Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For most people, evolution is a matter of faith, faith in what they have been told. We believe what we have been told without direct first-hand knowledge.

For most people, what they hear first appears true, especially if their teachers and text books say it is true. Thus any contrarion information is at first regarded with suspicion.

For most people, they have never been exposed to serious science that refutes evolution all together.

It is no accident that hard-core evolutionists often lose their faith and become athiests. It is no accident that Darwin’s Second major work, The Descent of Man, became the inspiration of the Master Race theory of Nazi Germany. If you doubt it, you can find books through Catholic Apologists that show the pholosophical connection quite well.

GET THE BEN STEIN MOVIE, EXPELLED! Watch it carefully and see that there are world-renowned, often ignored and shunned scientists who can refute the entire evolutionary theory.

Having provided education for my four children, I am compelled to say that they have been taught a one-sided presentation of evolutionary theory as if it were a scientific fact. IT IS NOT! While there is evidence of adaptation within a species, there is no evidence of one species begetting another. In fact when one considers the number of progressively minute random mutations that must occur for this to happen, there should be millions of progressive cross-species mutations. But they do not exist. Why not? Could the mutations all have occurred at once? Could there really have been billions of random mutations all occuring at one time without any mutational mistakes to create a new species? This is astronomically improbable. Thus, the mutations more likely occurred over time. So then, there should be millions of progressions from one species to another, and there should be millions of mutational mistakes since evolutions subscribes to a process of random mutations being naturally selected under the overarching rule of survival of the fittest. Therefore, there should be countless number of mutational misfires. But there aren’t. Think about it! Break free from the steady years of the indoctination in our education system.

For those who have been fed a steady diet of evolutionary THEORY (not fact), I empathise with how hard it will be look at other arguements objectively; however, I encourage you to seek out the truth. SEE THE MOVIE EXPELLED. It will rock your world.
 
Conspiracy theory nonsense. The Frankfurt School was pretty stupid, but it wasn’t anything like that article says. Wikipedia has the accurate info on it. In fact, many of the goals listed in your link are contradictory to Communism. Kind of odd to shoot yourself in the foot, eh?
In 1920, it was the job of the State to produce anti-religious propaganda and to eliminate superstitious beliefs from among the people. The public schools were to help and be the State’s ally. Their only concern were grandparents who might teach their grandkids differently.

V.I. Lenin: Destroy the family and you destroy society.

Peace,
Ed
 
We cannot accept , as catholic and christian,
the evolution theory for the following reasons:
This theory suppose the existance of a common
ancestor between us and beasts, which is wrong
because in Genesis it is clearly noticed that God
has formed the man from the dust of the Ground
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.(Gen2/7)
Which means this act has been made singularly:
Form from dust then give it life.( act completed)
If we accept the evolution theory , there must be suspension,
and giving life for some other form of creature, then let it
live and die, then take copie of it , let it grow with special
conditions and effects, then let it become human.
Why God has to do all these stages to form human been.
Is God somehow getting tired or has no power to make
man as it is explained in Genesis litteraly?:confused:
We are not beasts or descendants of beasts.
We are very special creatures who are destined to become
The Sons Of Gods in Gods plan for us.
The Word Of God is going to incarnate in our bodies,
and they are going to become the temples of The
Holy Spirit. They will resurrect with our Souls in the
Second coming of The Son Of God.
The creationist admit and insist in the Greatness
and Perfection of God’s Creation . Which imply
that God created every single creature, put his
holy wiseness and wisdom on it , and made it single
and distinct from any other creature.
We are only giving to understand and observe
God’s Creationist Work , But never to explain how
it is done or to imitate it.
That’s my beleif and I am proud of it
and refuse every theory that diminish God’ s work
in the Creation.
Peace and Good
Nohamaria:)
Would God deceive us through His Creation? Consider this: youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&NR=1

In that link you will find a 4 minute video explaining how evolution accurately predicts a genetic occurrence resulting from common ancestry between humans and apes. Why would God make things that way only to deceive us?

Why is there a problem with believing that God used the mechanism/process/pattern of evolution to create the physical, biological life forms we see today, including our human forms? The soul is what is truly in the image and likeness of God (unless you are LDS and believe that God has a body) and evolution will never be able to explain God’s institution and creation of the soul. Our physical form is, however, observable in a scientific way, and God beautifully reveals Himself through observable nature.
 
Would God deceive us through His Creation? Consider this: youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&NR=1

In that link you will find a 4 minute video explaining how evolution accurately predicts a genetic occurrence resulting from common ancestry between humans and apes. Why would God make things that way only to deceive us?

Why is there a problem with believing that God used the mechanism/process/pattern of evolution to create the physical, biological life forms we see today, including our human forms? The soul is what is truly in the image and likeness of God (unless you are LDS and believe that God has a body) and evolution will never be able to explain God’s institution and creation of the soul. Our physical form is, however, observable in a scientific way, and God beautifully reveals Himself through observable nature.
The deceiver God is bogus. First off He is under no obligation to show us everything. Second we are limited as human beings.

