H
hecd2
Guest
By the way, you can get this here without a subscription:
blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19710019.x
And of course it Homo sapiens not Homo Sapiens.
Alec
- Status
blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19710019.x
And of course it Homo sapiens not Homo Sapiens.
Alec
T
three-sixteen
Guest
PhilVaz you are so quick to be a spokesperson against the Bible. I wonder–whose team are you on, God or satan’s? What if when you get to Heaven and the Judgment Seat of Christ, He is upset with you for defending a lie from the pit of Hell? Have you ever wondered if there might be some sort of judgment for that, a longer stay in Purgatory perhaps?
Phil, paragraph 159 that you mentioned from the Catechism states that “there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason,” and that “God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” Thus the Truth God reveals in the Bible cannot contradict what we find in the Universe. The Bible says, “In the Beginning GOD.” Evolutionists say, “in the beginning, DIRT.”
God says that He created the Heavens and Earth in seven days. These must be literal days and not long periods of time because He created the sun a day after He created plants. Think about it… I know, Phil, that He did things like that just to humble the proud and foolish people that believe in evolution, or the people that want to believe both the Bible and evolution. It is reason that says this beautiful Universe must have a Creator. And, Phil, faith tells us the same.
Just answer me this, Phil: how would things like the human eye evolve? Darwin himself admitted how absurd the idea of eye evolution seemed. The eye, like most biological things, ONLY works if ALL the parts are there AT THE SAME TIME and in working order. Thus, if in a pre-eyed organism, just one part of an eye was formed by mutation (99.9999 percent of mutations are harmful anyway), how would this lead to a complete eye? Just one randomly mutated section of an eye would NOT be beneficial in any way and would have no reason to be naturally selected. In order for an eye to function there must be a retina, cornea, conjunctiva, iris, vitreous, macula, crystalline lens, optic nerves, and extraocular muscles ALL WORKING PROPERLY and together AT THE SAME TIME. If all these parts weren’t here, Phil, if even ONE part was not there, the whole eye would be USELESS. Thus, enigmas like these are little proofs from God to humble the proud. As the book of Romans says, “thinking themselves wise, they have become FOOLS.”
Phil, paragraph 159 that you mentioned from the Catechism states that “there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason,” and that “God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” Thus the Truth God reveals in the Bible cannot contradict what we find in the Universe. The Bible says, “In the Beginning GOD.” Evolutionists say, “in the beginning, DIRT.”
God says that He created the Heavens and Earth in seven days. These must be literal days and not long periods of time because He created the sun a day after He created plants. Think about it… I know, Phil, that He did things like that just to humble the proud and foolish people that believe in evolution, or the people that want to believe both the Bible and evolution. It is reason that says this beautiful Universe must have a Creator. And, Phil, faith tells us the same.
Just answer me this, Phil: how would things like the human eye evolve? Darwin himself admitted how absurd the idea of eye evolution seemed. The eye, like most biological things, ONLY works if ALL the parts are there AT THE SAME TIME and in working order. Thus, if in a pre-eyed organism, just one part of an eye was formed by mutation (99.9999 percent of mutations are harmful anyway), how would this lead to a complete eye? Just one randomly mutated section of an eye would NOT be beneficial in any way and would have no reason to be naturally selected. In order for an eye to function there must be a retina, cornea, conjunctiva, iris, vitreous, macula, crystalline lens, optic nerves, and extraocular muscles ALL WORKING PROPERLY and together AT THE SAME TIME. If all these parts weren’t here, Phil, if even ONE part was not there, the whole eye would be USELESS. Thus, enigmas like these are little proofs from God to humble the proud. As the book of Romans says, “thinking themselves wise, they have become FOOLS.”
O
Orogeny
Guest
I’m going to snip most of this response because it isn’t worth replying to and because Phil will take care of it. I do want to comment on this part, though:
three-sixteen:
This same person with the attitude assumes he or she knows more than anyone else what it takes to get to Heaven. Three-sixteen knows more than the Vatican and obviously knows more than all those Christians who understand science. Three-sixteen comes to these CATHOLIC forums with a fundamentalist protestant attitude and somehow thinks that he/she will score some points.
