists are about creation as it is told in Genesis.

Many Evolutionists refuse to accept new scientific discoveries about the Cell and hold dogmatically to Darwin’s false presumptions.

True scientists will let the debate take place and put the burden on each side to proove its case.

Please cite where you have heard or seen an evolutionist reject the newer discoveries about cells.

Science evolves and (should) takes into account recent facts, but ID isn’t about facts supporting its position, but about cutting down evolution with innuendo.

Sort of like a swift boat attack on science, no facts just a conclusion that finds a home with some that have a need to believe in something as opposed to a belief based on facts and actual experience.

Peace

Peace

 

[steveandersen]

seabird3579:

I’ve *never * thought of Evolutionism as having any “subtle beauty” about it. What is so subtle and so beautiful about random particles bumping into each other …

It is not a random process it is deterministic
Perhaps you don’t appreciate the subtle beauty because you don’t understand the process?

seabird3579:

…and “supposedly” evolving the human race (give me a break…)? How difficult was that?

And, if you just can’t help yourself and you must espouse Evolution, *WHO * do you think made the “original” material to begin with?

God did of course. But what does that have to do with evolution?

(Alternative answer: since there is no such thing as time before there was a universe the material was “always” here. But what does that have to do with evolution?)

seabird3579:

There was no mix of metaphors, I was implying that a complicated “machine” like a Mercedes car, had an engineer. The nuts and bolts did not evolve randomly until the completed Mercedes appeared.

Yes I know what you were trying to say but it wasn’t a very good analogy. A living organism isn’t a car and is different in fundamental ways from a designed thing.
Designed things can have parts and features added or removed without regard to what came previously. Thus your modern Mercedes will have electronic ignition and overhead cams, features which share no parts or design lineage with the points and rotor or the rocker arms that did the same functions a decade or three ago.

If a car were to have the appearance of an evolved system it would have to have evidence of an electronic ignition, the rotor and points all at once, and maybe a pair of horses hitched up to the front too.

seabird3579:

Do most Evolutionists have this problem of simple logic?

Oh I don’t know, are most creationists unable to tell the difference between evolved and designed things?

 

[arieh0310]

hecd2:

Oh, my advice is not to let it worry you so. Say OMMMMMMM 30 times while contemplating your breathing and thinking of red balloons; or if you’re a practising Catholic, say a decade of the rosary. Schonborn makes me spit feathers

Alec,

I don’t understand why you would be concerned about anything that any Cardinal would say about science. From comments you have made like the one below I would assume that you are atheist:

Well I think Homo erectus would be more accurately described as an agnostic. It’s true that humanity has been going through a temporary theistic hiccup for the last 50,000 years but we’re beginning to get over it.

If you are simply an anti-religious troll (meaning that your purpose on this site is to use science to disprove God, or at least organized religion, in order to weaken one’s faith) I don’t see how anything Schoenborn says is particularly germane. If your purpose was to debate the ID/creationist/evolution debate from a Catholic perspective I can see how what Schoenborn says might be pertinent. However, as far as I can tell, that is not your purpose and this thread seems more like you are using the Cardinal as an ad hominem attack on the Catholic faith. Or maybe I am misreading your intentions.

 

[seabird3579]

SydLake:

Please cite where you have heard or seen an evolutionist reject the newer discoveries about cells.

Why do devout Evolutionists cut down ID as being religion instead of debating the science within ID. If you read the original report on Intelligent Design by the original Scientist who “discovered” it, he has an incredible amount of information on the specialization of the human cell. Why is it that Evolutionists will not let this debate take place?

It seems to be obvious they are afraid that Evolution will become completely irrelevant. So I guess their personal ideology is getting in the way of true science.

SydLake:

Science evolves and (should) takes into account recent facts, but ID isn’t about facts supporting its position, but about cutting down evolution with innuendo.

Actually, that’s the Evolutionists tactic when it comes to ID.

The reason Evolution falls flat on its face is because reasonable people do not naturally conclude that highly specialized human beings “randomly” occured. If there were actual “proof” that would be different. But as we know, most all of Evolution is hypothesis – without bonafide proof when it comes to jumping species. But bless 'em anyway, they keep looking for that missing link!