If you are walking on the beach and see left footprints as far as you can see, should you conclude the maker is a deceiver?
 
The deceiver God is bogus. First off He is under no obligation to show us everything. Second we are limited as human beings.

If you are walking on the beach and see left footprints as far as you can see, should you conclude the maker is a deceiver?
I don’t understand your response.

Where do I suggest that God must show us everything? I merely suggest that what He DOES show us is not a deception. If it looks like human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two chromosomes, and given the accuracy of our current knowledge of genetics any other natural explanation is unlikely, do you think that God made it appear that human chromosome 2 was such a fusion when it actually did not at some point in time fuse?

And if the two chromosomes that fused have significant analogs and parallels with two pairs of ape chromosomes, including the chromosome pair that is “missing” as a distinct separate pair from humans, then is that just a coincidence, or a suspicious relationship consistent with evolutionary genetic theory?

Similarly, if by all the laws of physics that we have so far observed and, indeed, relied on for such things as nuclear reactions and optics, the universe appears to be very old, what reason have we to believe that it is not? Why would God make it appear that it is old when it is not?

Of course we are limited as human beings, but that does not mean that we can’t increase our knowledge and understanding of Creation.

If I am walking on the beach and see only left footprints, in the absence of other explanations I will suspect that someone came along walking or hopping on only a left foot. If I am to investigate this phenomena further, I will test to see if there appears to be a logical alternative that disproves that hypothesis.

If, in fact, someone had use of both feet, walked normally, and did not do anything to blot out the right footprints, and therefore God was the one to blot out the right footprints, then yes, God is a deceiver. If God wants me to believe that there are only left footprints when there were right footprints before He concealed them, then He is a deceiver and not to be trusted.
 
In 1920, it was the job of the State to produce anti-religious propaganda and to eliminate superstitious beliefs from among the people. The public schools were to help and be the State’s ally. Their only concern were grandparents who might teach their grandkids differently.

V.I. Lenin: Destroy the family and you destroy society.

Peace,
Ed
And creationists want to use public school to publish their agenda…

hmmm…
 
I don’t understand your response.

Where do I suggest that God must show us everything? I merely suggest that what He DOES show us is not a deception. If it looks like human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two chromosomes, and given the accuracy of our current knowledge of genetics any other natural explanation is unlikely, do you think that God made it appear that human chromosome 2 was such a fusion when it actually did not at some point in time fuse?

And if the two chromosomes that fused have significant analogs and parallels with two pairs of ape chromosomes, including the chromosome pair that is “missing” as a distinct separate pair from humans, then is that just a coincidence, or a suspicious relationship consistent with evolutionary genetic theory?

Similarly, if by all the laws of physics that we have so far observed and, indeed, relied on for such things as nuclear reactions and optics, the universe appears to be very old, what reason have we to believe that it is not? Why would God make it appear that it is old when it is not?

Of course we are limited as human beings, but that does not mean that we can’t increase our knowledge and understanding of Creation.

If I am walking on the beach and see only left footprints, in the absence of other explanations I will suspect that someone came along walking or hopping on only a left foot. If I am to investigate this phenomena further, I will test to see if there appears to be a logical alternative that disproves that hypothesis.

If, in fact, someone had use of both feet, walked normally, and did not do anything to blot out the right footprints, and therefore God was the one to blot out the right footprints, then yes, God is a deceiver. If God wants me to believe that there are only left footprints when there were right footprints before He concealed them, then He is a deceiver and not to be trusted.
The solution is simple. The waves washed away the right footprints. We cannot accuse the maker of being a deceiver.
 
The solution is simple. The waves washed away the right footprints. We cannot accuse the maker of being a deceiver.
Really? You’re going with that? That was my first thought, but I considered it too simplistic, for as I mentioned, the observant scientist would test the hypothesis. In such an example as you have given, it would have been easy to observe the likely reason for the footprints (of course, it would be a rare shoreline indeed that had such remarkably regular waves as to erase completely one set of prints just a foot or two apart from the others). Anyway, accepting your analogy, another natural phenomena clearly explains what happened. God’s Creation remains consistent and provides consistent explanations. The analogy supports the evolutionist’s position. The only way it would support your position is if something supernatural occurred to blot out the right footprints. And then you must explain how that is not a deception.

God authored all of nature’s processes. The more we learn of nature’s processes, the more we learn of God and how He crafted our universe. If evolution is one of those processes, who are you to question God’s methods?
 
Really? You’re going with that? That was my first thought, but I considered it too simplistic, for as I mentioned, the observant scientist would test the hypothesis. In such an example as you have given, it would have been easy to observe the likely reason for the footprints (of course, it would be a rare shoreline indeed that had such remarkably regular waves as to erase completely one set of prints just a foot or two apart from the others). Anyway, accepting your analogy, another natural phenomena clearly explains what happened. God’s Creation remains consistent and provides consistent explanations. The analogy supports the evolutionist’s position. The only way it would support your position is if something supernatural occurred to blot out the right footprints. And then you must explain how that is not a deception.

