S
SGWessells
Guest
Yes, me too. Sorry about my attitude in the last few posts. I guess I was a bit snarky (masculine for “cranky”).
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
Continued from post 1329.
Previous posts, 1296,1317, 1318, and 1329 have covered some of the basic principles of empirical science.
What has not been detailed are the methods used in research. Obviously, evolution methods are used to support evolution theory of human nature. This discussion properly belongs in the Back Fence Forum. This is where I am discussing evolution per se.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=605810
I am not a creationist scientist. However, I was directed to a Christian website (age of the earth discussion) which had a good description of one of the basic methods also used in examining anatomy origins. There is no need for me to reinvent the wheel so I posted the relevant paragraphs. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8550750&postcount=64
Eventually, I will add information as to how the described method is actually used in human origin research.
What post 1329 did was to look at the evidence presented and determine that it was not sufficient to absolutely rule out free will.
When it comes to determining the origin of our own nature, it is critical that we re-examine the evidence that attempts to rule out the assurance that each of us is really human. Maybe some of us are extremely smart and lovable
subhumans.
Does the evidence in contemporary research lead to the conclusion that some of us are not really human because maybe we are descended from subhuman ancestors? The population theory of human origin (polygenietic or polygenism)
covers many centuries and many kinds of hominids who intermingled with each other at different times, migrating in and out of various populations.
How do we know for sure which offspring survived as beings the same as ourselves?
Did the migration of many ancient beings change all or some of the basic material anatomies? What is the evidence?
The evidence consists of simulated populations manually designed to describe the genealogy of particular genes out of 20,000 to 25,000 genes in humans. As far as I can tell, this method does a good job, provided that the assumptions used to design the population are in the valid range. The difficulty is that the “valid range” does not include all possibilities which can affect various populations over long periods
of time, such as thousands and thousands of years.
In other words, the particular evidence in contemporary research can provide particular conclusions. But this evidence is not sufficient to absolutely rule out all possibilities for human origin. At best, the evidence can strongly suggest or indicate the exclusion of sole founders of humanity, but it cannot say absolutely that Adam and Eve did not exist somewhere at sometime during the thousands of years of pre-history.
Therefore, there is the real possibility that two, real, sole parents founded all of humanity.
While some may disagree about the use of a possibility, and that is their right, the fact remains that the possibility (resulting in the unity of our own humanity) is sufficient for belief in Adam and Eve when it comes to Divine Revelation as protected by the Catholic Church.
S
SGWessells
Guest
If you mean “agreement on the basic principles but disagreement on the way they came about,” I agree. But too many people in the creationist camp try to discredit the whole idea of any form of evolution by saying evolutionists can’t agree on gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium, which is like claiming that Catholicism is false because Catholics can’t agree on Augustine vs. Aquinas.
I
inocente
Guest
I’ve no specialist expertise in the area but the various measurements on different scales: universe, galactic, solar, etc. all hang together well. Exact numbers aren’t important to me but I can’t see any reason to question the rough magnitudes, i.e. billions of years for the Earth rather than thousands or trillions.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Ad infinitum?
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
In my view, the set of evolutionary models used to establish a minimum number of ancestral breeding pairs are not incompatible with a theological notion that humanity is descended from a single pair of human beings. It can be envisioned that God had interacted with a single upraised human couple, whom are representative of humanity, bestowing upon them special spiritual or divine gifts. These spiritual gifts came with the capacity to discern and experience evil — one associated with unfortunate consequences. The resulting effects of their flawed relationship from their moral choice would spread to and through their offspring as their subset of the existing population came to dominate.
T
tonyrey
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Oh, I’ve gotten home here on CAF! And my modernism does splendidly in the university. I’m even considered a bit conservative, believe it or not!Question - how can you get to first base with your modernistic writings and lectures when you cannot even do it here on CAF?
T
tonyrey
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Well, life on earth is finite. But yes – parents teach their young, and were in turn taught by their parents.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Human parents have not always existed - if evolution is true…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Don’t tar us all with the same brush. There are hundreds of millions of Catholics and other Christians who are theistic evolutionists – that is, we accept both God and evolution – who are profoundly aware of the existence of good and evil.