In fact, Man left to his own devices …if you are willing to observe a little social history ---- has De - Volved.

We just keep getting worse and worse each year. If our spiritual side is any indication as to our physical side of nature, we should just about be at the Neanderthal stage right now, chimp status not far off!

 

[oat_soda]

Needless to say, Schonborn doesn’t actually suggest an scientific hypothesis to replace neo-Darwinism as a mechanism for biological evolution - other than the ubiquitous ‘God did it’

the way i understand it is, that it is not so much about the science behind evolution, or a process of natural selection which can explain the process of evolution, but that this theory can’t completely explain our existance or lead to the rejection of God.

the fact is the forces of the universe were set up in a way which permitted intelligent life to develop which then tries to understand the reason it came to be. it discovers that everything has a cause and that no one can bring themselves into existance. this leads to the conclusion that something started this whole chain of cause and effects and that its essence or being must be the fact that it is uncreated, or that it just IS. we call this uncreated first cause God.

modern science alone can’t answer all there is to know about our existence. it can’t answer why we are here or how we should act. it has its place in life but is not an end in of itself. the fact that we can know anything about the world around us presupposes that it is ordered and is causitive. everything in modern science is based on this and so to attempt to use modern science to reject this fact contradicts itself.
.

 

[Orogeny]

seabird3579:

Why do devout Evolutionists cut down ID as being religion instead of debating the science within ID.

Because ID is not science. If/when ID supporters put forth some research that points to ID being a viable hypothesis, it will be debated. Until then, it is only a rehashing of creation science.

If you read the original report on Intelligent Design by the original Scientist who “discovered” it, he has an incredible amount of information on the specialization of the human cell. Why is it that Evolutionists will not let this debate take place?

The “discoverer” that you refer to is Michael Behe and he discovered nothing, he only repackaged an old concept in his book titled “Darwin’s Black Box”. Why do you assume that no one that accepts evolution has not read his book? Why do you think that it has been ignored?

It seems to be obvious they are afraid that Evolution will become completely irrelevant. So I guess their personal ideology is getting in the way of true science.

You apparently don’t understand how science works. I guarantee you, if someone found scientific evidence that disproved evolution theory, that person would become famous very quickly. Science would probably be slow to accept the new info, but only because there is a massive amount of data that supports evolution. Remember, to change the theory, the new theory would have to account for the old data as well.

How would you define true science?

The reason Evolution falls flat on its face is because reasonable people do not naturally conclude that highly specialized human beings “randomly” occured.

If the test of validity for a scientific theory were whether or not “reasonable people” would come to the same conclusion as scientists (who, by the way, are reasonable people), things like relativity and quantum mechanics would not be considered valid scientific theories. Fortunately, that is not the standard that has to be met.

If there were actual “proof” that would be different. But as we know, most all of Evolution is hypothesis – without bonafide proof when it comes to jumping species. But bless 'em anyway, they keep looking for that missing link!

You don’t help your argument by using terms in a different manner than science does. There is a huge amount of evidence supporting evolution. There is no “proof” that gravitational theory is correct.

Some questions - What is a hypothesis? What is a scientific hypothesis? Is there a difference? What is a theory? What is a scientific theory? Is there a difference? How many scientific theories are proven? What is a missing link? Is that a term used in science?

Peace

Tim

 

[seabird3579]

Orogeny:

Because ID is not science.

…so* say * the Evolutionists. You know the old saying, ‘Tell a lie long enough, some people might believe it to be true.’

Orogeny:

You apparently don’t understand how science works. I guarantee you, if someone found scientific evidence that disproved evolution theory, that person would become famous very quickly. Science would probably be slow to accept the new info, but only because there is a massive amount of data that supports evolution. Remember, to change the theory, the new theory would have to account for the old data as well…

And yet, Evolution theorists have done none of this. They haven’t proven a single thing. They do hypothesize a lot, though.

Orogeny:

How would you define true science?
If the test of validity for a scientific theory were whether or not “reasonable people” would come to the same conclusion as scientists (who, by the way, are reasonable people), things like relativity and quantum mechanics would not be considered valid scientific theories…

I doubt Albert Einstein would have bought into the Evolution hypothesis. Doubt it very strongly, he was too intelligent.

