Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
So that would mean that God guided evolution. If that be the case is it really evolution?
Click to expand...
So as not to have to rely on my English-major explanation of things, here is a link to a Vatican document that is very specific about the relationship of God to evolution (paragraphs 63-69 address the question specifically, though close and careful reading is needed.)

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

A pertinent quote from the document: “Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided.”

You can continue to tie yourself in knots trying to figure it all out, but it really uses a lot of energy that can be directed elsewhere.
 
This almost looks like desperation. I looked at this skeleton and thought; missing link? They’ve got to be kidding! The theory of macro evolution is really a dead horse unless someone invents a time machine. It’s speculation rather than true science, it belongs with the ninteenth century along with phrenology and mesmerism.
 
Wolseley said:
A little girl asked her father, “Daddy, how did the human race appear?”

Her father answered, “God made Adam and Eve; they had children; and so all mankind was made.”

Two days later the girl asked her teacher the same question. The teacher answered, “Many years ago there were monkeylike creatures from which the human race evolved.’”

The confused girl returned to her father and said, “Daddy, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and my teacher said they developed from things like monkeys?”

The father answered, "Well, dear, it’s very simple. I told you about our ancestors, and your teacher told you about hers."
Click to expand...
ROFL. I rather enjoyed that one.
 
Coleski said:
This almost looks like desperation. I looked at this skeleton and thought; missing link? They’ve got to be kidding! The theory of macro evolution is really a dead horse unless someone invents a time machine. It’s speculation rather than true science, it belongs with the ninteenth century along with phrenology and mesmerism.
Click to expand...
I mean no disrespect, but are you a paleoanthropologist? What is your frame reference such that you can make this proclamation according to knowledge and not your viscera? Just curious.
 
So let’s see, who should I believe…

The majority of scientists (many who are Catholic and have support of the Vatican) who have spent years of their lives doing lab and field research, peer reviewed papers, working off centuries of research, and who acknowledge that evolution is a conclusive piece of evidence

or…

a bunch of random anti-evolution ranters on this catholic forum who don’t even know what the word “theory” means and believe that our scientific system is run by an all powerful satanic-atheist-Illuminati organization led by Lord Xenu, and who will deny each and every piece of evidence thrown in front of them and keep demanding more, knowing full well that even God himself appearing before them saying evolution is real will not even convince them.
 
Paleontologists are not scientists. Physicists are scientists. Chemists are scientists. Paleontology is a psuedoscience based on unverifiable speculation. There is nothing in this speculative art like the elegant dance of mathematical theory with experiment that we see in General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, true sciencific theories. Paleontology is nothing but 19th Century psuedoscience posing as real science and it’s time to come to terms with this fraud for what it is. It doesn’t matter if basic science is used in the methods. Sure they use chemistry, take measurements, use analytical language to describe things. They even use math and computer programing, but so what. The same methods are used in criminology but again so what, at the highest levels of knowledge criminology and paleontology are not science. At least in criminology the theory and evidence can be matched to reach a true conclusion, such is not possible with sparse fragments of fossilized bones scattered across the planet, buried in strata over millions of years. Macroevolution is romantic 19th Century speculation that has gotten away with posing as science for too long. By the way I’m not an academic, I don’t buy the conceit that only an expert in a certain field can make an assessment of that field in line with the greater picture, especially if I think fundamental premises are false. You may have me on some arcane aspect of your art, but I don’t accept the fundamental premises that describes macroevolutionary theory as science.
 
God help us if the anti-evolutionist extremists take over this country. 20 years from now the Asian countries which fully understand science (and have more stable economies than we do) will have cures for most cancer, and be talking on their satellite cell phones to their relatives living on the moon. This country, meanwhile, will look like the movie “idiocracy”
 
greg_b said:
God help us if the anti-evolutionist extremists take over this country. 20 years from now the Asian countries which fully understand science (and have more stable economies than we do) will have cures for most cancer, and be talking on their satellite cell phones to their relatives living on the moon. This country, meanwhile, will look like the movie “idiocracy”
Click to expand...
You have got to be kidding. That is an idiotic statement. The Church advanced science long before evolution was even an issue. To suggest that good empirical science would stop is ludicrous.