Phil has been very consistent in his defense of the Church as well as science. Unlike three-sixteen, Phil has some actual backing from the Church in his views. Unlike three-sixteen, in all of his posts, I don’t recall a single time when Phil questioned someone’s faith simply because they disagreed with him on a particular science topic.
If I could ask one thing, it would not be that everyone who disagrees with the scientific viewpoint regarding evolution, age of the universe or whatever change their minds. It would be for those who do disagree at least have the courtesy of not attacking the faith of those of us who do accept the science.
Three-sixteen, you are perfectly welcome to believe in a literal 6 day creation. The Church does not say you can’t. The Church does, however, say that we are free to accept what the scientific community tells us regarding evolution as long as we understand that God had a hand in everything. Please don’t waste our time with your attacks on people’s faith because we follow the Church’s teaching. Maybe you should do a little research on what Phil believes before you launch such a petty attack.
Peace
Tim
It never ceases to amaze me to read the righteousness of some posters. Here we have a person with 2 posts questioning the faith of a forum member who has been around for a long time with many, many posts to his credit.
This same person with the attitude assumes he or she knows more than anyone else what it takes to get to Heaven. Three-sixteen knows more than the Vatican and obviously knows more than all those Christians who understand science. Three-sixteen comes to these CATHOLIC forums with a fundamentalist protestant attitude and somehow thinks that he/she will score some points.
Phil has been very consistent in his defense of the Church as well as science. Unlike three-sixteen, Phil has some actual backing from the Church in his views. Unlike three-sixteen, in all of his posts, I don’t recall a single time when Phil questioned someone’s faith simply because they disagreed with him on a particular science topic.
If I could ask one thing, it would not be that everyone who disagrees with the scientific viewpoint regarding evolution, age of the universe or whatever change their minds. It would be for those who do disagree at least have the courtesy of not attacking the faith of those of us who do accept the science.
Three-sixteen, you are perfectly welcome to believe in a literal 6 day creation. The Church does not say you can’t. The Church does, however, say that we are free to accept what the scientific community tells us regarding evolution as long as we understand that God had a hand in everything. Please don’t waste our time with your attacks on people’s faith because we follow the Church’s teaching. Maybe you should do a little research on what Phil believes before you launch such a petty attack.
Peace
Tim
T
three-sixteen
Guest
dearest Orogeny of the Species,
while i knew you so admire Charles Darwin as to name yourself after his science fiction book, i must confess that you are judging me in a much more unfair way than i have judged Groundhog Phil. You see, Orogeny of the Species, my view is in accord with Church teaching and you know it. The Church teaching says we MUST believe that God specially created the human soul. And as you just saw, Church teaching says that “truth cannot contradict truth,” nor can “faith contradict reason,” because God created both faith and reason.
i agree that we could be discussing more important things, like going to Daily Mass and saying the Rosary daily. These things i do. However i have studied CATHOLIC books that show evolution to be a silly Fairy Tale for Grownups.
In the fairy tales, a frog + a kiss = a Prince. In Evolution, a frog + time = a Prince. Time is the magical component of Evolution. If evolution is inobservable and seemingly ridiculous today, scientists resort to the “billions and billions of years” that evolution needs.
“The Scientific Viewpoint” as you mentioned includes a lot of science AGAINST evolution—not just science that seems to show that evolution may have happened. The stronger science favors the Creationist point of view. Fossils themselves, especially the great death pits found throughout the world, are scientific evidence of, not evolution, but of a world-wide catastrophe (the Flood). You see, in order for a fossil to be formed, an organism must be BURIED RAPIDLY. Of all the buffaloes killed when the whites came to the Americas, practically no fossils were formed—because they were not buried rapidly.
There is much evidence that proves the earth is not billions or even millions of years old. This science is rarely discussed. For example, before we landed on the moon, scientists calculated that since the moon was “billions of years old” there should me a great amount of space dust. People like Isaac Asimov predicted that the moonlander would descend out of view into a great layer of dust. But guess what? When we landed on the moon there was only a few THOUSAND years worth of dust accumulated—only a couple centimeters. There are many many unexplainable facts of science that show this earth and universe are young. i can list many more if you wish.