Orogeny:

You don’t help your argument by using terms in a different manner than science does. There is a huge amount of evidence supporting evolution. There is no “proof” that gravitational theory is correct…

You see? Do you see what you have just said?
You have just said that since gravity cannot be proven scientifically, it does not exist as far as science is concerned. Strangely, reasonable people would conclude that it does exist.

So, tell me, if you come to find out that Gravity does indeed exist, would you then be able to conclude that your obstinate belief in Evolution was a big mistake?

 

[steveandersen]

seabird3579:

…so* say * the Evolutionists. You know the old saying, ‘Tell a lie long enough, some people might believe it to be true.’…

So you object to scientists defining what science is

Hmmmm

How would you respond to this scenario?

Person A: I think that birth control is compatible with Catholics teachings
Person B: Birth control in not compatible with Catholic teaching
Person A: Oh sure, so say the Catholics.

Hyperbole of course but it sounds like what you’re saying.

Of course scientists define what science is…who else?

And I’m not sure if you are being intentional loose with your terms as a poke at us techno-geeks or is science education so abysmal that an apparently intelligent person such as yourself doesn’t really know the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. :crying:

 

[Orogeny]

seabird3579:

…so* say *the Evolutionists. You know the old saying, ‘Tell a lie long enough, some people might believe it to be true.’

Well, here is your chance. Please provide the scientific basis for ID.

And yet, Evolution theorists have done none of this. They haven’t proven a single thing. They do hypothesize a lot, though.

Scientists haven’t done so because there is no evidence against evolution. Since you decided to not answer any of my questions from the last post, I will ask this one again. How many scientific theories have been proven? How do you prove a scientific theory?

I doubt Albert Einstein would have bought into the Evolution hypothesis. Doubt it very strongly, he was too intelligent.

Your doubt is meaningless because my point had nothing to do with scientists. It has everything to do with non-scientists. Would a “reasonable person” agree that time is a variable rather than a constant? Would a “reasonable person” agree that a particle can be two places at the same time?

You see? Do you see what you have just said?
You have just said that since gravity cannot be proven scientifically, it does not exist as far as science is concerned. Strangely, reasonable people would conclude that it does exist.

Please take a moment to re-read what I wrote. I will state it again - there is no proof that gravitational theory is correct. If you don’t agree, please explain what your understanding of proof in science is.

Additionally, I didn’t even mention the fact that gravity exists. I mentioned gravitational theory. Do you know the difference?

So, tell me, if you come to find out that Gravity does indeed exist, would you then be able to conclude that your obstinate belief in Evolution was a big mistake?

As I mentioned above, gravity does exist. Your response says a lot about your understanding of a scientific theory. Quite simply, gravity does exist. Evolution is a fact.

Were you going to answer any of my questions?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

steveandersen:

Person A: I think that birth control is compatible with Catholics teachings
Person B: Birth control in not compatible with Catholic teaching
Person A: Oh sure, so say the Catholics.
:crying:

That’s great! I can just hear Homer Simpson on that last one!

Peace

Tim

 

[SydLake]

seabird3579:

Why do devout Evolutionists cut down ID as being religion instead of debating the science within ID. If you read the original report on Intelligent Design by the original Scientist who “discovered” it, he has an incredible amount of information on the specialization of the human cell. Why is it that Evolutionists will not let this debate take place?

It seems to be obvious they are afraid that Evolution will become completely irrelevant. So I guess their personal ideology is getting in the way of true science.

Actually, that’s the Evolutionists tactic when it comes to ID.

The reason Evolution falls flat on its face is because reasonable people do not naturally conclude that highly specialized human beings “randomly” occured. If there were actual “proof” that would be different. But as we know, most all of Evolution is hypothesis – without bonafide proof when it comes to jumping species. But bless 'em anyway, they keep looking for that missing link!

In fact, Man left to his own devices …if you are willing to observe a little social history ---- has De - Volved.

We just keep getting worse and worse each year. If our spiritual side is any indication as to our physical side of nature, we should just about be at the Neanderthal stage right now, chimp status not far off!