Your claim is to cure science one has to be pro-evolution - what a joke.😦
 
buffalo said:
You have got to be kidding. That is an idiotic statement. The Church advanced science long before evolution was even an issue. To suggest that good empirical science would stop is ludicrous.

Your claim is to cure science one has to be pro-evolution - what a joke.😦
Click to expand...
If you deny evolution, then you start down the slope of denying all science.

It would be like saying “Yes I deny the Trinity, but don’t worry that doesn’t affect the rest of Christianity”
 
Whether or not this proves evolution it is still does not prove creation. Evolution, as Pope Benedict stated, is not in contradiction to the Catholic Church.
 
greg_b said:
If you deny evolution, then you start down the slope of denying all science.

It would be like saying “Yes I deny the Trinity, but don’t worry that doesn’t affect the rest of Christianity”
Click to expand...
Good point, the Church has been the supporter of science throughout history, evolution is just a stepping-stone in further understanding God’s creation.
 
greg_b said:
If you deny evolution, then you start down the slope of denying all science.

It would be like saying “Yes I deny the Trinity, but don’t worry that doesn’t affect the rest of Christianity”
Click to expand...
That is wrong. Pure science is pure truth. The issue is when science strays into philosophy and makes declarations outside its competency. In addition, science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. Humans are limited by their 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

There is no one who denies testable, repeatable and predictable science.

Your claim is to accept science one has to believe in evolution.

Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they flow from the same God. Human reasoning is riddled with error.
 
Riseof_Rome said:
Whether or not this proves evolution it is still does not prove creation. Evolution, as Pope Benedict stated, is not in contradiction to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Then we need PBVI to explain how evolution supports Adam and Eve as our first parents, Eve from Adam, bodily immortality, preternatural gifts, etc… Then he needs to explain how the Holy Spirit let us get it wrong for so long.
 
Riseof_Rome said:
Whether or not this proves evolution it is still does not prove creation. Evolution, as Pope Benedict stated, is not in contradiction to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
All forms of evolution are not contrary? Source?
 
buffalo said:
That is wrong. Pure science is pure truth. The issue is when science strays into philosophy and makes declarations outside its competency. In addition, science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. Humans are limited by their 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

There is no one who denies testable, repeatable and predictable science.

Your claim is to accept science one has to believe in evolution.

Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they flow from the same God. Human reasoning is riddled with error.
Click to expand...
Buffalo is a good sign of someone who is a conspiracy theorist/believer in pseudo-science
  1. Denial of any evidence presented
  2. Using strawmen arguments
  3. Changing the subject
  4. Claiming that you “just can’t know” the given subject
I see these sad and pathetic excuses used all the time whether we talk about Roswell, Masons running the Vatican, man-made global warming or other nonsense
 
buffalo said:
Then we need PBVI to explain how evolution supports Adam and Eve as our first parents, Eve from Adam, bodily immortality, preternatural gifts, etc… Then he needs to explain how the Holy Spirit let us get it wrong for so long.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I am not responsible for what the pope says or doesn’t say.

Personally I don’t care whether we descended from apes or we were created as we were today. A simple way to look at these type of questions is asking yourself: “Is it necessary for salvation” and also “Is my faith affected by it”. The first one is not true, of course, because whether or not we beleive in evolution, it has nothing to to with the eternal soul. And if the second one is true for anyone, then they need to re-evaluate there spiritual life.

To address your second post…msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/
 
greg_b said:
Buffalo is a good sign of someone who is a conspiracy theorist/believer in pseudo-science
  1. Denial of any evidence presented
  2. Using strawmen arguments
  3. Changing the subject
  4. Claiming that you “just can’t know” the given subject
I see these sad and pathetic excuses used all the time whether we talk about Roswell, Masons running the Vatican, man-made global warming or other nonsense
Click to expand...
Greg B…come on man. He is posing a legit question, don’t attack him for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top