So, Orogeny of the Species, dont pretend like everyone else that we are dealing with an issue of faith versus science. It is actually Science versus Science. And, surprisingly to many, the Creationist Scientific view is much stronger.
while i knew you so admire Charles Darwin as to name yourself after his science fiction book, i must confess that you are judging me in a much more unfair way than i have judged Groundhog Phil. You see, Orogeny of the Species, my view is in accord with Church teaching and you know it. The Church teaching says we MUST believe that God specially created the human soul. And as you just saw, Church teaching says that “truth cannot contradict truth,” nor can “faith contradict reason,” because God created both faith and reason.
i agree that we could be discussing more important things, like going to Daily Mass and saying the Rosary daily. These things i do. However i have studied CATHOLIC books that show evolution to be a silly Fairy Tale for Grownups.
In the fairy tales, a frog + a kiss = a Prince. In Evolution, a frog + time = a Prince. Time is the magical component of Evolution. If evolution is inobservable and seemingly ridiculous today, scientists resort to the “billions and billions of years” that evolution needs.
“The Scientific Viewpoint” as you mentioned includes a lot of science AGAINST evolution—not just science that seems to show that evolution may have happened. The stronger science favors the Creationist point of view. Fossils themselves, especially the great death pits found throughout the world, are scientific evidence of, not evolution, but of a world-wide catastrophe (the Flood). You see, in order for a fossil to be formed, an organism must be BURIED RAPIDLY. Of all the buffaloes killed when the whites came to the Americas, practically no fossils were formed—because they were not buried rapidly.
There is much evidence that proves the earth is not billions or even millions of years old. This science is rarely discussed. For example, before we landed on the moon, scientists calculated that since the moon was “billions of years old” there should me a great amount of space dust. People like Isaac Asimov predicted that the moonlander would descend out of view into a great layer of dust. But guess what? When we landed on the moon there was only a few THOUSAND years worth of dust accumulated—only a couple centimeters. There are many many unexplainable facts of science that show this earth and universe are young. i can list many more if you wish.
So, Orogeny of the Species, dont pretend like everyone else that we are dealing with an issue of faith versus science. It is actually Science versus Science. And, surprisingly to many, the Creationist Scientific view is much stronger.
O
Orogeny
Guest
three-sixteen:
If you ever want to have any conversation with me, I would ask that you quit acting like a petulant 5 year old child. You apparently don’t have any desire to actually learn or even debate the issue. God bless you and your attitude.
Peace
Tim
If you ever want to have any conversation with me, I would ask that you quit acting like a petulant 5 year old child. You apparently don’t have any desire to actually learn or even debate the issue. God bless you and your attitude.
Peace
Tim
T
three-sixteen
Guest
thanks for the Blessing!
T
ThisOne
Guest
It seems many Catholics (some of them scientists themselves) are saying that ID isn’t “science,” so I am not sure myself why they are saying that if a mathematical proof can be offered that shows the odds of random mutation in the eye, for example, would not work if evolution were true.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
I just had a full-blown revelation! We decended from animals that were atheists
Wow! This is really profound. It makes me feel as a Christian more connected to atheists than ever before. Neato. 
H
hecd2
Guest
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.I just had a full-blown revelation! We decended from animals that were atheists
Alec
evolutionpages.com
E
Eireann
Guest
I’m not big into understanding where we came from, I’m more concerned where I’m going.
Thinking logically it does seem that rapid burial would probably stop things from decaying fast. IE; the quick removal of air, and I think air is required to rot things…
It would seem that the normal kind of burial would cause a dead body to decay rapidly, apart for the incorruptables, but that’s another story.
Ok I haven’t studied any of this in detail, so I’ll just waffle along, maybe some who have could answer this air, rapid, buriel thought.
Can anyone answer me as to how the craters on the moon were formed ?
I read somewhere a long time ago that they wern’t formed by objects hitting the moon, but by a cooling down process when it was actually formed.
T
three-sixteen
Guest
oh, no answers, huh?
H
hecd2
Guest
Nah - after your study of evolution for 9.81 minutes you just came in here and trumped my decades of study. What a revelation. I never saw the arguments about the evolution of the eye and the moon dust before. Why didn’t I think of them? But now I’ve seen 'em, I’m giving up science and taking up flower arranging.