God authored all of nature’s processes. The more we learn of nature’s processes, the more we learn of God and how He crafted our universe. If evolution is one of those processes, who are you to question God’s methods?
My simple story shows how easy it is to be thrown off track as you obviously were. The fact we could not see the cell machinery until recently does not mean God hid it from us. It does not mean he is a deceiver. The fact that science often changes does not make God a deceiver because it is more complicated than we thought.

Why is evolution sacrosanct? Why can’t it be questioned? It is OK though to question Revelation?

It is quite arrogant to demand God to answer our inquiries. It is arrogant to believe we can know all that God knows. Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.
 
Why is evolution sacrosanct? Why can’t it be questioned? It is OK though to question Revelation?
I’m with you all the way. I’m open to the theory of evolution as a theory, but it is only right to just keep the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Spirit working through the Magisterium as sacrosanct.
 
My simple story shows how easy it is to be thrown off track as you obviously were. The fact we could not see the cell machinery until recently does not mean God hid it from us. It does not mean he is a deceiver. The fact that science often changes does not make God a deceiver because it is more complicated than we thought.
You’re still missing the point. The point is that God’s creation will not deceive. Yes, we may be missing important pieces of the puzzle, but investigation that reveals more pieces will lead us further in the right direction. Such is the method of science. Further investigation will not reveal things that deceive. We must, however, work with what we have observed. Evolution explains natural phenomena far better than any other theory out there. So do physical and astronomical theories that posit a vast universe and tremendous age.
Why is evolution sacrosanct? Why can’t it be questioned? It is OK though to question Revelation?
I would be surprised if you found a serious scientist who believed that science couldn’t change. In fact, evolution has been refined significantly as a theory based on new developments.

Most creationists and ID-ers aren’t really operating in the realm of scientific criticism when they attack evolution, however. Scientists question evolution all the time as they attempt to learn more about how life works. Creationists are not providing any realistic alternative, however, that explains the natural phenomena better than evolution does. Creationists are persecuting evolutionists in a manner worse than what the Church supposedly did to Galileo, in terms of the content of the “argument” against.
It is quite arrogant to demand God to answer our inquiries. It is arrogant to believe we can know all that God knows. Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.
Who suggested we demand of God answers, or that we can know all that He knows? Science is the investigation of what God has already presented for us in His creation. All answers that can be found through study of nature He has already revealed. We must just search and seek to understand.
 
Would God deceive us through His Creation? Consider this: youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&NR=1

In that link you will find a 4 minute video explaining how evolution accurately predicts a genetic occurrence resulting from common ancestry between humans and apes. Why would God make things that way only to deceive us?

Why is there a problem with believing that God used the mechanism/process/pattern of evolution to create the physical, biological life forms we see today, including our human forms? The soul is what is truly in the image and likeness of God (unless you are LDS and believe that God has a body) and evolution will never be able to explain God’s institution and creation of the soul. Our physical form is, however, observable in a scientific way, and God beautifully reveals Himself through observable nature.
ahhhh…makes one wonder why when God sent his son Jesus, Jesus was in human form…

now why then didn’t God send Jesus in the form of our ancestors APE to put things right? He sent the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, then why didn’t He send Jesus in the form of an APE? it would be just His chance to put things in proper order so that we, His creatures, would understand how we came to be, through evolution, because all the while, God knows we’re gonna have these questions about how we came to be through Him…

when He created adam, He created him as a physical creature and not a soul…
 
You’re still missing the point. The point is that God’s creation will not deceive. Yes, we may be missing important pieces of the puzzle, but investigation that reveals more pieces will lead us further in the right direction. Such is the method of science. Further investigation will not reveal things that deceive. We must, however, work with what we have observed. Evolution explains natural phenomena far better than any other theory out there. So do physical and astronomical theories that posit a vast universe and tremendous age.

I would be surprised if you found a serious scientist who believed that science couldn’t change. In fact, evolution has been refined significantly as a theory based on new developments.

Most creationists and ID-ers aren’t really operating in the realm of scientific criticism when they attack evolution, however. Scientists question evolution all the time as they attempt to learn more about how life works. Creationists are not providing any realistic alternative, however, that explains the natural phenomena better than evolution does. Creationists are persecuting evolutionists in a manner worse than what the Church supposedly did to Galileo, in terms of the content of the “argument” against.

Who suggested we demand of God answers, or that we can know all that He knows? Science is the investigation of what God has already presented for us in His creation. All answers that can be found through study of nature He has already revealed. We must just search and seek to understand.
We are in general agreement. God cannot deceive or be deceived. I was focusing on the part about missing pieces of the puzzle. Analogy - the universe is like a billion piece puzzle, we have 1 million pieces. We have only a small portion of the picture. We are extrapolating what we think the picture looks like from this small amount of pieces. We could be way off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top