StAnastasia
I
inocente
Guest
We were talking about good and evil, not suffering. If you are claiming that suffering is evil, does that mean you want to make all predator species extinct since they must be evil by causing suffering of animals? Are pet cats evil monsters since they kill mice and birds? How about deer hunters? Fishermen?
What doesn’t?
By your definition little children must be subhuman because they don’t grasp the distinction between good and evil any better than those others you label as subhuman. Incidentally, where does either Christ or the UDHR give you permission to label who is and isn’t “subhuman”?
You made the claim and all I asked for is some reasoning from you. You want me to make a counter claim that lets you off the hook so you never need to give your reasoning. I’m not falling for that one again - provide a reasoned argument as to why you think good and evil exist independently of humans and I’ll gladly tell you what I think, but not before.
W
WarriorOfGod91
Guest
Science while different in definition to Religion does become one with Religion when you think of the complex make up of many of God’s creations. The DNA, the theory of Gravity, the theory of parallel universes, the world being round and not square, all belong to both religion and science. Heres why, Science attempts to explain things that before were unexplained. They attempt to prove and disprove all that we find in our enviroment. Some times during an scientific discovery we attribute that discovery with the power of man’s brain and not with the Divine power of God. For example, the only reason we have the theory of Gravity, is because (according to Newtons own journal) Newton himself witnessed an apple fall from the branch of a tree. This tiny event triggered a scientific epiphany which in turn led to the theory of Gravity which can not be felt, heard, smelled, tasted, or seen. We simply percieve the effects of gravity on outwards objects. For example the apple that fell, Newton could not physically see gravity, the force bringing the apple to the ground, but he knew some thing was behind the physical act of the apple falling. So if we can believe in gravity and say it is a scientific fact then why can we not believe in God and say its proven he exists? We may not be able to physically see God operating but his Divine nature is certainly acting on the enviroment around us. I think the apple falling before Newton was God’s way of sparking that scientific though process thus leading to the discovery of Gravity. Science’s big problem is that since they can’t see, touch, hear, taste, or experiment with Faith, it must not exist. There has to be a logical explanation that acts and exists with in the scientific world we have created. This ignorance of faith and belief is what leads Science astray from Religion. The two are joined however by the simple fact that all things discovered in the name of Science are belonging to God. Were just getting a better understanding of God and his Divine nature. When scientists discovered DNA that to me only proved the existence of God. After all, how can some thing so complex and so essential simply have been an accident or the result of microbe bacteria evolving over millions of years to create life? Such discoveries in Science point towards God which is Religion. Religion to me is the explanation of the discoveries with Science. All things Science discovers only further leads to draw one to the conclusion that God must exist. All things that have a beginning must have gotten an intelligent start some where.
This is just my belief however and I understand we all have different views on Science and Religion and I respect that. I just thought I would share my opinion.
God Bless
This is just my belief however and I understand we all have different views on Science and Religion and I respect that. I just thought I would share my opinion.
God Bless
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Of course! My grandparents in the 10th generation had parents. Their ancestors 10,000 years ago had parents, as did their ancestors 100,000 years ago. For as long as our ancestors have been mammals, parents have nurtured their young, and taught them what was necessary for survival (with emerging hominid rationality morality was part of this). Before the divergence of mammals from reptiles, there may not have been nurturing as we mammals recognize it. Before the divergence of tetrapods from fish, it’s even less likely.
T
tonyrey
Guest
L
Lui
Guest
I understand that you dedicate your life to IDvolution. I predict that you will never ever witness that science will change it’s mind and realize you are right. Mark my words. You’re fighting a losing battle.
B
buffalo
Guest
IDvolution is about origins, not the age of the universe. I see the science trending toward acknowledging design and the failures of evolution, so maybe I won’t witness it but I think it will happen. Usually in science the paradigms change with the young. Some of the old guard will have to die off.
If in the end IDvolution turns out wrong then I will humbly accept it, but I am not deterred in its pursuit and study. My satisfaction comes as the result of the challenge it presents to modern thinkers and so far the answers to this challenge have been less than satisfactory. I am encouraged.
In any case the debate is enlightening.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
This is the hallmark of good science… and theology.
L
Lui
Guest
That’s where you’re wrong. Science is not doubting evolution and trending toward design. Evolution is considered as an undeniable fact by the majority of all serious scientists and I also predict that science will never change it’s mind. No matter how much you want to deny evolution, it won’t change the truth.
- Status