Secular discussion about evolution

[steveandersen]

tomaskovarik:

seems like I share the same opinion with you. If Evolution is all there is, then who needs God? All this talk about theistic creationism, or intelligent design, or whatever you can name, are just feeble attempts to rescue creation while admitting evolution.
I think this is poor and no matter how smartly you go about it (like Phil is trying to do), it is just a bogus. Last resort, last attempt for a rescue.
Saying that God creates using evolution is a nonsense statement clearly

How so?

Why would using a billion year long, molecular level process be in any way less Godlike than “Poof, your a human”?

If god is truly eternal, all-powerful, and transcendent why the need to put him in human terms or on a timeline we can understand?

The merest flicker of his little finger on the first hydrogen molecule would be more than enough for him to have full, direct, and complete involvement in human creation.

If you somehow think that there is something incorrect with evolution or some other naturalistic approach to Creation it raises the serious question of why God would make the world look exactly as if evolution is true.

Our faith tells us that faith and reason cannot be in conflict. So since we are up to our eyeballs in data supporting evolution then it clearly must be a mechanism for Creation.

Any other interpretation would leave us with the options of God as either a liar or a practical joker.

 

[tomaskovarik]

Jason Meyers:

If fertilization is all there is, then who needs God? Do you agree that there is a biological aspect to our individual creation in addition to the spiritual aspect provided by God? After all, Jeremiah refers to God creating in the womb, and does not say anything about developmental biology or alignment of chromosomes along the metaphase plate or sperm digesting away the protein coating outside the egg or BMP2b triggering formation of your bones or …
So, if God can create us each while using the mechanisms understood as developmental biology and yet play a role in the creating by imbuing that physical body with a soul, what is the problem of God creating our species using the mechanisms understood as evolution and then imbuing that species with a soul?
JRM

The problem with that is that you don’t find anything like that in Bible or early church theology. This explanation came as a rather lame modification of the creation doctrine to suit scientific facts.
But this takes away the fundamental principle of revelation, that it is independent of facts.
Evolution theory seems to explain where we came from, where our ethics and aspirations came from, so who needs God for further explanation?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

:

Any other interpretation would leave us with the options of God as either a liar or a practical joker.

Not necessarily. The data has been reinterpreted in very large ways within evolution, e.g. punctuated equilibruium.

Gravity has seemingly infinite amounts opf data suggesting it obeys Newtonian laws of physics; GR put a new spin on that data relatively recently.

Keep an open mind on the possibilities of new data or new theories on old data. Nothing in our faith says we have to go to war on one side or the other.

More charity all around, please

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

tomaskovarik:

Evolution theory seems to explain where we came from, where our ethics and aspirations came from, so who needs God for further explanation?

This is the dangerous notion in the misapplication of evolutionary theory too roundly applied. Natural selection becomes a metaphor for “all existence modifies itself for survival” and is used to justify every concievable behaviour as hoc, which if accepted, leads one to the conclusion–there is no soul.

Though it leaves aside the first cause issue.

Evolution as all powerful life force dismisses the philosophical issues of existentialism, it does away with charity entirely as a thing in itself. All authentic emotion has its genesis in selfish survivability. It fits if the best you want out of your existence is the least God has to offer you. All without a shred of proof and a void, a selfishness, where the human heart should reside…

Evolution is the new baby for atheism. People are rightly worried that something that speaks so clearly the opposite of what Jesus taught should be so highly accepted by secular society.

For disciples of such a theory, the cross of Christ has no meaning.

 

[steveandersen]

MichaelTDoyle:

…For disciples of such a theory, the cross of Christ has no meaning.

More charity all around, please

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I did not mean this as uncharitable, but a statement of philosophical fact. What sense does Christ’s sacrifice have in such a worldview? It is charity to make people aware of what they are giving up if they take up the all enveloping cause of evolution as explaining the heart of Man. It is a beguiiling theorem: Everything is understandable by man and man is the measure of all things.

It has an attractiveness–until you think of what you leave behind! The love of Christ, the reality that our own suffering can be made meritorious at the foot of the cross. That He loved us to His death, literally, and Love should be our guiding purpose. It flies in the face of Evolution of the spirit.

By alll means, charity. And what is more charitable than reminding people of what, most precious, they leave behind just to be the measure of all things.