You’re smart, man - must be all that grace from telling us about how holy you are that makes you such a powerful defender of Young Earth Creationism. You win, mate.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
While I personally don’t disdain Catholics who believe in Theistic Evolution, nonetheless I am an old-earth, progressive creationist instead. As for genetic similarities between all living things, I see no reason why God wouldn’t be creative enough to arrange that all living things have certain traits in common with each other and still be separate creations.
I have some scientific books on the subject of Evolution and though they make for fascinating reading, in the end I don’t find them 100% convincing.
Love,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
I have some scientific books on the subject of Evolution and though they make for fascinating reading, in the end I don’t find them 100% convincing.
Love,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
H
hecd2
Guest
Meteorites
Alec
P
PhilVaz
Guest
316 << PhilVaz you are so quick to be a spokesperson against the Bible. I wonder – whose team are you on, God or satan’s? What if when you get to Heaven and the Judgment Seat of Christ, He is upset with you for defending a lie from the pit of Hell? Have you ever wondered if there might be some sort of judgment for that, a longer stay in Purgatory perhaps? >>
You dare challenge me???
Not by the hair on your chinny, chin chin??? Well then I will Huff, and I will Puff, and I will blow your house in!!! And may this be the very LAST creation-evolution thread I participate herein…
I am on God’s Team of Theistic Evolutionists, while Satan and his demons are young-earth creationists and want you to join them and be one too. Please don’t go to hell. Purgatory is kind of a combination of theistic evolutionists, creationists, and maybe a few atheists like Alec.
316 << Phil, paragraph 159 that you mentioned from the Catechism states that “there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason,” and that “God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” Thus the Truth God reveals in the Bible cannot contradict what we find in the Universe. The Bible says, “In the Beginning GOD.” Evolutionists say, “in the beginning, DIRT.” >>
Creationists say In the Beginning God. Evolutionists say In the Beginning Particles-Dirt.
HOWEVER, THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS say, In the Beginning God-Particles-Dirt. In that order.
And the International Theological Commission statement of Cardinal Ratzinger and paragraphs 283-284 of the Catechism agree with that. Actually, the Bible says for the creation of man, in the beginning DUST, so evolution got it right. We are from the earth. Who made us? God made us. Evolution made us. Both are true.
“Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.” (In the Beginning… by Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI)
316 << God says that He created the Heavens and Earth in seven days. >>
Not so. God says he created the heavens and earth in 6 days. He rested on the seventh day. And because that rest is still continuing (see Hebrews 4) that tells us the days are not literal.
316 << These must be literal days and not long periods of time because He created the sun a day after He created plants. Think about it… I know, Phil, that He did things like that just to humble the proud and foolish people that believe in evolution, or the people that want to believe both the Bible and evolution. It is reason that says this beautiful Universe must have a Creator. And, Phil, faith tells us the same. >>
This beautiful and sometimes not-so-beautiful universe does have a Creator. And all the scientific evidence the Creator left for us to discover on this planet tells us the Creator created and designed by evolution.
The days are not literal for any number of reasons: the Hebrew allows it, the context allows it (sun which determines a “day” was not created until the fourth day, while the seventh day is one of “rest” and God is still resting, see Hebrews 4), and science (geology) demands it. Scientists have known the earth is 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old since the 1950s, and geologists have known the earth is very old well before Darwin. The history of this is all documented on my site.
See John Paul II on Genesis in Cosmology and Fundamental Physics (10/3/1981). In short, according to John Paul II: (1) the Bible is not a scientific treatise; (2) the main point of Genesis 1 is that God is our Creator; (3) the Scripture uses the cosmology in use at the time of the writer (not a modern cosmology); (4) the Bible wishes to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens were made; (5) any other teaching about the origin and nature of the universe is alien to the intentions of the original biblical authors.
NEXT: Eye Evolution…
Phil P
You dare challenge me???
Not by the hair on your chinny, chin chin??? Well then I will Huff, and I will Puff, and I will blow your house in!!! And may this be the very LAST creation-evolution thread I participate herein…
I am on God’s Team of Theistic Evolutionists, while Satan and his demons are young-earth creationists and want you to join them and be one too. Please don’t go to hell. Purgatory is kind of a combination of theistic evolutionists, creationists, and maybe a few atheists like Alec.
