Thank God for Evolution!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Neil_Anthony said:
Well I was all against creationism until I saw Peter’s video. Did you watch it? it shows how the layers can be created in just minutes.
Click to expand...
You were all against it until one video from Peter? Oh my goodness. No I did not. I have dialup so I could not. But do you honestly think in the deepest recesses of your mind that hundreds of thousands of scientists are actively misleading you with some profound motive to destroy your faith? My God, open you eyes. You cannot possibly assume that some one has this momentous evidence of creationism or anti-evolutionary evidence and nobody believes it. The entire geological and evolutionary world would be upside down and it would be headlines in every paper. I’m wondering if you are quite young and have not yet acquired the usual college learned techniques for discerning truth from fiction in evaluating sources and material. Creationists make things “sound” right, they are just almost always not true in any way but the most superficial.
 
hecd2 said:
But did you read the article that demonstrates that Berthault’s claims are hubris? Or are you so easily seduced by rubbish that you have decided to look no further?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
Click to expand...
Here’s the title of the article:
**The Curious Case of the One-Man Band
Click to expand...
The work of Guy Berthault: Revolutionary Geology or Extravagant Hubris? **
Click to expand...
You expect me to take that seriously as a scientific article? His tone just reinforces the argument that evolution is all about pressuring people to believe what they say.
 
I wonder what an objective outsider with no prejudices regarding evolution theory would think of a debate organised by Catholic Answers (and, therefore assumed to be of a certain academic standard) which contained emotive remarks such as the following?

**Hecd2 posts **:
631 You scorn Protestant (and, I assume, Jewish and Islamic) fundamentalists, but your view is indistinguishable from theirs - the rejection of reason, science and evidence in favour of scriptural literalism and untutored tradition.
Click to expand...
632 It’s a great pity that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven have been given into the hands of heretics these 50 years
Click to expand...
Wildleafblower:
633 And I’m sick and tired of fighting this stupid war game where people don’t think evolution is a fact
Click to expand...
**Hecd2 **
635 Ah yes, popes for the last 50 years have been so dumb that they are easily deluded and misinformed, while you see clearly. That explains the situation fully then.
Click to expand...
637 Not only are you so clever that you can clearly discern truths about which recent popes are so dumb that they are sheepishly deluded or misinformed, to the extent that they, in turn, mislead the faithful into error and heresy, but you are also so brave that you are willing to make a stand on a subject that all other living Catholic theologians cravenly avoid because it is “a hot potato”.
Click to expand...
638 This outdated article is just the same old anti-intellectual, anti-science, showboating garbage riddled with error and ignorance that the likes of Hovind and Ham produce. Worthless.
Click to expand...
Zian
639 I gave it a listen through the presenter’s (Peter’s) interviews with Fondi and Sermonti, but then I just got tired of listening to such wilful ignorance.
Click to expand...
Drpmjhess
641 The article is useless, as one would expect from the Kolbe Center. It’s a pity the name of that saintly man has become associated with the work of lunatics.
Click to expand...
In the light of intolerance, sarcasm and abuse of this nature is it possible to conduct an intellectual forum?

Peter
 
Look folks–anyone who believes the Grand Canyone is 6,000 years old is just plain crazy.

While I believe that Adam and Eve were literal people and some of the Genesis creation account is true–I am not persuaded to throw away all my brains and believe in the young Earth non sense.

An old Earth + Evolution + a literal Adam and Eve is OK to believe in.

You don’t have to believe in God-less totally at random evolution with no purpose whatsoever on one end of the spectrum or 6-day 6,000 literal years ago creationism on the other side of the spectrum.
 
Responding to my earlier post

**
The term “creationist” used over the last 30 or so years connotates with Protestant fundamentalism. Catholics having followed the creation/evolution debate cannot associate themselves with the latter position because Catholics argue from the Magisterium and Tradition, both rejected by Protestants.
Click to expand...
**

Hecd2 posts:
You scorn Protestant (and, I assume, Jewish and Islamic) fundamentalists, but your view is indistinguishable from theirs - the rejection of reason, science and evidence in favour of scriptural literalism and untutored tradition
Click to expand...
.

A closer reading of my post shows that Hecd2’s accusation is unfounded because it stated :

Catholics reason from the Magisterium and Tradition, both rejected by Protestants. Protestants argue from their self-made doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’. The distinction between the two is fairly clear; Catholics apply ‘de fide’ teaching such as Lateran IV. The same logic applies to the difference between Jewish and Islamic teaching.

Peter
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Look folks–anyone who believes the Grand Canyone is 6,000 years old is just plain crazy.
Click to expand...
Peter, looking at your video evidence again, just because they created those sediments in a few minutes, how would that apply to the Grand Canyon? Are you saying that it was formed in the same way by water currents depositing sand in vertical layers that appear to be horizontal?
 
SpiritMeadow said:
You were all against it until one video from Peter? Oh my goodness. No I did not. I have dialup so I could not. But do you honestly think in the deepest recesses of your mind that hundreds of thousands of scientists are actively misleading you with some profound motive to destroy your faith? My God, open you eyes. You cannot possibly assume that some one has this momentous evidence of creationism or anti-evolutionary evidence and nobody believes it.
Click to expand...
It could be a couple of things, not nearly as far-fetched as what you say here:
  1. The scientific evidence could be circular. For example, one article by a supposed mainstream scientist that was posted here, tried to debunk the new discoveries about sedimentation by saying that the lowest layers must be older, because they have the oldest lifeforms in them! But the notion that those lifeforms are oldest came about from studying the layers and assuming the lower layers were older. It’s circular reasoning.
  2. There would be a philosophical bias built right into science. After all, they’re looking to explain how life originated using laws of nature. No matter how farfetched it might seem that the first lifeform randomly came into existence from primordial soup… thats the only solution they can offer, since they have no physical evidence of a God who might have created life. Therefore since God isn’t physical, God can’t be a reason or anything.
 