I said it in charity; I mean it in charity, and I believe it in charity and in charity I want to remind everyone what is at stake here! People wander down the road of agnosticism and stumble onto this popular evolution and in one fell swoop they repudiate the cross and condemn themselves to a shadow of the love that is their portion in this life, not even mentioning the next.

Please pray on this.

 

[PhilVaz]

Mike << More charity all around, please >>

No I refuse. Need more data, less charity.

I see “abcdefg” has finally given up. Well well well, what do you know. My “more data, less charity” approach and master plan to convert the entire board to theistic evolutionists is beginning to work and produce fruit.

And no I am not talking about Pumpkins either. BTW we would be related to "the vine crops family called cucurbits" which is where we get Pumpkins, not necessarily Pumpkins themselves. Just in case anyone was wondering about that “burning issue” of evolutionary science from a previous post in this thread. All extent “flora and fauna” would indeed have common ancestors going way way way way way back given macroevolution. But chimps are still our closest cousins. I like Pumpkins, at least its a little better than the Kent Hovind claim that evolution says "we come from a rock."

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Michael << People wander down the road of agnosticism and stumble onto this popular evolution and in one fell swoop they repudiate the cross and condemn themselves >>

That happens, but it does more damage to promote creation science. What we need are more Catholics and Christians in science, doing science, and promoting good science. Everyone needs to get Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, many specific theological, philosophical, and scientific objections are dealt with there in good detail.

Phil P

 

[abcdefg]

PhilVaz:

Mike << More charity all around, please >>

No I refuse. Need more data, less charity.

I see “abcdefg” has finally given up. Well well well, what do you know. My “more data, less charity” approach and master plan to convert the entire board to theistic evolutionists is beginning to work and produce fruit.

And no I am not talking about Pumpkins either. BTW we would be related to "the vine crops family called cucurbits" which is where we get Pumpkins, not necessarily Pumpkins themselves. Just in case anyone was wondering about that “burning issue” of evolutionary science from a previous post in this thread. All extent “flora and fauna” would indeed have common ancestors going way way way way way back given macroevolution. But chimps are still our closest cousins. I like Pumpkins, at least its a little better than the Kent Hovind claim that evolution says "we come from a rock."

Phil P

who said I give up? I have to go to sleep everyday. if multiple humans are using the same account “philvaz” around the clock, then don’t expect me to use such tactics. a new thread is created to be more specific about this subject

 

[abcdefg]

To Jason Meyers: in post #3 that site failed give “bats don’t evolute” as a reason. as the question of evolution isn’t settled, this is called biased research and is generally discredited. examples: if you do research to prove a new medicine is effective, then your results are invalid. if your research is to find the effectiveness of the medicine then the result is valid

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

PhilVaz:

Michael << People wander down the road of agnosticism and stumble onto this popular evolution and in one fell swoop they repudiate the cross and condemn themselves >>

That happens, but it does more damage to promote creation science. What we need are more Catholics and Christians in science, doing science, and promoting good science. Everyone needs to get

Phil P

I think this is a both/and, not an either/or
.
I disagree, however, that creationists do more damage. The people vulnerable to atheistic evolution philosophy are those who need to be evangelized about the Cross. The imprimateur of the scientific community of evolution makes them somewhat culpable for the worldview being promulgated (post 42)

There is a choice here that is not being consciously made. Who has time for the stillness wherein we listen for Him? Instead, I filled my life with the sturm and drang of everyday life and but for the grace of God would have fallen for this same trap. It’s so hip and smart and reasonable for man to be the measure of all things and science to be the altar of how we view the universe. For me, fulfillment comes from the recognition that God transcends us and yet He loves us and made us to love, not to measure all things to our small will.

There is a trick being played here that has nothing to do with scientific rigor, a Satanic trick to twist this theory beyond the physical sciences into a meaningless catchall for a philosophy of Efficacy, where all systems, physical, emotional, spiritual, are bent toward survival and improvement.

I would like people to consciously choose the weltanschauen at the core of their being: Do you want to live your life for authentic love? Or do you want to live as one of the strong in a world where the strong winnow the weak?

Take your pick. It’s as clear as day and night.

 

[tomaskovarik]

MichaelTDoyle:

This is the dangerous notion in the misapplication of evolutionary theory too roundly applied. Natural selection becomes a metaphor for “all existence modifies itself for survival” and is used to justify every concievable behaviour as hoc, which if accepted, leads one to the conclusion–there is no soul.