316 << Phil, paragraph 159 that you mentioned from the Catechism states that “there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason,” and that “God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” Thus the Truth God reveals in the Bible cannot contradict what we find in the Universe. The Bible says, “In the Beginning GOD.” Evolutionists say, “in the beginning, DIRT.” >>
Creationists say In the Beginning God. Evolutionists say In the Beginning Particles-Dirt.
HOWEVER, THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS say, In the Beginning God-Particles-Dirt. In that order.
And the International Theological Commission statement of Cardinal Ratzinger and paragraphs 283-284 of the Catechism agree with that. Actually, the Bible says for the creation of man, in the beginning DUST, so evolution got it right. We are from the earth. Who made us? God made us. Evolution made us. Both are true.
“Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.” (In the Beginning… by Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI)
316 << God says that He created the Heavens and Earth in seven days. >>
Not so. God says he created the heavens and earth in 6 days. He rested on the seventh day. And because that rest is still continuing (see Hebrews 4) that tells us the days are not literal.
316 << These must be literal days and not long periods of time because He created the sun a day after He created plants. Think about it… I know, Phil, that He did things like that just to humble the proud and foolish people that believe in evolution, or the people that want to believe both the Bible and evolution. It is reason that says this beautiful Universe must have a Creator. And, Phil, faith tells us the same. >>
This beautiful and sometimes not-so-beautiful universe does have a Creator. And all the scientific evidence the Creator left for us to discover on this planet tells us the Creator created and designed by evolution.
The days are not literal for any number of reasons: the Hebrew allows it, the context allows it (sun which determines a “day” was not created until the fourth day, while the seventh day is one of “rest” and God is still resting, see Hebrews 4), and science (geology) demands it. Scientists have known the earth is 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old since the 1950s, and geologists have known the earth is very old well before Darwin. The history of this is all documented on my site.
See John Paul II on Genesis in Cosmology and Fundamental Physics (10/3/1981). In short, according to John Paul II: (1) the Bible is not a scientific treatise; (2) the main point of Genesis 1 is that God is our Creator; (3) the Scripture uses the cosmology in use at the time of the writer (not a modern cosmology); (4) the Bible wishes to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens were made; (5) any other teaching about the origin and nature of the universe is alien to the intentions of the original biblical authors.
NEXT: Eye Evolution…
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
316 << Just answer me this, Phil: how would things like the human eye evolve? Darwin himself admitted how absurd the idea of eye evolution seemed. The eye, like most biological things, ONLY works if ALL the parts are there AT THE SAME TIME and in working order. >>
The evolution of the eye was somewhat of a problem in Darwin’s day, but even he had some idea how it would go. Compare the later versions of Darwin discussing this in Origin of Species on this page.
Your experts on eye evolution are Dan-Erik Nilsson of the Lund Vision Group, and Richard Dawkins (Climbing Mount Improbable, chapter 5) also "Where D’You Get Those Peepers?" takes care of eye evolution. There are creatures on this planet today that have any number of working eyes with just some of the parts you mentioned. How good is half an eye? Answer: 50% sight is better than 25% sight, and 10% sight is better than 5%, and even a bare “light-sensitive spot” is better than total blindness. All the evidence we have tells us the eye evolved, independently it seems in various creatures, by “numerous successive slight modifications” just as Darwin predicted. And further, when left in total darkness, many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, vestigial eyes. More evidence for evolution.
316 << In order for an eye to function there must be a retina, cornea, conjunctiva, iris, vitreous, macula, crystalline lens, optic nerves, and extraocular muscles ALL WORKING PROPERLY and together AT THE SAME TIME. If all these parts weren’t here, Phil, if even ONE part was not there, the whole eye would be USELESS. >>
That’s not the case, I suggest you check out the many working eyes in nature that don’t have all those parts. Again, Richard Dawkins is very good here. Ignore his atheism, and learn from his science. Also print out all my links for the details.
Phil P
The evolution of the eye was somewhat of a problem in Darwin’s day, but even he had some idea how it would go. Compare the later versions of Darwin discussing this in Origin of Species on this page.