Thanks, I couldn’t have come up with a better example of how most attacks on evolution are reasoned than your post and how such reasoning so adroitly addresses the questions asked.

Peace

 

[seabird3579]

steveandersen:

So you object to scientists defining what science is

Hmmmm

How would you respond to this scenario?

Person A: I think that birth control is compatible with Catholics teachings
Person B: Birth control in not compatible with Catholic teaching
Person A: Oh sure, so say the Catholics.

Hyperbole of course but it sounds like what you’re saying.

Of course scientists define what science is…who else?

You make some rather odd comparisons.

Apparently you assume that laymen do not understand the difference between theory and hypothesis (which you would be wrong about) but it does serve to make you “feel” superior.

Then you try to equate the Church’s authority with scientists authorizing evolution.

The Church was given her Authority by Christ himself – He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide her in all truth, until the end of time.

Scientists are only human beings with no particular promise by God (whom most evolutionists have rejected anyway) to be guided in all truth.

And, “All” scientists **do not ** agree on evolution. Far from it! I know this is propaganda that you evolutionists love to put out there, but I’m old enough to remember what life was like before the Science room was a police state where ACLU liberals dictated what would and what would not be taught to young minds. I remember the days when, in America, you were free to entertain several scientific theories, old and new.

Oh, but not now! The Police State will tell us what is the “correct” scientific theories and don’t anyone dare cross swords with the sworn State Police, the ACLU.

As far as they are concerned, 'the books have been closed, no more science questions! Darwin settled it, there is no God, humans evolved from monkeys! Don’t ask questions and don’t ask us to prove it! I can just hear them now, ‘anyone who questions our theory, we shall acuse them of being irrational religionists!’

They are simply AFRAID of the truth – therefore, they will not have the debate!

Pro-evolutionists, in all of your badgering you’ve never offered authentic scientific data prooving Evolution. Do you know why? Because its just one conjecture after another. It is a house of cards. I can see why you all are so sensitive about debate, but some on this Forum are very interested in the Truth.

We want the Open debate, science data provided on BOTH sides and then a long healthy discussion by some of the most brilliant scientists around.

Then we shall SEE if All scientists support the theory of Evolution.

 

[seabird3579]

Orogeny:

As I mentioned above, gravity does exist. Your response says a lot about your understanding of a scientific theory. Quite simply, gravity does exist. Evolution is a fact.

Got a question, Tim. Are you a scientist? If not, what do you do for a living, may I ask?

Peace,
Brenda

 

[PhilVaz]

seabird << Pro-evolutionists, in all of your badgering you’ve never offered authentic scientific data prooving Evolution. Do you know why? Because its just one conjecture after another. It is a house of cards. I can see why you all are so sensitive about debate, but some on this Forum are very interested in the Truth. >>

OK, then I’m sure all these questions have easy answers from your perspective:

– unique universal phylogenetic tree of life

Why do independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms match each other with an extremely high degree of statistical significance? Why does independent morphological and molecular measurements determine the standard phylogenetic tree to better than 41 decimal places? Why do all the separate lines of evidence converge on the same one historical phylogenetic tree if all species are not united in an objective genealogy?

Why in spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, do they share the same fundamental criteria for life: (1) replication, (2) information flow in continuity of kind, (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization or metabolism? Why do all known living things use polymers to perform these four basic functions: polynucleotides, polypeptides, and polysaccharides? Why does all known life use the same polymer (DNA or RNA) for storing species specific information? Why are all known organisms constructed of the same subset of 22 amino acids, even though there are 293 naturally occurring amino acids? Why do all known organisms use the same genetic code for transmitting information from the genetic material to the catalytic material?

– transitional forms and the fossil record

Why do we find a quite complete set of dinosaur (reptile)-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps? Why do we have an exquisite series of fossils for the reptile-to-mammal intermediates? Why do we have many land-mammal to whale intermediates? Why do we find in the fossil record and geological column, prokaryotes appearing first, followed by simple multicellular animals like sponges and starfish, then lampreys, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates and finally man? Why is there a positive correlation between phylogeny and stratigraphy?

continued in part 2