“open your eyes” “open your mind” believing in anything other than evolution is crazy!

The truth is a rare commodity on the internet generally. Church Teaching tells us Adam and Eve were our parents. Just go to the Library on this site if you don’t believe me. Genesis records actual history. Once again, it’s in the Library on this site.

Evolution that states everything came to be, including humans, entirely on its own is against Catholic Teaching. God intervened. It doesn’t matter if that’s not in a textbook, that’s what the Church teaches. Whatever happened, God guided it.

Unfortunately, some here, like SpiritMeadow, are more interested in politics. About convincing people that the Church needs to change. Science has nothing of real value to say to the Church about this issue. And those who wish to separate science and theology should realize that the Church does not and says so to the faithful.

God bless,
Ed
 
hecd2 said:
But did you read the article that demonstrates that Berthault’s claims are hubris? Or are you so easily seduced by rubbish that you have decided to look no further?Alecevolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
Click to expand...
Alec, before I visited CAF I had never met a Catholic YEC. This might take a sociological survey to prove, but I wonder whether the reason CAF is plagued with YECs is that they are for the most part recent converts from Protestantism (see the “Tiber Swim team” signatures) and many have brought with them their Protestant literalist biblical hermeneutic and added it to a wooden interpretation of doctrinal statements.

It might be worth following this hunch with a survey. We could ask people to rate their degree of acceptance of evolution on a scale of 1-10, and see whether it correlates with how long one has been out from under Fundamentalist Protestant influence. Of course, we might still find that there are cradle Catholic YECs, for which this explanation would not apply.

Petrus
 
edwest2 said:
Unfortunately, some here, like SpiritMeadow, are more interested in politics. About convincing people that the Church needs to change. Science has nothing of real value to say to the Church about this issue. And those who wish to separate science and theology should realize that the Church does not and says so to the faithful.God bless,Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, if the Church doesn’t separate science from theology, why don’t the Dominicans burn witches any more? Witch persecution ended when people became convinced through science that witchcraft is a hoax.
 
You miss my point. The Church looks at science and theology as a whole, as two complementary parts, which is the way I look at it. Killing people by burning them is wrong. Go to any bookstore today and you will see many books about spells, magic and witchcraft.

God bless,
Ed
 
drpmjhess said:
Alec, before I visited CAF I had never met a Catholic YEC. This might take a sociological survey to prove, but I wonder whether the reason CAF is plagued with YECs is that they are for the most part recent converts from Protestantism (see the “Tiber Swim team” signatures) and many have brought with them their Protestant literalist biblical hermeneutic and added it to a wooden interpretation of doctrinal statements.

It might be worth following this hunch with a survey. We could ask people to rate their degree of acceptance of evolution on a scale of 1-10, and see whether it correlates with how long one has been out from under Fundamentalist Protestant influence. Of course, we might still find that there are cradle Catholic YECs, for which this explanation would not apply.

Petrus
Click to expand...
I have never met a YEC Catholic is real life, either. I don’t know if they are mostly converts, but it is obvious that the fundamental evangelical crowd is having a bad influence on Catholics. We live in a country where most of the public face of Christianity has been taken over by those that by any historic (or global) measure hold radical beliefs. Folks are daily bombarded by the idea the super-religious = anti-science. If you think this thread is bad, read the ones on geocentrism. I’m waiting for the flat earth thread!
 
Peter_Wilders said:
I wonder what an objective outsider with no prejudices regarding evolution theory would think of a debate organised by Catholic Answers (and, therefore assumed to be of a certain academic standard) which contained emotive remarks such as the following?

In the light of intolerance, sarcasm and abuse of this nature is it possible to conduct an intellectual forum?

Peter
Click to expand...
Well the inconsistencies and unjustified pride in your views are clearly laid out by the posts that you object to, and the reason that you object to them is because they so clearly demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of your position. You can’t bear to have the fact broadcast that, not only is your position scientific codswallop, but that your theology and logic are equally badly flawed. You don’t like it that I have pointed out that the consequence of your opinion is that you believe you clearly see the true teaching of the church where the church leadership of the last 50 years cannot; and that you believe yourself to be the bravest theologian alive today.

There is no abuse or intolerance from me, but there is certainly sarcasm and a robust refutation of your opinion because your opinion invite it. No apology from me for that.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Go to any bookstore today and you will see many books about spells, magic and witchcraft.
Click to expand...
You’ll find them about extraterrestrial abductions, bigfoot, and the chupacabra, too.

Is there a point?
 
Neil_Anthony said:
It could be a couple of things, not nearly as far-fetched as what you say here:
Click to expand...
Your points here are so naive that it is clear that you have taken about four minutes to study the subject, and you think that allows you to see logical errors that professionals who spend their lives studying and looking for errors in their work have missed. How typical.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
hecd2 said:
But you still haven’t read it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
Click to expand...
Hi Alec,
I just realized that you wrote that article!
I read parts of it, but it had a lot of geology terms which were beyond my understanding.

You can’t use the presence of ‘pre-Cambrian organisms’ in the lower layers as evidence that those layers are old. Those organisms are believed to be pre-Camrian only becuase they are found in the lower layers. That would be circular reasoning.

You should write at the level that lay people can understand, becase we’re the people who are looking at the creationist videos and articles. Otherwise you’re preaching to the choir.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top