Your experts on eye evolution are Dan-Erik Nilsson of the Lund Vision Group, and Richard Dawkins (Climbing Mount Improbable, chapter 5) also "Where D’You Get Those Peepers?" takes care of eye evolution. There are creatures on this planet today that have any number of working eyes with just some of the parts you mentioned. How good is half an eye? Answer: 50% sight is better than 25% sight, and 10% sight is better than 5%, and even a bare “light-sensitive spot” is better than total blindness. All the evidence we have tells us the eye evolved, independently it seems in various creatures, by “numerous successive slight modifications” just as Darwin predicted. And further, when left in total darkness, many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, vestigial eyes. More evidence for evolution.
316 << In order for an eye to function there must be a retina, cornea, conjunctiva, iris, vitreous, macula, crystalline lens, optic nerves, and extraocular muscles ALL WORKING PROPERLY and together AT THE SAME TIME. If all these parts weren’t here, Phil, if even ONE part was not there, the whole eye would be USELESS. >>
That’s not the case, I suggest you check out the many working eyes in nature that don’t have all those parts. Again, Richard Dawkins is very good here. Ignore his atheism, and learn from his science. Also print out all my links for the details.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
And a couple things you said to Tim (Orogeny):
316 << However i have studied CATHOLIC books that show evolution to be a silly Fairy Tale for Grownups. >>
As a new poster to the forums, you have clearly been reading the wrong books. I will now point you in the right direction:
Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller (Catholic biologist)
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller (evangelical geologist, no relation)
Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology by Darrel Falk (evangelical biologist)
Three fabulous books by Christians and theistic evolutionists. My articles also present the evidence for an old earth and evidence for evolution in good detail.
316 << In the fairy tales, a frog + a kiss = a Prince. In Evolution, a frog + time = a Prince. Time is the magical component of Evolution. >>
It is even greater than that, since God is greater. The equation is Particles + Time + God’s Love = Prince PhilVaz and all the other princes, like Prince Caspian
316 << “The Scientific Viewpoint” as you mentioned includes a lot of science AGAINST evolution – not just science that seems to show that evolution may have happened. >>
There is no good science I have seen against evolution. All the so-called “science” against evolution is from creationist web sites or creationist books and none of it is credible. They get all the science wrong, and all of it is demolished in excruciating detail at sites like TalkOrigins.org or Alec’s EvolutionPages.com
316 << The stronger science favors the Creationist point of view. >>
There is no science that supports young-earth creationism. We’ve known this for about 200 years, well before Darwin.
316 << Fossils themselves, especially the great death pits found throughout the world, are scientific evidence of, not evolution, but of a world-wide catastrophe (the Flood) >>
There is no science that supports a worldwide Flood a few thousand years ago. Too many problems with that. A local flood I don’t have a problem with, and folks like Hugh Ross, and Rich Deem will defend that for you biblically as well. The fossils are laid out in an evolutionary sequence as predicted. See for example the Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota by Glenn Morton, a former young-earth creationist and oil geologist, now theistic evolutionist.
316 << There is much evidence that proves the earth is not billions or even millions of years old. This science is rarely discussed. >>
There is no credible scientific evidence for an earth only thousands of years old. And the science has been discussed in here since May 2004 when those bad creationist arguments first began cropping up. All those arguments you will find from Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) or AnswersInGenesis were demolished decades ago by folks like geologist G. Brent Dalrymple, and answered over 150 years ago by the “classic” Christian creationists before Darwin.
316 << For example, before we landed on the moon, scientists calculated that since the moon was “billions of years old” there should be a great amount of space dust. People like Isaac Asimov predicted that the moonlander would descend out of view into a great layer of dust. But guess what? >>
Guess what? I know what. Answers In Genesis says this is an "Argument Creationists Should NOT Use." Please stop using it. The space dust / moon dust argument was abandoned by creationists themselves DECADES ago. You need to keep up, and please check out TalkOrigins.org, Alec’s EvolutionPages.com, or any reputable geology or biology textbook you can find at your local public or university library.
There is no credible scientific evidence for a young earth, and no credible scientific evidence against macroevolution. The Catholic Church has confirmed the science from Pius XII, to John Paul II, to Benedict XVI. See Catechism 159, 283-284.
Phil P
316 << However i have studied CATHOLIC books that show evolution to be a silly Fairy Tale for Grownups. >>
As a new poster to the forums, you have clearly been reading the wrong books. I will now point you in the right direction:
Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller (Catholic biologist)
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller (evangelical geologist, no relation)
Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology by Darrel Falk (evangelical biologist)
Three fabulous books by Christians and theistic evolutionists. My articles also present the evidence for an old earth and evidence for evolution in good detail.