Though it leaves aside the first cause issue.

Evolution as all powerful life force dismisses the philosophical issues of existentialism, it does away with charity entirely as a thing in itself. All authentic emotion has its genesis in selfish survivability. It fits if the best you want out of your existence is the least God has to offer you. All without a shred of proof and a void, a selfishness, where the human heart should reside…

Evolution is the new baby for atheism. People are rightly worried that something that speaks so clearly the opposite of what Jesus taught should be so highly accepted by secular society.

For disciples of such a theory, the cross of Christ has no meaning.

Very good!!!
You brought my point to its ultimate conclusion.
That was a topic of my new threat I am interested in, can there be charity withoug God? Could there be morality without God, apart from morality dictated by the jungle laws of survival?
Maybe this alone will re-introduce God into the picture.

 

[Orogeny]

MichaelTDoyle:

I think this is a both/and, not an either/or

I would like people to consciously choose the weltanschauen at the core of their being: Do you want to live your life for authentic love? Or do you want to live as one of the strong in a world where the strong winnow the weak?

Take your pick. It’s as clear as day and night.

So, according to you, it is an either/or. I don’t have to choose either/or. My choice is both.

Peace

Tim

 

[zian]

Welcome to the Drinking with Chopsticks thread!!

abcdefg:

This thread is about evolution “theories” which claim the formation of human body(or any other species) is a natural process. for those think God took an active role in the formation of human body, use a theology thread.

Some of you are attempting to hijack abcdefg’s thread with theological discussion. tsk tsk. :tsktsk:

abcdefg:

1. No fossil evolution record is associated with bats. what’s special about bats?

It would be nice if you would admit that Jason showed that your assertion about “no fossil evidence for bats” was incorrect? Or do you continue to dispute that there is fossil evidence for bats?

 

[zian]

MichaelTDoyle:

I disagree, however, that creationists do more damage. The people vulnerable to atheistic evolution philosophy are those who need to be evangelized about the Cross.

otoh - I can also think of many self-professed Christians who fail to behave as such, and also need to be evangelized to the Cross. Just an observation.

The imprimateur of the scientific community of evolution makes them somewhat culpable for the worldview being promulgated (post 42){/quote]
I won’t disagree that people fail to use their brains in understanding of science as well as religion. To the detriment of both.

 

[zian]

abcdefg:

I just show you evolution has no scientific base.

I missed it!!! Where???
(Only scientific references please)

 

[abcdefg]

zian:

It would be nice if you would admit that Jason showed that your assertion about “no fossil evidence for bats” was incorrect? Or do you continue to dispute that there is fossil evidence for bats?

you’re distorting my statements. while I don’t doubt the authencity of those fossil, they simply can’t show there’s any evolution between ancient bats and modern bats.
I never said there’s no bat fossil. I’ve said there’re very few fossils, and no indication of evolution.

 

[zian]

abcdefg:

you’re distorting my statements. while I don’t doubt the authencity of those fossil, they simply can’t show there’s any evolution between ancient bats and modern bats.
I never said there’s no bat fossil. I’ve said there’re very few fossils, and no indication of evolution.

Your OP is unclear, then. So what you meant from:

abcdefg:

2)No fossil evolution record is associated with bats.

was that there is no evolution in the fossil record of bats. I still submit that Jason’s post shows that there are many fossils (not few), and through five epochs of geological time. That’s a pretty good stretch of time, as fossil records go.

 

[PhilVaz]

Evolution is Now Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Here is your Pumpkin to Bat to Human Transition

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/PumpkinToBatman.jpg

Thank you and good night :yawn:

Phil P

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Orogeny:

So, according to you, it is an either/or. I don’t have to choose either/or. My choice is both.

Peace

Tim

You took me out of context, by accident I assume.

Both/and refers to the two SEPARATE problems

1. fundamentalist creationists make it hard to take Christianity seriously from a philosophy that includes scientific rigor.
2. Evolution as an allencompassing theory for reality is in opposition to the Christian philosophy.

Problem 2 is not a both/and scenario. One has a metaphysical worldview and cannot have two diametrically opposed worldviews as detailed in my post.

You may want to reread my post. I know from personal experience how hard it is not to bring preconcieved idea about a topic or person to a post.

peace