316 << In the fairy tales, a frog + a kiss = a Prince. In Evolution, a frog + time = a Prince. Time is the magical component of Evolution. >>
It is even greater than that, since God is greater. The equation is Particles + Time + God’s Love = Prince PhilVaz and all the other princes, like Prince Caspian
316 << “The Scientific Viewpoint” as you mentioned includes a lot of science AGAINST evolution – not just science that seems to show that evolution may have happened. >>
There is no good science I have seen against evolution. All the so-called “science” against evolution is from creationist web sites or creationist books and none of it is credible. They get all the science wrong, and all of it is demolished in excruciating detail at sites like TalkOrigins.org or Alec’s EvolutionPages.com
316 << The stronger science favors the Creationist point of view. >>
There is no science that supports young-earth creationism. We’ve known this for about 200 years, well before Darwin.
316 << Fossils themselves, especially the great death pits found throughout the world, are scientific evidence of, not evolution, but of a world-wide catastrophe (the Flood) >>
There is no science that supports a worldwide Flood a few thousand years ago. Too many problems with that. A local flood I don’t have a problem with, and folks like Hugh Ross, and Rich Deem will defend that for you biblically as well. The fossils are laid out in an evolutionary sequence as predicted. See for example the Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota by Glenn Morton, a former young-earth creationist and oil geologist, now theistic evolutionist.
316 << There is much evidence that proves the earth is not billions or even millions of years old. This science is rarely discussed. >>
There is no credible scientific evidence for an earth only thousands of years old. And the science has been discussed in here since May 2004 when those bad creationist arguments first began cropping up. All those arguments you will find from Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) or AnswersInGenesis were demolished decades ago by folks like geologist G. Brent Dalrymple, and answered over 150 years ago by the “classic” Christian creationists before Darwin.
316 << For example, before we landed on the moon, scientists calculated that since the moon was “billions of years old” there should be a great amount of space dust. People like Isaac Asimov predicted that the moonlander would descend out of view into a great layer of dust. But guess what? >>
Guess what? I know what. Answers In Genesis says this is an "Argument Creationists Should NOT Use." Please stop using it. The space dust / moon dust argument was abandoned by creationists themselves DECADES ago. You need to keep up, and please check out TalkOrigins.org, Alec’s EvolutionPages.com, or any reputable geology or biology textbook you can find at your local public or university library.
There is no credible scientific evidence for a young earth, and no credible scientific evidence against macroevolution. The Catholic Church has confirmed the science from Pius XII, to John Paul II, to Benedict XVI. See Catechism 159, 283-284.
Phil P
K
Karl_Keating
Guest
This thread began with this claim:
“According to an article published in last month’s Science magazine, in 2003 scientists found a Tyrannosaurus Rex thigh bone during an archaeological dig. The research team had to break the bone in pieces in order to fit it into a helicopter, and when they did so, they discovered the fossil contained well-preserved soft tissues, including blood vessels.”
The article in “Science” said that the bone was 107 cm. long. That’s only 42 inches. If the bone had to be broken to fit into a helicopter, then the helicopter was not a Robinson 22 (most popular two-seater). It must have been one of those radio-controlled models you can buy through hobby stores.
“According to an article published in last month’s Science magazine, in 2003 scientists found a Tyrannosaurus Rex thigh bone during an archaeological dig. The research team had to break the bone in pieces in order to fit it into a helicopter, and when they did so, they discovered the fossil contained well-preserved soft tissues, including blood vessels.”
The article in “Science” said that the bone was 107 cm. long. That’s only 42 inches. If the bone had to be broken to fit into a helicopter, then the helicopter was not a Robinson 22 (most popular two-seater). It must have been one of those radio-controlled models you can buy through hobby stores.
I
Ianjo99
Guest
PhilVaz - THANK YOU!!!
Z
zian
Guest
Yet another round of eggnog for Phil, Alec and Tim !!
Salut.
Man, if three-sixteen keep this up, I’ll have to run out and get some more eggnog.
Salut.
Man, if three-sixteen keep this up, I’ll have to run out and get some more eggnog.
- Status